Thanks to all for voting. I realize this was not anything close to a scientific poll, but the result are worth looking at. It was closer than I thought it would be.
While [ ]** 55% are against it in any capacity, 43% are OK with it in varying degrees (7% 12.5%* with no limitations, the rest with some limitations or concerns.) One person weighed in as not interested in talking about it.
[commentary removed from post and included in comments, my apologies…l&ll]
Poll
How do you lean on the casino gambling /slot machine issue?
* Against legalizing it, in any capacity. – 31 votes (55.36%)
* OK with legalizing it, in any capacity. – 7 votes (12.5%)
* No to slot parlors but OK with one resort casino. – 7 votes (12.5%)
* No to slot parlors but OK with 3 resort casinos. – 5 votes (8.93%)
* On the fence, OK with it, but have worries. – 5 votes (8.93%)
* Don’t want to talk about it. – 1 votes (1.79%)Total votes: 56
Results
*corrected percentage error
** removed the term “a whopping” as potential commentary
unless that compromise is bad policy…
<
p>(and slots of any kind is bad policy)
Sounds like a bad policy imho.
You asked our opinion, and got 31 of 56 votes opposed to legalizing these new forms of gambling in any capacity. Your proposal, for allowing “at least one resort casino” with no slots got exactly seven votes — 12.5%.
<
p>I hope our legislature listens to resounding NO that this group gives both casinos and slots.
not necessarily across that state. Since it seems that the anti-casino group here is the most vocal, I was curious about whether there were more than 3 or 4 people who visit this site that were OK with a casino in some capacity.
<
p>I don’t have to fall in line just because the majority here disapproves of a resort casino. I still believe one resort casino in Massachusetts isn’t going to hurt anything, and could actually bring money, jobs, and people to the state.
<
p>The sentiment from visitors to masslive.com is quite different from what you find here.
from masslive.com June 29, 2009
<
p>Do these polls really mean anything? They only give a general idea of which way the opinion is flowing. But it is worthwhile to know this, and I thank you for your vote.
<
p>
while the constant discussion of a (non-existent) casino in Palmer is going on? There isn’t enough water in the town to support a resort casino…it is ludicrous.
<
p>Why does the Masslive poll not ask about whether people think Legislators should be required to determine the full costs of slots and casinos and prove that there are long term net profits….maybe because there are long term net costs? Why does the Masslive poll not ask about whether people feel that they should pay in their taxes for the negative impacts to individuals, families, communities and the region; health care and MassHealth for underemployed new workers? Additional court and law enforcement costs? Additional school enrollment, SPED and ELL costs?
<
p>Maybe you could do a new poll that would ask this blog about Legislators being required to perform due diligence on the issue?
Would you rather have a resort casino, or a major theme park and movie studio multistage combo?
<
p>Where is the “choice” in the Masslive poll? It IS true that Palmer, Holyoke, Athol – that who area are starved for jobs.
<
p>But if given a choice of stable manufacturing jobs or stable theme park/resort jobs without gambling AND gambling, the results even in MassLive would, I bet, be very different.
split the yes votes up I’m sure. But no one is knocking on our door to bring in manufacturing facilities or theme parks.
<
p>Western Mass already has Six Flags. It also had Mountain Park and Whalom Park, which are history. I would love to see manufacturing jobs come to Western MA.
that would help create manufacturing jobs there, or other good jobs… the casino issue is a complete distraction from that work.
<
p>I do have to admit being a tiny bit annoyed that you’re ignoring the fact that a massive majority picked option A compared to the other choices you listed in the BMG community. If you were just going to report the results that way, you should have phrased the poll “Do you support the legalization of slots in Massachusetts in anyway? Yes or No.”
<
p>Furthermore, while BMG is just one community of literally thousands in Massachusetts, factoring in such things as geography, ethnicity, colleges and associations, it’s a pretty good representation of the party base in this state. Democrats should be aware of that. Another thing they should be aware of is the fact that, on polls, a generic “would you support a casino in Massachusetts” always has a much, much different result than “would you support a casino nearby your community?” The answer to the former has varied from time to time, but the answer to the latter is always an overwhelming no.
<
p>The fact of the matter is the more people know about casinos, the less likely they are to support them — especially if they realize that the social, economic and community costs that come with casinos could impact them, not some mythical place in Massachusetts. Most casino costs impact communities hardest within 50 miles of the casinos (or slot parlor), from increased (double the rate of) addicts to crime. A 50 mile radius is a huge swath of the state. Here’s what Deval Patrick’s plan would have looked like:
<
p>
<
p>While I rarely use “slippery slope” arguments, because they’re often misused, here’s an instance where it truly applies. Look at the slot industry in just about every state. They’re always asking the state for more. Neighboring states add more, so other states rush to compete in a race to the bottom. Slots face a tough economic time… so the state bends and changes just about every rule to appease them, whether or not those are real solutions, be it for the industry’s sake or even the state (just look at Rhode Island).
