If I could wave my hand and all state-run lotteries would disappear, I would do it.

[raccoon]

I think that the lottery, like religion, is an opiate of the masses.

It gives the poor false hope--hope that they will one day be the one out of the umpteen million who hit the jackpot.

You hear in the media about John/Jane Doe, an ordinary working stiff, who won umpteen million. Of course, the "liberal" media never mentions the many who didn't.

Instead of living on this false hope, it would be better to work on changing conditions as they are.

In SC, it's called the "SC Education Lottery." That, I guess, it to make it more palatable.

I voted against the SC lottery, even though I could understand the argument that since SC didn't have a lottery, people were buying lottery tickets in GA, so all that money was going to GA.
As it happened, the lottery passed.

[Robb]

1. It's a tax on the poor

Here in CO, it pays for outdoor recreation projects. Which is right where the poor's money needs to be going. :eyes:

[dysfunctional press]

28. actually, it's a tax on the stupid...and not all poor people are stupid.

i have no problem with state lotteries.

[Dr. Strange]

41. I've always heard it was a tax...

on people who don't understand math.

[mondo joe]

44. I wonder when people decided taxes were purely optional.

:shrug:

[BadgerLaw2010]

47. Why force people to pay when more than enough pay anyway?

Lotto is a great way to raise money.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. well

there are times when the numbers work out in the gambler's favor.

when the prize amount is greater than the odds against winning, it's a good bet, no matter how much of a long shot. Of course, you have to factor in the odds of splitting the prize, but it's not automatically always a bad bet.

[Telly Savalas]

69. I'm not an expert on decision theory, but there's more to it than positive expected value.

For example, if I'm allowed to make a $1,000 bet with 1 in 100 odds to win a billion dollars, the prize amount is substantially greater than the odds against winning, but is it really a good bet? If it took it, I'd have a 99% chance of not being able to pay rent and winding up on the street. Is the 1 in 100 shot at winning a fortune worth the risk?

The flip side is insurance. The purchaser of insurance has negative expected value from the transaction, making it a "bad bet", however depending on the circumstances, it can be a useful tool to hedge against the possibility of severe losses.

All that aside, I don't see what the problem is with spending a couple of bucks a week on a lottery ticket for shits and giggles. A lottery ticket isn't an investment vehicle, it's cheap entertainment. I know that some DUers like to call any form of entertainment they don't enjoy an "opiate of the masses", but these folks need to pull their heads out of their asses.

Some people do abuse the lottery to their own harm, but such insanely poor decision-making would only manifest itself in other forms if the lottery was banned.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

128. This sentence should be printed and framed, Mr. Kojak:

"I know that some DUers like to call any form of entertainment they don't enjoy an 'opiate of the masses', but these folks need to pull their heads out of their asses."

(PORN anyone?)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

127. Just because of your post, I went and bought a ticket for the Brazilian "Mega-sena."

It's been many weeks since anybody gets the jackpot. Now it's about US$ 22 million. If I earn the jackpot (even split), I'm going to split it with you 50/50. I'm fucking serious.

The drawing is today, and you can see the results at http://www1.caixa.gov.br/loterias/loterias/megasena/megasena_resultado.asp - it'll be "Concurso 897."

My numbers are 16 19 23 32 38 44

DISCLAIMER: the above promise does NOT apply to lesser winnings (hitting 4 or 5 numbers).

[Robb]

53. You're arguing cause

I'm arguing effect.

Disproportionately large numbers of lottery tickets are sold to poor people. They then have less money than before. That's the effect.

Look at everything lotteries pay for, then assess whether you think those things should be paid for from the pockets of the poorest people.

I'm not arguing whether people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their money. I'm saying the result is poor people paying for new toilets at the state park. And that's not who should be paying for it.

[mondo joe]

55. But everything the poor buy have the effect of them having less money.

My grandmother, who was poor, spent $2 a week on lottery tickets.

It was a $2 daydream she bought every week.

I suppose she could have done what a lot of other people did and bought cigarettes or played bingo or bought beer. She could have eaten $2 a week better, or she could have put away $8 a month.

Instead she chose her daydream.

I frankly don't recall what the NY State lottery paid for. But whether it was education or public parks or anything else in the public infrastructure, I am unconvinced it was of less benefit to her than if it had gone to a cigarette company, or the grocery store.

[dysfunctional press]

57. it's a totally VOLUNTARY "tax"...they buy the tickets of their own volition-

if they don't like where the collected funds are spent, then they shouldn't contribute.

[Robb]

65. Agreed - but see the post above yours

...Most people have little idea where lottery funds go. And yes, they buy the tickets of their own volition -- but it's no different than anything else where there's no infrastructure in place to educate them, fully, so they can make an informed decision.

I use the word "infrastructure" quite deliberately. The lottery is a government-run program. It's a clever way of getting around laws put in place to explain how public funds are collected and distributed.

Imagine this: suppose there's a public transit line that the state decided needed to be extended. And the money was to collected through a taxing structure where people with the least extra cash would be taxed the highest. You don't have to contribute, but if you do you get a 1 in 80,000,000 chance to win a prize.

That hypothetical tax, in Colorado for example, would have to pass at the ballot box. And state laws would require a full disclosure, mailed to every voter and advertised with state dollars to a set degree, how that money would be allocated, what the structure of the tax would be -- who would pay the most and least -- and an explanation, required by statute, of what 80 million to 1 actually means.

The "blue book" sent to voters is of course incomplete, and the advertising doesn't reach everyone, but it's a start. Imagine how voting would be without even the minimum currently required to educate voters.

A tax I describe above would never pass at the ballot box, even with the minimal education efforts already required. Much easier to pass sweeping lottery legislation, which is what many states have done.

There's no denying it's fun to buy a ticket and imagine what you'd do with the money -- lord knows I've done it. And certainly people can spend money in worse ways. I'm just not fully convinced it should be a state-run program. It doesn't seem to me that's what government's for.

[jmowreader]

78. The churches and liquor/cigarette magnates hate the lottery

Every dollar that's spent on a lottery ticket is one that won't go into a collection plate or be used to buy a bottle of cheap tequila.

What, you think people who buy lottery tickets think, "I can fritter away this dollar on a lottery ticket, or put it in my retirement fund"? No, they'd either buy a lottery ticket or a bag of potato chips.

[bunkerbuster1]

2. I am filled with shame that here in GA, the only way we'll provide free college tuition

...which should be the law of the fuckin' land in the USA, as Jefferson had wanted... is by funding it via this most regressive of all taxes.

It's disgusting.

[bryant69]

3. I would agree - it is a regressive tax and kind of monsterous

I don't know, though that eliminating the lottery would make workers realize their economic situation. Rather i think that the American illusion that everybody will someday be rich would trundle on regardless, unfortunately.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[raccoon]

6. Which is exactly the way the powerful want it.

"Rather i think that the American illusion that everybody will someday be rich would trundle on regardless, unfortunately."

