Question about proposition 68, about gambling.

[Cleita]

Since the Gropenator is against it, I tend to be for it. My husband says it's about bringing in back east interests into California to bring in slot machines and then leave with the money. Does anyone know anything about this and should Democrats be for or against it?

[BrotherBuzz]

1. Arnie an I are against it, but for different reasons...

The Gropenator and Indian gaming are in bed together. The Indian intrests have pumped a huge amount of money into Arnie's war chest and expect him to protect their monopoly in the state. The golden egg. I simply don't want gambling casinos in my neighborhood.

Back east interests? I can't help but think that our neighbor, Nevada, is the driving force behind this proposition; they are simply trying to recoup revenues lost to the Indian casinos in California.

[Cleita]

2. Thanks for answering.

That does clear things up a bit. I hope other DUers weigh in.

[BrotherBuzz]

4. Ouch! I just found some disturbing information...

and it strikes very close to home (my small central valley town)
The big mover and shaker behind proposition 68 isn't east coast or Nevada gambling interests, but a Canadian corporation that is big in California horse racing. Magna Entertainment Corporation owns three of the five racetracks that would benefit from the passing of the proposition They are also planning to build a huge 250 million dollar mega racetrack(year-round!)/hotel/casino in my little town if it passes. CRAP!

I think Magna Corp is suspect because they have only been around since 1998 yet own fifteen racetracks in the states and are planning more. I'm still working and researching them but I am beginning to think they are too aggressive and and too free with the money (they bought the city fathers and our ex-mayor is on the payroll as a PR man!) to be on the level. Call me crazy, but I think they have ENRON values.

[Pushed To The Left]

3. I don't agree with vice laws

so I am leaning towards voting for it.

[ContinentalOp]

5. I was phone polled on this issue several months ago,

and didn't know what it was about at the time. But the way questions were worded it seemed like a Schwarzeneggar funded poll. There were lots of questions about Indian gaming and I was wondering what that was all about. But now I'm thinking the racetracks were funding the poll to find a good angle to push their plan from. Looks like they think the "tax the Indians" strategy will be a winner. Personally I think I'm against 68 from what I know at this point though the pro-68 commercials are certainly misleading and got me interested enough to look up the issue here.

[mitchtv]

6. I am against 68(card room and racetrack owners)

it will take gamblig away from an all Indian monopoly. I am for 70 which will allow the Indians to expand, and pay the corporate tax, and not be gouged by steroid boy. Arnold is against 70 too,He is signing deals with individual tribes, and getting a much higher percentage.

[Trish]

7. Not fond of vice laws

And I wonder how much money our state could get from Ballys, etc
I guess the question is, if the Indian casinos enjoy their monopoly, then how much do they want to put into our government (and not just AHHnold's war chest) to keep it?

[davidinalameda]

8. I'm leaning towards voting for it

I'm pro gambling and we can always use the jobs it creates

even if the casinos aren't paying taxes on the profits, we're getting payroll taxes out of it

[mitchtv]

9. Dwick, consider #70 if you support gambling

it will keep it the venue of the Indians , and they will pay corporate tax of 9% same as everyone else. Ahrnuld opposes this one two, he wants to hold the Indians up for 25%.

[PeaceProgProsp]

10. We should tax the hell out of gambling. It's a net social cost.

And the money will have to come from somewhere to take care of the lives ruined by it.

[davidinalameda]

13. thanks

I haven't seen a complete list of all the props on the November ballot yet

I have to make sure I'm still signed up for an absentee ballot

[PeaceProgProsp]

11. That argument makes no sense to me. If going arround taking money

out of people's pockets and giving it to a big, wealthy corporation were a job, would you say, "I'm for that, because at least it's creating jobs"?

You dont' get payroll taxes out of that that are anywhere close to the social costs created.

I'm all for corporate activity and capitalist competition, but I'm not for giving companies a license to rob people by legally providing the things to which they can easily get addicted.

[mitchtv]

12. so in essence you believe in legislating morality

I do not. If the fools want to lose their money, let them, same as drugs. This should only be on the reservations, It is time for Indians to have their fair share of California. We certainly did well selling vice to them.

[PeaceProgProsp]

17. "If fools want to lose their money": it's OUR society, and we ALL

suffer when the law is used to promote and protect industries that destroy it -- industries which do little more than shift wealth from people who need it to people who are doing nothing useful or valuable, and are able to accumulate a lot of it.

Back in the day when society cared less about children, governments biggest anxiety was that orphans and abandoned children would become wards of the state. The state did not have the time or resources to be the parents of a lot of kids, and the state did not want lost generations of people. So much of the law was organized around the idea that the last thing you wanted was a kid not to have a parent to be responsible for them. Governemtns knew that if you want to reproduce society, you need parents to be responsible for their childrent and you can't have a lot of orphans depending on the government for food, clothes, homes, etc.

Is that legisltating morality?