<
p>It’s naive to think we can have just one casino in Massachusetts – and no other slots. All the lobbying power is centered around the race tracks, but the Gov’t wants casinos. If anything passes this state, it’s going to legalize both, otherwise it either can’t pass or gets vetoed. Even you seem to admit that’s bad policy; if we’re going to be intellectually honest with ourselves, we just have to draw a line in the sand on this issue, banning slots altogether. People can legally gamble in dozens of ways in Massachusetts already, from church bingo to the state lottery to Suffolk Downs. We must stand strong on not allowing the most addictive, worst form of gambling that opens the doors to the worst kind of lobbyists and an industry states just can’t say no to, once invited to the party. This issue is a vacuum in this state; it sucks up huge swaths of time that could be spent on real solutions, not these flashy gimmicks. If passed, the slot industry would only continue to suck up valuable time and resources, as industries ask for more and more and we create upwards of 500+ state jobs to regulate and oversee this industry, according to Martha Coakley (not to mention all the thousands of police officers, addiction counselors, firefighters and, perhaps most expensive for communities of all, teachers, that will be spending resources and time on this industry).
<
p>I hope these comments are helpful. When you look at this issue broadly — and bearing in mind how state government works — it’s very hard to see how passing slots could remotely work in this state’s long-term favor.
that the majority here disapproves of casinos. I stated it as a “whopping 55%” disapprove. It’s certainly significant. However, I still maintain my opinion that one resort casino would help to grow our region and bring money back to our state that is currently heading south regularly.
<
p>I am not trying to disrepect the anti-casino people by
continuing to support a resort casino in Massachusetts.
I’m sorry if you are annoyed. There could have been a millions ways to word this poll. What I was looking for was how much support there might be for a casino, and in what capacity. I was already fairly certain there is a large amount of anti-casino sentiment here. I think it’s interesting to note that for the pro-casino people who voted, it’s quite varied as to the extent it’s supported.
<
p>I still support the casino, and I’m hoping our state government can gather up some wisdom and legislate it right. I will be just as angry as you if they do it wrong, and turn it into another front page fiasco story.
including opening a resort casino in Massachusetts.
<
p>For sure, there are concerns, and because of the loud and persistent voices of the anti-casino groups, it is much more likely those concerns will be addressed prior to any legislative approval. So for that, Thank You!
<
p>As far as insuring the employees at the casino, Jeffrey Hartmann, COO of Mohegan Sun said during a recent debate that the company provides it’s employees with medical benefits.
<
p>Other concerns are on the radar and will hopefully be addressed. Even though I support a resort casino in Massachusetts, I’m hoping for smart legislation, with appropriate safeguards put in place to protect the state and it’s citizens.
<
p>
<
p>I’m not a fan of the idea of three resort casinos in MA. I’m worried instead of having one successful resort, we will have three failures. There is just not enough people in Massachusetts and surrounding states to fill all three regularly.
<
p>
The state, if it passes slots of any kind, will spend only a fraction of what it needs to mitigate risks and costs. We can’t even get the state to seriously study this issue, with a nonpartisan, in depth, non-industry group, to analyze all the pros and cons. It’s naive to think that, once passed, state government will turn over every rock to make sure everything’s okay. There isn’t a single other state that’s done that — Massachusetts won’t be the first.
<
p>Did you ask if part-time and transient workers are covered?
<
p>There is a 25% turnover rate of employees in the casino scenario according to Spectrum Gaming. So, who pays for the health insurance of workers who come to MA (or leave their current jobs in MA) and only work for the gambling mecca for a short period of time? Ans. The taxpayers of the Commonwealth.
<
p>Did you ask if they outsource through employment agencies the lower skilled/minimum wage jobs, thereby circumventing health insurance to employees? Common practice.
<
p>Did you ask if they provide health insurance to foreign workers on temporary visas (students/young people from eastern european and asian countries)? Common practice.
<
p>No, of course not. But, don’t feel bad, the Legislature and the Administration have not asked these questions either. The slot/casino proponents ignore these issues. If the Legislature and Administration have not even thought about the right questions to ask, we will never see
which many would say is an oxymoron.
<
p>Framing the questions to provide an accurate picture of the impacts of slots/casinos has not been done to date by our elected officials. Governor Patrick has not asked the above questions. Senator Murray and Speaker DeLeo have not asked the above questions. They owe it to the citizens of the Commonwealth to get off the Kool-Aid and take a full accounting of the costs, not just the gains to their friends and Beacon Hill.
<
p>The Governor’s projections were grossly overstated.
<
p>The Unions supported the bogus numbers.