[Wickerman]

4. It's a tax on those who are bad at math

I believe Jim Hightower said that years ago about the Texas lottery. Simple probability tells you that your personal chances of winning are so incredibly low that it simply isn't worth playing.

Yes, I have played. :yoiks:

[MissB]

63. I always tell my kids that I am more likely to be struck

by lightening than win the lottery.

[Squatch]

119. So, the winners of lottery jackpots...bad at math, but filthy rich

if given the choice between the two, I'd rather be bad at math.

[yasmina27]

5. I had a boyfriend once a long time ago

whose goal in life was to become a millionaire by winning the lottery. Damned if he didn't become a millionaire - by hard work as a land developer and builder. Humph, and here I thought he was a ne're-do-well :). I guess everyone grows up sometime!

[cynatnite]

7. I don't think I would...

here in TN much of the revenue goes towards schools. Where I live we have fairly good schools that provide a decent education for my kids.

[Evergreen Emerald]

8. If I had a magic wand, you would win the lottery

and you could give the money back to those poor people.

[hobbit709]

9. I consider the money I spend on the lottery my entertainment budget.

I spend less in a month on the lottery than what I used to spend in one night in a bar in my drinking and drugging days.

[conspirator]

176. Play online bingo. It's more fun. n/t

[PRETZEL]

10. From that perspective it is just as much an opiate of the masses

as religion.

But for those people who are helped tremendously by what lottery funds do they could be life savers. Pennsylvania's lottery benefits our senior citizens in many ways whether it be for services that increase one's quality of life and keeps them out of nursing homes or to help family members take care of their elderly parents.

[Mutineer]

11. No one holds a gun to their head to participate.

Free choice. Free will. Even if it's stupid to think you ever stand a chance to win.

[The Gunslinger]

67. Exactly

And I'm very surprised how many Democrats here want to eliminate it and decide how the masses should spend their money. It's scary. It's the same justifications that The wacko religious far right was using to try to stop it from coming to North Carolina.

[The Traveler]

12. People will do what they want to do

It is not a tax, as some have stated here. Taxes are coerced. This isn't. Many of my arguments against your line of thought would be similar in structure to my arguments against the so-called "War of Drugs". People played the numbers here before the lottery opened ...

At least in this way, some of the money goes to a worthy pupose. Believe me, as the parent of a kid currently in college, I am really grateful for the Hope scholarship financed by the Georgia lottery. It certainly is not a perfect system ... but what is?

So while I understand the sentiments that have been expressed here, I hold a different position.

Peace.

Trav

[A HERETIC I AM]

13. If you scratch the surface of the campaigns to initiate lotteries you'll find the biggest promoters

are more often than not the companies that make the machines. Setting up a state lottery system is HUGE money for the companies that make the machines that print the tickets because there are so many machines that will be installed.

Lotteries are indeed investing for those poor at math and they may be a regressive tax but they represent, at the end of the day, a voluntary tax. No one is forced to buy a lottery ticket like they are forced to pay tax on gasoline, for instance.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

33. If the state were to allow free competition from private enterprise..

Then you could make the claim that state run lotteries are a *voluntary* tax.

But in the great majority of states that is not the case.

It is a statistical certainty that people are going to gamble, to channel all the gambling urge to the state run lottery is a form of coercion.

And let's not forget, the return on state lotteries is pathetic, private gambling establishments have a far greater payout per dollar gambled than do state lotteries.

[cobalt1999]

14. For most it is a harmless and inexpensive dream

Spend a couple of bucks on a lottery tickets or have another beer. People are free to choose how to spend their money. I go to Vegas once a year, knowing full well that I'll probably lose money but it's my entertainment. As long as it is within someone's surplus budget, I have no problem with lotteries.

You could say the same thing about most entertainment expenses. For example, "Instead of watching TV, they would be better off working on improving their condition."

[BlooInBloo]

15. It's ok to be authoritarian when you're *right*.

[PATRICK]

16. If you could do that

then surely a lesser miracle is in your power. Would you deign provide me with the winning numbers of the NY Megaball drawing?

The gambling situation is much worse than that most hopeless of all wagers. the opening of casinos that devastate local econimes in multiple ways puts the state in full gangster mode, all taxes are sin taxes and they can pretend they are lowering taxes by making its addictively fun to throw your money away on stupid chances in many alluring unlikely forms. If you think government was corrupt in the way it handled
income and property taxes, I suspect things might be worse with this kind of slush and a "tax" system of private gambling corporations.

[LanternWaste]

17. I almost agree. In agenda, yes; but in form, maybe just one change

I almost agree. In agenda, yes; but in form, maybe just one change-- religion hasn't been an opiate for many years. It's been replaced with i-Pods, X-Boxes and cell phones. Not too many people can zone out for an entire weekend reading the Bible and praying anymore; but put just about anyone under the age of 40 in front of console game system, and there goes the weekend....

Opiate indeed.

[Javaman]

18. I think it was in the first chapter of 1984...

It stated something along the lines of, "various winners of the lottery are never anyone we know or have heard of, yet people still play it thinking that they will actually win".

[Beelzebud]

19. I thought like that once too.

All it took was winning the lottery this summer, to change my mind about it.

[Javaman]

22. Do I know you? do you work for the ministry of truth?

:rofl:

Congrats to you! :)

[Bonobo]

38. You should recuse yourself from this thread.

[MLFerrell]

86. Yeah, didn't you win a few hundred grand not long ago?

How is that working out?

I've heard that winning the lottery can make one downright miserable, paradoxically enough.

I hope that that is not the case with your situation.

[ecstatic]

20. What if all that money people spent was put in a savings account somewhere

Don't get me wrong, I buy a ticket just for kicks maybe once or twice a year--afterall, you never know. But some people spend upwards of $20 a week on the lottery, which is wasteful IMO.

[KillCapitalism]

21. The lottery is the only REAL way to get ahead in America.

I say let people play to their heart's content because they play by their own free will. It's your only shot at the good life in this damn economy. My dad got pretty lucky on Powerball in 2004 and matched 4 numbers + the powerball which won him $10K before taxes. Not bad for just spending a buck on a ticket.

[mondo joe]

23. I'd prefer to have the lottery over individuals deciding what others can do.

Of course I still believe in the right of the masses to decide.

[Wiregrass Willie]

24. Abolish the lottery and millions would lose their only retirement plan n/t

[Lone_Star_Dem]

25. NO!! Then I'll never get that little villa in Tuscany!

That's the only hope I have of ever living the American dream of over indulgence and money safely invested in the Euro!