When the government facilitates gambling, their creating a whole bunch of people who are just going to become wards of the state -- people who will have no money, no resources, nothing.

How long do you think society is going to last behaving like that?

Not very long.

It's your society. Make your government behave responsibly by not creating a class of people that will have to be supported solely by the government.

Indians would be better off if government's munificence were in the form of college scholarships, small business loans, and land grants, and not in the form of monopolies on selling addictive products.

[davidinalameda]

14. it's called freedom of choice

if you don't want to gamble, no one is going to drag you into a casino

just like no one makes you eat the crap at McDonald's, etc

[PeaceProgProsp]

18. There are a lot of choices which destroy lives and economies that

the government limits so to ensure that society can continue to reproduce itself productively.

[mitchtv]

19. Indians

Indians would be better off if government's munificence were in the form of college scholarships, small business loans, and land grants, and not in the form of monopolies on selling addictive products. Hahahaaaaa yeah right and they can expect that on the first of the month? They are soverign nations they will get shit from the state like always.
I'm sure they're glad to hear your opnion of what is good or better for them. I happen to live near the casinos that are behind 70 They are good neighbors, and fuck, NV is a red state, let the Indians cut off some of that revenue before it leaves CA.

[PeaceProgProsp]

21. Overreact much?

Giving Indians casinos creates a net social loss. It sucks money out of communities that needs it most and dumps it into the hands of large entertainment corporations.

At least those other things create wealth more broadly and do good things for non-Indiands. If there's a budding medical genius in the Indian community, and you're a white guy with a medical problem, are you better off if that kid had a casino that funneled a lot of money into the hands of a few, or would you be better off if that kid got a scholarship to go to harvard med, or if the government built schools in his neighborhood so that his talents could be tapped.

That kid and society is way better off if he sees his talents realized, and I wouldn't count on those "casino scholarships" to do that for you, because no matter how much they're giving the kids, some corp is getting 90% of that.

The government is giving these casinos the license to take millions and millions of dollars out of communties that can't afford that lost wealth. The government will have to pay all that back into those communities in the form of welfare and medicaid. This isn't an issue of whether the government wants to part with gov't money (they'll have to eventually with the casinos). It's a question of whether you want to give it directly to the people who need it (the indian kid who wants to go to medical school or start an alternative energy small business, or whatever) or if you want pass it through a corp which siphons off 90% first.

I like your spin that I'm being a little racist.

How do you know I'm not Native American? How does thinking that casinos are BS and direct grants to people who need the wealth are better have anything to do with race?

[mitchtv]

22. Indians around here have made it quite clear where they stand

and I stand with them. I repeat,Indians will see no help from the state, or Gov(who they are still suing for concession royalties). As for large enteraiment corporations, you are talking about #68 which I also oppose. The casinos share money with non gaming tribes they own the casinos.

[Ranec]

15. I almost always vote against propositions

I'm afraid of the unintended consequences if I don't really understand the implications of what a prop is going to do.

I'm in favor of the status quo as opposed to a new law that I don't completely understand. And watching TV ads never leads to understanding.

I think willy-nilly passing of propositions has in the sum been a negative for California.

[BrotherBuzz]

16. There is a lot of truth in your post BUT....

voting NO willy-nilly has it's drawbacks, too. It's not the most exciting part of voting, but spending time to understand the issues is very important. If you don't understand a proposition DON'T VOTE NO, pass on it.

We have a chance to undo (well, modify) a bad proposition that was overwhelming passed in 1994 for reasons you cited in your post. Prop 168 (three strikes) passed with 72%. It went into law and we started seeing people receiving life sentences for stealing a burrito, flashlight batteries, or whatever. I don't think the public understood the ramifications of it and we now have a chance to correct it. Your voting NO because you don't understand the issue won't help.

[Ranec]

20. I see your point

Of course, I do my best to read up on the propositions. That is why I came to this thread because I was looking for some info.

My default position is always to vote "No" on propositions, and then what I read etc. has to convince me otherwise. If what I see isn't compelling then I vote "No" even if the con position is equally not compelling. For instance, any proposition that weakens 3-strikes has my "Yes" vote.

But if 10% of the people want to legalize widgets even though they would destroy all of downtown LA, and nobody else has any idea what they are talking about so decides not to vote, then the proposition could pass.

I would prefer that my legislator be responsible for making laws.

[BrotherBuzz]

23. Ah!

I would prefer that my legislator be responsible for making laws.
More truth that I have to agree with. LOL

Now, what if the widget law was written the other way. That is to say, one person actually knows about the widget conspiracy and the evil people supporting them and worked to get a proposition on the ballot that outlawed them. Would you still vote NO even if you don't know squat about widgets, only rumors of the evil widget plot?

[Ranec]

24. That is a good point.

Let me think about it.

I still think the burden of proof should be on those that are proposing changing the existing laws.

This proposition thing is a lot of work even for smart people like us.