[MadHound]

26. Gee, have you ever thought that the masses *need* some sort of opiate,

Just to keep from sinking into despair and hopelessness? Let's see, you're poor, working sixteen hours a day to barely make ends meet, you don't know how you're going to get ahead much less keep treading water, and frankly you just want some sort of escape. Religion gives you escape of the spirit, promising a better life in the afterworld. The lottery gives you an escape of imagination, promising a better life in this world. Are these really such bad things? To simply dream of being well off and comfortable. God forbid that somebody dreams right?:eyes:

I'm getting sick of these so called liberals who damn the poor and less fortunate simply because they aren't conforming to a pre-conceived notion of what they should be doing. Gee, the conservatives tell these people not to play the lottery because it is gambling and you'll go to hell, the liberals say not to play because you're feeding the machine, why not listen to the working stiff who picked up a two dollar lottery ticket because he can fall asleep easier dreaming about a few million possibly coming his way rather than the reality of not having enough cash to put his kids through college, or pay the mortage and put food on the table. Geez.

[mondo joe]

43. Indeed. With loud voices on the right and left telling people their personal choices are

or should be prohibited, it's no wonder people are turned off of politics.

[hfojvt]

76. that implies that nothing will ever be done to improve their situation

I think it is a combination of several factors which might cause somebody to sink into hopelessness and despair. One of them is the idea of unlimited consumption. Second is the idea of private wealth and competition between 'neighbors'. Third is the idea of wealth and power being a measure of 'success'. Fourth is the number of people who want to be slave owners. A slave owner is somebody who has others do all of his work - 'you work, I eat'. A lottery winner 'gets' to become a slave owner. Others work, and he eats.

Religion is not just about the after-life. It is about what you value and how you live and treat others in this life too. If a person has a religion they can decide to value their spouse, their family, and their community more than they value their accumulation of 'stuff'.

Lotteries exacerbate the problem by teaching or confirming materialistic and greedy values. The problem with an opiate is that they enable a person to tolerate the intolerable. It keeps the worker passively in the system, keeps him from waking from his stupor and working to change the system. Instead of dreaming about how the lottery will save him, he could be dreaming about how an Edwards administration will save him.

Plus, unlike your average conservative, I happen to be part of the poor and the working class.

[MadHound]

77. Dreaming of a politician? HAH!

Talk about an opiate for the masses, there's a huge one right there. Gee, how many times have have the poor and downtrodden been disappointed? For years and decades now, both 'Pugs and Dems have demonstrated nothing but disdain and lip service to the poor.

It would be lovely to wave a wand and solve poverty. Hell, it would be lovely to pass legislation that would do the same. But apparently that's not going to happen anytime soon, so what are the poor left with? Oh, yeah, their opiates. You are correct about the effects of opiates, but having been poor and homeless myself, I do understand the value of being comfortably numb.

[raccoon]

122. Great post. nt

[iverglas]

130. and that nothing should be done in the interim ...

"that implies that nothing will ever be done to improve their situation"


... to avoid making it worse.

That's the problem with all these people who say they want to change the world. They apparently want us all to just sit and wait for it to happen. We must not do anything to improve the conditions in which we, and especially the most vulnerable of us, live right now. There's a distinct lack of concern and respect for actual human beings in all this.

Now, if anyone here were some kinda real genuine revolutionary, I could understand it. You know: don't make capitalism kinder and gentler; let it be mean and hard, and smash it. But nobody is.

The lesson learned in the rest of the world is that progress really can be achieved incrementally. That doesn't mean it's a straight upward line, and that there are no setbacks. It does mean that people, real live people, are better off with health care and old age pensions and suchlike stuff that make their lives better, and without some of the things that make their lives worse, than they were and would be otherwise. Even though the revolution hasn't come yet.

People who reject any public policy or action that would improve the lives of the most vulnerable because it isn't going to smash the system (like any of them really want it smashed anyhow) aren't progressive. They may be "liberals", they may be loonytarians, they might even be genuine revolutionaries, juvenile though their revolutionary-ism is. But they ain't progressive.

[GOTV]

91. Yes! Toss them something even if it's a anvil. They'll be happy for a moment anyway....

... that something was tossed their way.

[iverglas]

131. I like that ;)

Is it your own, and may I borrow it?

With due credit, of course!

[GOTV]

138. It's my own as far as I know.

[Stuckinthebush]

27. I used to think that...

but I have started to reconsider my opposition. Isn't opposing a lottery because it hurts the silly, stupid poor kind of parental and insulting? I'm not saving that you said this, mind you, but isn't that the underlying thought here? The poor are not smart enough to know that they have little chance of winning the lottery so we must protect them from their idiocy because they will sell everything they have to buy lottery tickets.

In Georgia, every student who has a B average (I think that is correct) gets a free ride to a state college/university if they continue to maintain good grades in college. This is an amazing incentive for people to go to college and do well in college. As a result the Georgia college rolls are packed. There have been some unexpected problems but for the most part this is a good thing. It used to be that you could get into the University of Georgia with a C average, now because of the Hope Scholarship and the demand for spots, if you don't have at least a 3.5 you won't even be considered for admission. According to some teachers I know in the Georgia K-12 system, this has made students work harder in high school so they can get admitted to, of all places, the University of Georgia.

The consequence of this is that UGA is getting some incredible students and getting wonderful faculty because of it. The high-end faculty are bringing in big time grant funding which greases the academic wheels of the University.


I have played the lottery before for fun. A couple of bucks at a convenience store and then have fun looking at the paper on Sunday to see what the numbers are. I even know a guy who won a multi-million jackpot. Will I ever win? Hell no...but it is fun to play. I'd imagine that the vast majority of lottery players are like that. They will throw a few bucks in for fun and that money then helps out the kids in their state by encouraging them to go to college and do well in high school.

Sounds like a winner to me.

[CTyankee]

52. That is good to know about UGA. I don't know what the hell CT does

with the lottery money, but I don't see any effects by it.

One thing that I have learned from stories by big lottery winners: you can kiss your happy family situation goodbye once big money is in the picture. The most miserable people I have ever known have gotten what they wished for. A big influx of money tends to make people selfish and greedy. I have seen families torn apart by this greed and it's horrible.

I never play the lottery because I personally feel it is a waste of my money. I don't dream of winning the lottery. I'd rather not because I know full well what can happen and it can be brutal.

[raccoon]

123. You got that right, "A big influx of money tends to make people selfish and greedy. "

I've seen that happen in my family when my parents died. A will brings out the worst in people.

[GOTV]

93. If you know you won't win, why is it fun to play? ....

... are you saying that if you had your lottery ticket stuck to your fridge with a magnet and you came down to check your numbers and your ticket was next to me at the kitchen table and I told you I just checked and you didn't win, you'd have fun checking the numbers anyway?

You would right? I mean, I already told you you didn't win but you knew that anyway. The fun is, apparently, checking a list of numbers in the newspapers to a list of numbers printed on a lottery ticket.

[Stuckinthebush]

118. I should be more clear

I know that the odds of me winning are very very low. But it is still fun to think, "Just maybe!"

Hell, it is only a buck and the money goes to education.

[GOTV]

137. Very low? Any idea how many lifetimes you'd have to spend to get the odds only to 50%?

I've never worked it out myself. What are the odds on the game you play?

[Stuckinthebush]

162. Jesus Christ in a Zippy Mart, what is your point?

Yes...I agree the odds suck.

Yes...I agree it is a waste of a buck.

Yes...I agree it makes no sense from a logical standpoint.

It's a fucking dollar! It's better than buying tobacco or alcohol with it...and I get to laugh on Sunday morning as I open up the paper and say to my wife, "We are about to be millionaires!" and she looks at me, rolls her eyes, gets her coffee and says, "Yeah, right." Then I feign surprise and say, "We won!!!" and she gets excited for a millisecond and says, "Yeah, right...drink your coffee."

We smile at each other, hug, kiss and laugh.

That, my friend is worth a fucking dollar.

[mondo joe]

125. One person's fun is another's poison.

I've bought lottery tickets I never even checked, though I know I meant to.

[iverglas]

29. yup, just one more example of exploitation

Follow the money. Who wins? The wealthy, who don't have to pay the taxes to support all the worthy causes funded by lotteries. Who loses? The poor whose living conditions prompt them to grasp at any straw dangled in front of them as a way of achieving riches.

It's a direct transfer from the poor to the rich, by saving the rich the money that a transfer in the other direction would cost them and taking it out of the pockets of the poor instead. A civilized society puts in place methods of equalizing wealth to the point that its members have at least some equality of opportunity, like access to higher education; it doesn't charge the poor as much as it can squeeze out of them, for things they will seldom benefit from anyway.

If there were a way of achieving not riches, but a decent standard of living with a safety net for old age and in case of disaster, and access to the opportunities and services that are needed so that people can improve their own situation, like health care and education ... ah, where's that magic wand?


But meanwhile, let no voice be raised in a place like DU against the tricks played by the rich to get money out of the poor. If people are stupid enough to fall for those tricks, they have no one to blame but themselves. We're all right, Jack, and the devil take the hindmost.

If we happen to give the devil a bit of help, well, nobody's forced to play, and certainly we would never want to interfere in the exercise of that great big essential liberty to gamble one's money away in the interests of the individuals and families who might suffer some little temporary loss of safety when they can't afford to pay the rent and buy groceries ...

Let freedom reign.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

105. Freedom involves some unpleasant things.

It's no one's place to prevent someone from playing the lottery or any other game of chance, provided they are not directly harming another person.

[iverglas]

107. I know, I know

Freedom involves some unpleasant things.

The exercise of YOUR freedom involves some upleasant things for ME, and I should just suck it the fuck up, and shut the fuck up.

You think I didn't know this??

But let's see whether we can try this again. Just for shits and giggles.

It's no one's place to prevent someone from playing the lottery or any other game of chance, provided they are not directly harming another person.

Whatever.

Now, is it the government's place to use its economic muscle and moral authority to promote lotteries and to persuade people to buy lottery tickets? I mean, you don't think the government spends all that money on advertising just for fun, any more than any other advertiser does; do you?

Is it a good public policy choice to raise money for worthy causes like post-secondary education by encouraging people to buy lottery tickets, instead of instituting a tax system that would redistribute wealth to the extent necessary to give everyone an equal opportunity to get a post-secondary education?

In your own time.

We won't even bother with that whole idea of it being maybe a good idea to have public policies that provide some protection for vulnerable people, at the cost of no loss of liberty to anyone else that any decent person would think twice about giving up if it meant sparing others serious harm.

Nope. We'll just stick to the issue: why are governments in the lottery business, and should governments be in the lottery business?


Just out of idle curiosity ... the dissonance in your username is intended, right?

A megacorp that makes profits by exploiting some of the most vulnerable people on earth ... juxtaposed with the ideal of a society whose members do not exploit one another ... good one.

http://www.iww.org/en/node/3568

Anarchists vs. exploiters. So what's in your name is a fine irony, it seems.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

109. Yes, it is an ironic name.

I purposefully made it that way.

The exercise of YOUR freedom involves some upleasant things for ME, and I should just suck it the fuck up, and shut the fuck up.

You think I didn't know this??

When did I ever remotely imply you should shut up? We're on a discussion board, and we're discussing an issue, which is great -- now, your hostility towards me is a bit odd, considering my reply to you was fairly benign at best. I gave you my opinion in response to yours, and I hope we can at least reach some sort of common ground.

Now, is it the government's place to use its economic muscle and moral authority to promote lotteries and to persuade people to buy lottery tickets? I mean, you don't think the government spends all that money on advertising just for fun, any more than any other advertiser does; do you?

Is it a good public policy choice to raise money for worthy causes like post-secondary education by encouraging people to buy lottery tickets, instead of instituting a tax system that would redistribute wealth to the extent necessary to give everyone an equal opportunity to get a post-secondary education?

As long as nobody is *forced* to play, I really see no objection here.

And why does it have to be one or the other re: a more beneficial tax system and the lotto? I would love to see an overhaul of our tax system, particularly in regards to opportunity for a post-secondary education, like you mentioned. Why can't we do both?

Furthermore, it's not only the poor who play the lotto. Many middle-class and, yes, upper-income earners play it as well.

Nope. We'll just stick to the issue: why are governments in the lottery business, and should governments be in the lottery business?

Yes, I think they should, provided, as I said before, that nobody is literally forced to play.

[BurtWorm]

30. If you had that kind of power, could you just make me winner of the Powerball first?

:hide:

[DemGa]

31. I've nearly completed my Bachelor's degree for free in Ga.

with the lottery funded Hope Scholarship. So I've got to say, I don't mind it too much. I'll admit it may be self-serving of me.

[HughBeaumont]

32. "a tax on the math challenged" . . . but someone who's bad at math will win.

"It's a dangled carrot to the false hope of a quick buck!"

Make a quick buck, make a slow buck, it's all the same to me. Ain't making shit either way.

However, I don't think people should be robbed of hope. It's probably more hope than this shitty service-happy, low-on-liveable-wage-jobs economy is giving them and it's probably just as accessible a dream as trying to become a millionaire in tomorrow's dollars and retire before you're 75.

I think what needs to happen is "Let's reassess corporate America and find out why it's not working for the Average Joe".

[bleedingheart]

37. having worked at a convenience store where I sold lottery tickets

it would amaze me...$50 to $100 a week spent on lottery tickets by people who should have put it in a savings account...hell even bought a bond with it..

but nope...they just poured it into the lotto coffers..

[BadgerLaw2010]

48. Any gambling game with double-digit house edge is predatory.

Big payoff lottery is high double-digit house edge. That sort of odds isn't "hope", it's fleecing people.

Not to mention that it's predominately played by people who, by definition, lack disposable income.

[iverglas]

51. "Predatory"??

C'mon, you know that's not a word in the LIBERAL vocabulary. It implies that someone is "preying on" others ... and that's kinda synonymous with "exploiting" them ... and exploitation is something invented by feminazis and nannystaters and other haters of liberty so that they can have their evil way with the free spirits and freedom lovers of the world.

Sheesh, you must be new to this. Just to forewarn you: keep this authoritarian nonsense up, and you're going to find yourself dogged at every step by the true lovers of liberty, to whom the right to make a profit by any means -- oops, I mean the right to choose to do something that it wouldn't occur to you to do if there weren't someone trying to make a profit by persuading you to do it -- no, that can't be it still ... damn, I just can't seem to make it come out right. Anyhow, they'll be following you around telling you what you really think and what you really said, and you'll soon realize that if you don't stop this worrying out loud about people being preyed on by other more powerful people, everybody will know that you're really just a stealth Republican.

Trust me. You might think I've been smoking something that I think it should be illegal to smoke (just ask 'em, they'll tell you that's what I think), but you'll see.

[GOTV]

96. When the hope is illusory, robbing people of it would be liberation

I don't feel bad about removing poor options for people.

[HughBeaumont]

103. Great. Start with "Horatio Alger" and work your way on down to casinos . . .

. . . and then hopefully we can address the REAL issue at hand: Why is life so bereft of hope and filled with fear for the poor and middle classes that people feel the need to SPEND hundreds a month on a pie-in-the-sky chance at financial independence?

[onenote]

35. would you also bar all legal gambling?

[ComerPerro]

36. this is not a case for media bias

You hear in the media about John/Jane Doe, an ordinary working stiff, who won umpteen million. Of course, the "liberal" media never mentions the many who didn't.

"And today in the news, here's a list of everyone who played the lotto today and didn't win"

That would be fucking fascinating

[CTyankee]

54. And a follow up piece on jane/joe doe who are backwhere they started

after going through the money being swindled or else tied up in court with nasty lawsuits and the whole family is rent asunder by greed. Oh, dear god. Be careful what you wish for!

[ComerPerro]

39. I would eliminate all lotteries too, but for a more selfish reason

Ever been in line at a gas station and had to wait behind someone agonizing over their lotto picks, filling out five, ten, or twenty cards? Or worse still, been stuck behind someone buying scratch tickets and then scratching them one by one, cashing them in to buy more tickets?

Has happened to me several times. I even very rudly reminded a lady once that this was not her personal casino, and I just wanted to "pay for my fucking gas"

[cherokeeprogressive]

70. I don't talk to ladies like that EVER. For any reason.

I could see myself asking the attendant if I could pay for my gas over her shoulder, but I'd never swear at her.

It's just the way I was raised. Does your right to fast gas supercede her right to scratch her ticket? If it does, you go cowboy. Swear away.

Lack of civility is one of the problems with today's society IMHO.

[ComerPerro]

73. matter of fact, I first asked the cashier if I could pay and the lady yelled at me

telling me that she was in line and she had the right to be there and that I should wait my turn because she is still in line. After several minutes of scratching.

But, yeah, I'm the asshole. Not the fuckhead holding up the line to scratch and fill out powerball incorrectly.

Me, I'm the jerk.

[cherokeeprogressive]

80. You didn't volunteer that little tidbit the first time.

All you did was brag about being rude.

Slow down. Count to ten. Take three deep breaths. Do those things BEFORE you start swearing at ladies who are holding you up. You'd be amazed how much less stress you'll be feeling.

[ComerPerro]

81. you know what you sound like to me

with all your going on about how society is too rude and all that crap?

You sound like the kind of person who flips someone off after cutting them off in traffic (how dare they honk at you, you almost hit them but why is that your problem), the kind of person who is shocked and offended when the person next to them at theater asks them to put away their cell phone (its not their conversation and none of their business), the kind of person who brings 40 items to the express lane and then can't believe that people behind them are getting irritated (they need to learn to be patient).

It is not other people's obligation to wait on and serve you while you act like an asshole. And if they refuse to do so, don't take it as a sign that society is getting too uncivil. Surprise! It is you who are being uncivil

[cherokeeprogressive]

83. Wow. Wrong on all counts.

You should really get that prescription refilled.

Breathe. Close your eyes and think of a happy place. It'll do you some good. Trust me.

Peace.

[ComerPerro]

84. oh, I doubt it. I think I have you, and many posters here, nailed

[cherokeeprogressive]

101. LOL! Okay Carnac.

I'm 46, retired, and live in a small mountain community 6800 feet above Los Angeles.

1. I don't cut people off in traffic because my town only has one main street.

2. I don't go to the theater. I'd rather watch movies with my hi-def projector in 10x10 splendor in my video room.

3. I don't let people wait on me unless I'm in a restaurant, and I STILL DON'T VERBALLY ABUSE WOMEN because they're keeping me from paying for my gasoline.

I'm living a dream life because of some good investments and unbelievable good luck, and you couldn't piss me off if you kicked me in the shin.

But then, you KNEW that about me already, didn't you.

I'd love to hear about the "many posters" you have "nailed", but I'm gonna go fishing for a couple of hours.

Seriously, get that prescription refilled.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

129. Now, scratch tickets are truly evil. They can suck an addicted person's money in no time flat.

Not so with weekly draws. Or even twice a week, as is the case with the numbers that'll make me and MonkeyFunk rich. :woohoo:

[youthere]

40. I've seen people in the convenience stores actually surprised they lost.

I got in line the other day behind some dude checking about twenty tickets. He got nothing...absolutely nothing. He asked the clerk "Really?"
Duh.

I'm not against the lottery or anything, I just choose not to participate because I'd rather have a dollar in my pocket than a 3 billion to 1 SHOT at a couple million.

I think it's cool that people spend a couple bucks every now and then on a lottery ticket, I just don't understand the ones that spend money they can't afford with an EXPECTATION of winning.

[LanternWaste]

42. Like my late grandfather used to say...

Like my late grandfather said, "A tax on being ignorant? Why? We already have the lottery..."

[BadgerLaw2010]

45. State lotto is the worst odds gambling available and a highly regressive way of raising money

The house edge in all lotto and particularly Powerball and other mega jackpot games is tremendous.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Should we ban gambling too?

How about arcade games? People put their quarters in, and they never win anything.

[wuushew]

82. money for entertainment is not the same as money for less money.

You spend fifty cents for the enjoyment of a coke or you spend eight dollars for the enjoyment of a movie.

Everyone who spends that money receives the same good or service.


People play the lottery with the hope of winning money, which is the thing that they have utility for. Unfortunately because the return is negative more people lose than win. Doesn't the government deal with people treated as an aggregate group? Since the effect is impoverish large numbers of people who can ill afford it doesn't it run to the goal of income redistribution from progressive taxation?

[mondo joe]

110. The lottery ticket is just as much entertainment.

I don't think you know a damn thing about the poor. Not that that stops you from patronizing them.

[wuushew]

113. How do you know I am not poor fool?

What is poor? What is your definition?

Mondo I usually respect you for your stances on censorship, but the sad fact is that the lottery is played for real money not monopoly money. That being the case more people are out some usable amount of cash. In an earlier post you said that the money would have been wasted on some other good. I almost wish it had been since it would have generated useful small business activity instead of property tax relief for those who don't need it.

Do you have an opinion on class warfare at all? Do you admit that people make poor decisions in any sphere of life? They certainly seem to make erroneous statements on risk analysis and public vaccination policy. Sure entertainment is subjective, but money can be measured, wealth distribution can be studied. Do you have curiosity at all to the inner workings which drive individuals and systems? The government encourages all sorts of things that run contrary to the natural state of things. Are you fond of the numerous behavior modifying incentives in the tax code?


Why do States operate gambling monopolies? Why do they feel the need to advertise? Does your vaunted free will make people immune to the effects of advertising, propaganda and religious proselytizing? History would indicate not.


Lastly winning money not derived from the value of labor is an insult to marxism. Labor is the source of all value. This country is vastly wealthy, the problem as always is fair distribution. Cannot you see how your view impedes necessary change buy endorsing the State's monopoly?

[mondo joe]

124. Do you actually want me to answer your questions? I will.

1. Do you have an opinion on class warfare at all? Answer: I do, but none that is useful in this context, other than that the warfare seems directed at the poor by infantile them.

2. Do you admit that people make poor decisions in any sphere of life? Answer: Yes, that is part of freedom.

3. Do you have curiosity at all to the inner workings which drive individuals and systems? Answer: Plenty, but my curiosity does not lead me to want to restrict other's personal choices.

4. Are you fond of the numerous behavior modifying incentives in the tax code? Answer: Not especially, no.

5. Why do States operate gambling monopolies? Answer: Because it is profitable to do so.

6. Why do they feel the need to advertise? Answer: See answer to 5.

7. Does your vaunted free will make people immune to the effects of advertising, propaganda and religious proselytizing? Answer: Not immune, and yet it is still the individual's choice.

8. Cannot you see how your view impedes necessary change buy endorsing the State's monopoly? Answer: What is necessary change is up to the electorate. Personally, as a remedy to the monopoly I'd prefer to legalize gambling so that the government has competition.

And Marx can blow me.

[GOTV]

117. THe entertainment is contingent upon the player misunderstanding the odds ...

... against them.

[mondo joe]

121. The entertainment is contingent on the player's feeling about it. NT

[GOTV]

143. Exactly. They wouldn't play the game if they were felt there was zero chance...

... and that's because it's not really a game. There's no inherent fun anywhere in the process. The "fun" depends on feeling you might win some money.

[mondo joe]

158. But there's not a ZERO chance - just close to ZERO.

And I think most adults can decide for themselves how they feel without someone who thinks he or she is their superior telling them.

:-)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

111. All of the above are entertaining.

Gambling is a form of entertainment.

"Since the effect is impoverish large numbers of people who can ill afford it doesn't it run to the goal of income redistribution from progressive taxation?"

I don't think the lottery's impoverishing anybody, and if it is it's their own dumb fault.

[GOTV]

116. There's no misleading promise that you might win with arcade games n/t

[mondo joe]

126. Where is the misleading promise?

Seriously? Who the hell thinks they have a GOOD chance of winning the lottery?

[GOTV]

142. I don't believe it's possible for most to understand just how bad the odds are. Who can really

grasp numbers that large?

[mondo joe]

152. Can you grasp it?

Are you that much smarter than the rest of us?

[GOTV]

155. I didn't say anything about "the rest of you"....

... having a math background I probably have a better sense of large numbers than the average lottery player. But trying to equate the grasp one can have of a number they can actually could and numbers of 7, 8 or 9 digits, there's no real comparison.

I don't think most people who play the lottery can even tell you the actual odds of the games they play let alone answer questions that would indicate an understanding of the magnitude of those odds.

[mondo joe]

156. I wonder, do you think most people can grasp issues adequately to vote in the general

election?

[GOTV]

164. People do not typically vote for issues in the GE, they vote for people....

.... and no, given whose been winning elections in the last 25 years I DON'T have a lot of confidence in their ability.

[mondo joe]

165. I see. So do you feel Americans should not have the right to vote in the general election?

Or should only the Americans you deem intelligent enough have that right?

[GOTV]

170. No. I believe they should have the right. I also think they don't do a very good job.

[mondo joe]

172. On what basis do you think people should have the right to vote, given how many

there are who don't grasp the complexity of the global situation, and how many even vote against their own economic interest?

(And please don't say it's because of the Constitution - I'm asking for YOUR personal basis.)

Thank you.

[GOTV]

174. I believe a country should be run by its citizens...

... it's their country, it's their responsibility. But I think they should not have a lot of direct control because some issues are complex and should be decided by people who can spend their entire days studying the issues. So we hire representatives who we trust to rule in our interest.

[mondo joe]

175. That sounds very reasonable. I concur.

But it leaves me wondering two things:

How can people be trusted with a vote on an issue as important as who will represent them at the various level of government, and which often have a significant effect on their personal well being, but not be trusted to decide whether a lottery ticket is worth their $1?

Also, since "some issues are complex and should be decided by people who can spend their entire days studying the issues", if those representatives institute a lottery and the electorate is satisfied by that, is that not an application of the principle that the country (or city, or state) should be run by its citizens?

[MonkeyFunk]

50. That's the trouble...

with letting people decide how to spend their own money. They spend it in ways others may not approve of.

Better to eliminate all discrectionary spending so the social-nannies won't be upset.

[michaelwb]

120. Yup that is'

Perhaps that the new platform the social-nannies wing of the Democrats:

"Free Willy, but not Free Will."

[LanternWaste]

132. Damn those social nannies!

"Better to eliminate all discretionary spending so the social-nannies won't be upset."

So no more discretionary spending on meth-amphetamines? No more discretionary spending on hand-grenades? Damn those social nannies!


(Is it true that the sobriquet 'social nanny' usually refers only to those who believes some goods should be regulated/illegal that someone else wants in bulk...? :shrug: )

[mondo joe]

134. And lottery tickets are like hand grenades now?

Many people do support decriminalization of drugs, incidentally.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

139. Or I.E.D.s -- Improvised Economic Devices.

:eyes:

[LanternWaste]

163. I'm simply trying to get a precise and consistent definition

I'm simply trying to get a precise and consistent definition of that ever so trendy, one-size-fits-all sobriquet, 'Social Nanny'.

And in answer to your question, No--hand grenades go "Boom" and are made of metal, whilst Lotto tickets are made of paper and make people look stupid.

[mondo joe]

167. I see. And conflating spending $1 on a lottery ticket which makes one

"look stupid" and a potentially lethal grenade serves that purpose?

[qdemn7]

56. Considering...

How much money people piss away ALL legal forms of gambling should be eliminated. Along with banning tobacco and alcohol. After all, all three are first thought of by people in government as a method of raising tax revenues. We tried banning alcohol once before and it worked REAL well. Just like how much of a magnificent success the War on Drugs has been. :sarcasm:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

58. I call it my 'dream tax'

when the lotto passes about $100million I will throw in a buck...and dream...and then come back to reality. A little entertainment in an otherwise fairly calm existence. I still work hard though and still save for my later years. Will I win? No...not bloody likely...but I can spare a dollar every couple of months when it hits these 'fun' amounts. And I know people who don't have disposable income play and sometimes sink large amounts of money into it...should we do means-testing, though? I mean, when I worked the late shift at the convenience store, we had plenty of people spending money on alcohol that they should have been saving...should that be restricted too? At least the lotto MIGHT payoff...

sP

[Throd]

59. I play the lottery on occasion

Yes I know that I am about as likely to be struck by a meteor as I am to pick six in the California SuperLotto.

Who cares? It is my money to do with as I please.

[AngryAmish]

60. You will never take away my Irish Sweepstakes!

[onenote]

61. what other measures would you take to regulate how the "masses" spend their money

Would you bar those on food stamps from buying ipods or basketball shoes that cost more than a certain amount? Require them to buy generic and house brand foods rather than name brands? Set a minimum on how much a family has to be earning before they can take a vacation or spend money amusing themselves?

[Throd]

62. Usually they mean "them asses" when they want to protect people from themselves

[BreweryYardRat]

64. Playing the "big bucks" lottery is foolish. $5 scratchoffs, on the other hand...

I play one of the Florida state games once or twice a month (so $10 tops). There's a 1 in 3 chance of making your money back, and I've won $15-$25 a couple times. It's fun, it's low-stakes, and it'll pay for a few minor things.

And there's always the (very slim chance) of a fatter payout.

[mb7588a]

66. Agreed.

Every day I see the line at Union Station in Washington DC 15-20 people deep. It's like this no matter what time of day it is.

And I'd also like to point out, it's not the DC elite who pass by there everyday who are stopping to get tickets.

[B Calm]

68. Thanks to republicans, this is now the working man's pension plan.

Companies no longer give employers pensions anymore, they want us to gamble our hard earned money in 401K plans. Then our 401K plans funnel our investment funds internationally. There are cheaper and more plentiful natural resources elsewhere to exploit, cheaper labor and younger developing consumer markets outside the US that present more attractive investment opportunities.

[Romulox]

71. I object to applying exhorbitant taxes on cigarettes and booze to the general fund

state as drug pusher

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. A couple of dollars per week won't make anyone poor

The only problem is when people get so obsessed with large jackpots that they drop money they don't have in an attempt to increase their odds.

Once when the PowerBall jackpot was in the 100+ million range, I saw a man spending $100 on tickets (Oregon has self-service ticket machines). He put five twenty-dollar bills in. I tried to tell him that this increased his odds from about 1 in 146 million to 1 in 1.46 million, but he wasn't listening. I'm sure he though that spending all his money would guarantee a win. :-(

The other odd thing I saw was a very shabbily dressed man asking the store clerk what the jackpot for the Oregon Lottery was that week. The clerk replied that it was $1.5 million. "Only 1.5 million!" the man scoffed. "That's not worth it!"
:wtf:

[wuushew]

85. Don't underestimate the power of an increasing annuity

Future Value for an Increasing Annuity: It is an increasing annuity is an investment that is earning interest, and into which regular payments of a fixed amount are made. Suppose one makes a payment of R at the end of each compounding period into an investment with a present value of PV, paying interest at an annual rate of r compounded m times per year, then the future value after t years will be


FV = < PV(1 + i)n + R(1 + i)n - 1 > / i
where i = r/m is the interest paid each period and n = m × t is the total number of periods.

[Beerboy]

74. I agree with you to a degree,

it's one of the points the GOP used in the late 80s-early 90s to dissuade MN voters approving it.
After looking at everything, it's a self-induced tax on stupidity. If the government can get their chumps to pay loser taxes, why should I complain? I spend maybe 20 bucks on all forms of gambling offered by the State.
I really don't care how people spend their disposable income unless they're embezzling from my retirement fund!

[Retired AF Dem]

75. I just love it when complete strangers

would like to force me to live my life under their standards.

[mountainvue]

79. I was actually poor and won the lottery about

10 years ago. It changed my life, for the better of course.

[nonconformist]

87. I think even "the poor" know that the odds are extremely bad and that most don't win

Even without the glorious news to tell them so. You don't honestly think that "ordinary working stiffs" don't know that, do you?

Gambling is here to stay, it's ingrained in our culture. People will ALWAYS find ways to waste their money, always.

[Zavulon]

88. I wouldn't.

The poor may get false hopes from the lottery, but at least there's some hope. The government sure doesn't give them any.

[HughBeaumont]

102. Neither do our beloved corporations . . .

. . . a point which NONE of the finger-waggers who responded to my post above addressed.

I think the talk shows, media, business pundits, people on this board, if any of them had any kind of a heart, should maybe address NOT the supposed morality absence with the lottery, gambling addiction in general, bingo nights, etc, but WHY it is that people feel that a giant 1-in-346-million shot is their only ticket out of the mess they're in to the point where they're spending hundreds a month, or week, on it.

Everyone can cry "consumerist materialism" and "greed" until the cows come home, but does that speak also for the families who, for whatever reason, have nothing but bad break after unforseen costly illness after (insert financial disaster here) happen to them through no fault of their own? What do you tell them? Keep working, keep your chin up . .. and pray? What the hell good is THAT going to do? No financial planning at all can help people like this. You can't plan when you ain't got a dime to your name. Sometimes you just can't "make money" like you can "make time".

The ultimate false-hope carrot-dangle foisted on humanity this past century is that of "Horatio Alger".

[Colorado Progressive]

89. most of the playground equip at my sons school is paid for

with Lottery money. So its not completely lame.

[wuushew]

90. Yes, but such equipment should not be optional

Schools should have adequate funding at all times paid for by mandatory taxation of the rich. Let the Pentagon throw a bake sale for once.

[Colorado Progressive]

95. I agree. But for now, at least they have more than sticks and rocks to play with

nt

[Thothmes]

133. Why should only the rich pay taxes.

Taxes should be paid by the population based on their ability to pay the taxes. The Bill Gates, Ted Kennedys,George Soros, George Bush's of the country should pay a higher percentage and dollar amount than the coal miner, choker setter, secretary or the school teacher. But everyone should pay some taxes.

[GOTV]

106. Which is not to say they wouldn't have that equipment anyway....

... Aren't schools budgeted like anything else? If the money didn't come from the lottery, wouldn't have come from borrowing, or taxes?

[Colorado Progressive]

108. dunno, just glad its there. My state is 49th in funding schools sooo.....

[GOTV]

141. It's usually sold as benefitting the schools, but it doesn't. The schools get what the pols budget.

[NashVegas]

92. If I Could Wave My Hand and Make Any Law Go Away, I Wouldn't Waste It

on something of such minor affect

[Lydia Leftcoast]

100. Yes, I'd rather repeal

1. The IWR

2. The Bankruptcy Bill

3. The Taft-Hartley Law

4. Anything else that is stacked in favor of the rich and powerful

[GOTV]

94. So would I. I don't think they are right.

[mondo joe]

112. Thank goodness the patronizing puritans don't have that power, then. NT

[iverglas]

114. I have an idea

The government should go into the porn business ... and grant itself a monopoly ...

[mondo joe]

135. I have another idea. Give adult citizens the right to vote, regardless of their

race, ethnicity, religion, gender or income level. Let them vote for legislative and executive representatives, and then get to decide in a few years if they approve of the job being done. Then live with it. During that time, threat those adults - again, regardless of race, income level, etc -like equals, with their own agency.

[iverglas]

147. well

at least mine wasn't incomprehensible.

I have to keep telling myself I know better than to ...

But anyhow, I gather you'll be cool when we elect a government that nationalizes the porn industry.

[mondo joe]

151. Wrong as usual. But why stop a losing streak now?

[GOTV]

136. Yeah, thank god. The lottery has been such a benefit n/t

[mondo joe]

153. The lottery has certainly provided for infrastructure and education.

[GOTV]

157. Bullshit. We had those things before the lotteries

[mondo joe]

159. And who said we didn't? Or that the lottery is the only way to have them?

Not me.

Nevertheless it is a revenue source for those things.

[GOTV]

160. Therefore the lottery did not provide them....

... the people/voters who set governmental priorities provide them. We have education and infrastructure because we want them and we would pay for them however the funds are raised.

[mondo joe]

161. When other funding sources have been cut, it sure did.

:-)

[GOTV]

166. No, people decide where the money goes. People are responsible....

... how our priorities are funded are a separate matter.

If you cut the lottery the other things we value would not disappear or shrink unless we decided they weren't worth paying for. Lottery or no lottery.

That's how it works.

[mondo joe]

169. Hm, not precisely.

There are multiple competing expenses funded by "the people". Sometimes the way an expense that has been (or is it risk for becoming) unfunded is met is by creating a restricted revenue source. Sometimes this happens through levys or designated taxes, sometimes through other means like the lottery.

If those sources were not available, some of the things they do fund would not, or might not, be funded, or might only be underfunded.

That is a fact of life.

[GOTV]

171. If we value them, we would fund them another way....

... these restricted revenue sources were not divine edicts.

If the lottery went away, we would find money for schools somewhere, probably not enough but they don't get enough under the lottery system either.

[mondo joe]

173. Even those things that are valued compete for a piece of the pie.

And that's a fact.

You have no way of knowing what would lose funding without the lottery.

But since, as you point out, these are not divine edicts we must face the fact the we (the people) have decided to fund some things through the lottery. That's democracy for you.

[DangerDave921]

97. Crack

If the government could find a way to sell crack to make money, it would. Government exists to bring in money, and it will never cease finding ways to do it.

[wuushew]

98. Google "Crack + CIA"

its already been done

[Reciprocity]

99. Gee thanks daddy for deciding what's best for me.

I'm just the stupid poor. I have no idea what I'm doing with my own money.

[nini]

104. hmmmm is it the lottery or a gambling problem that is the problem?

most people I know buy tickets once in a while knowing full well they won't win, but more for that 'you never know' entertainment value.

If ANYONE - rich or poor - goes beyond simple entertainment with the lottery, gambling etc.. it's beyond the govt's responsibility to police this. Do you really want the government involved with controlling people's free will to be idiots when it comes to their finances?

Yes, poor people do stupid things with this - however eliminating the lottery will only move them to betting on the ponies, slot machines, etc.. if they are so inclined to try and win big.

[Colorado Progressive]

115. I LIKE scratchin that silver shit off cardborad. Its fun! What the hell???nt

[BlackVelvet04]

140. The way the stock market has been.....

the lottery is looking pretty good. ;-)

[Nutmegger]

144. What about all the programs that are funded via the lottery system?

The Connecticut Lottery generates gives about 30% of lottery revenue to the Connecticut general fund. The general fund assists in many things from educational projects to energy assistance to those in need.

Another example: Georgia has a merit based scholarship program called "HOPE". HOPE is funded via the Georgia lottery. To date, more than $3.61 billion has been distributed to more one million recipients.

I don't care for gambling myself, but I'm pleased that some states are using the revenue to put back into programs that are desperately needed.

[iverglas]

148. what about all the posts in this thread

questioning the advisability of funding social programs by this method, rather than, in particular, a progressive income tax scheme that doesn't let the wealthy shift the tax burden they should be bearing (at least in the minds of, you know, "progressives") to the poor?

Yeesh. You'd think the screen was blank ...

[Nutmegger]

149. Hey take that snark and shove it.

If you had time to read every god damn reply, more power to you.

In today's day and age it will take a lot to get a comprehensive, fair tax scheme. Until that is done, reactions such as "oh I wish I could wave my hand and get rid of the lottery" should be thought through.

[iverglas]

150. many reactions should be thought through

I suggest that the urge to drop something into a conversation without having the courtesy of considering what the parties to it have already said is one of them.

You know, it's actually possible to learn something by hanging out at discussion boards. But not if one doesn't bother to read what anyone else has to say.

[Nutmegger]

154. Oh is that a DU rule?

I was just adding what people tend to overlook. I'm already familiar with the point-counterpoint of this argument and it seems like it's pretty much what I had in mind after skimming this thread. It still does not change my opinion either way.

[WildEyedLiberal]

145. Thanks for reminding me to buy a Mega Millions ticket

The jackpot is $325 million. Will I win? Doubtful. But for 5 bucks - I'll take a chance at $325 million, rather than another beer at the bar that I'll sleep off in a few hours anyway.

What is with the nanny-state leftism infecting DU recently? Gambling is a human instinct. The concepts of wagering money, striking it rich, being lucky, hitting the jackpot - none of these originated with state lottos. I don't think most people mortgage their futures on the chances of winning the lottery, and it's honestly incredibly condescending of people here to suggest that people who buy lotto tickets are too poor and stupid to realize that.

Are some people addicted to gambling and spend money that they don't have on lotto tickets? Of course. People are also addicted to alcohol and spend money they can't afford to spend to make sure they have some. Should we ban alcohol (again)? Should we ban cigarettes? Should we ban forms of entertainment and diversion that the nanny-state leftists deem to be "destructive"? Should we assume that people are too fucking helpless and stupid to make their own choices?

[leaninglib]

146. Look at the bright side...

Lotteries are simply a means of voluntary taxation for the dim-witted. And the more they pay to play, the less likely it is that the government will come after us.

[praeclarus]

168. if I spend $5 per week on lotto tickets and you spend...

$5 per day on a cup of coffee at Starbucks, which one of
us paying more stupid tax?