<
p>The new economy has diminished slot/casino profitability with bankruptcies rampant. The licensing fees will never be the high numbers the Governor (and Clyde Casino Barrows) proposed…hopefully, the Governor will retreat from this net economic loser and we can all move on.
into the state…
<
p>
<
p>Does Six Flags offer medical benefits to it’s part-time employees? What about the the stores in the malls across the state, do they offer medical benefits? Wonder what the pay scale is for someone working at Radio Shack or Payless shoes? How about Faneuill Hall and the all of the great businesses in Boston that draw in quite the crowds. I bet those employees qualify for subsidized health care here in Mass.
<
p>If you use that argument, it’s a disadvantage to our state to have small businesses come to Massachusetts as well. Or any business for that matter. What if manufacturing did knock on our door? Well those employees come with children and those children need to be educated by our schools. Would you prevent those jobs from coming to the state too so we don’t have to worry about the increase costs for education.
<
p>I would call your argument more of an anti-growth argument, not an anti-casino argument
In fact we are discussing mega-corporate casinos. A unique cash business with unique negative impacts.
<
p>None of the examples you cited above have prompted an Attorney General to declare that RICO , money laundering and other corruption laws would need to be created and revised.
<
p>If you want to talk about other methods that mega-corporations used to rob the American working/middle class, let’s start a new thread.
<
p>If you want to talk about how mega-corporate casinos have systematically destroyed small businesses, let’s start a new thread.
<
p>If you want to talk about manufacturing or any business that does not have 25% annual turnover in it’s workforce, let’s start a new thread.
<
p>We’re all game here.
the point of comparison was Six Flags and General Growth Properties, Radio Shack and Payless, all multi-million dollar companies.
<
p>Plus, when you talk about turnover and employee benefits, it’s tough to attack casinos – in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Illinois, Indiana, upstate NY and Detroit – all places where casinos are union, my bet would be benefits and turnover are lower than comparable service sector jobs that are likely non-union. The Gold Coast of Mississippi, many (but by no means all) Native American casinos – okay you’re getting into profits by lowering wages, but my money is on UNITE HERE getting a neutrality deal out of any casino in Massachusetts.
The expression “to beat a dead horse” brings bad visuals and so does emaciated greyhounds.
<
p>L&LL did interject the issue of small businesses in the third paragraph of her response above. I responded to the hyperbole and assumptions that were generated in her sentence,
<
p>That is the type of extension used by casino marketers and their supporters to blend an industry dependent upon addicted gamblers for profits (90% of profits from 10% of addicted and problem gamblers) with other commercial entities.
<
p>Your conjecture about union positions is not based on fact, but rather a gamble
<
p>The 25% turnover in the industry is taken from Spectrum Gaming’s (hired by Governor Patrick to evaluate the resort casino proposal BEFORE the economy tanked and profits, license fees and capitalization dwindled).
to sit back and read the comments.
<
p>Senator Spilka’s Casino Love Fest was just that.
<
p>The speakers were mostly casino supporters and promoters, like —
<
p>One speaker whose description was clearly obscured is —
<
p>Jennifer Lendler – Executive VP of Gaming Operations, Coastal Development
<
p>Is that Gaming Operations for Harrah’s that she said?
<
p>When quotes such as this are used —
<
p>”In other testimony, James F. Klocke, executive vice president of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber financed a consultant’s study last year which estimated that three casino resorts, when completed, could produce at least 17,000 permanent jobs, $2 billion in gross gaming revenues and $376 million a year in revenues for state government.” …
<
p>one must truly wonder how impartial that study was.
<
p>In his comments, didn’t Mr. Klocke also indicate that those job and revenue projections were outdated?
<
p>And where are the expenses included? Like the woefully inadequate $50 million the Governor included for addiction, the $100 million for regulation, oversight, enforcement and prosecution? What are the expenses/impacts the state plans to fund for surrounding communities? like public safety for the additional traffic, DUIs, motor vehicle accidents? Where are the local school costs? What will the health insurance costs be to insure low wage and parttime workers? Where are the infrastructure costs?
<
p>In other states, in other regions, there is widespread opposition to casinos and slot parlors because they suck discretionary income out of the local economy.
<
p>The opposition comes from the retail associations, sporting associations, chambers of commerce, because they recognize the damage created.
<
p>Casinos and slots are consistently promoted as job creators and revenue generators by supporters. They are not.
<
p>One need only examine the Maine exeperience —
http://middlebororeview.blogsp…
<
p>Or that of any other state that has allowed itself to be blinded by the false glitter of casino gold.
<
p>More ominous should be the cautions of some of the speakers that the state will go from being a gambling regulator to being a gambling promoter. The state will also become the largest STAKEHOLDER. And the state will become the PROBLEM SOLVER. This is a state that brought you the Big Dig!
<
p>One of the speakers described the capital markets as being risk averse and suggested tax free municipal bonds and state guarantees. How is that for an arm’s length transaction?
<
p>What other business gets invited into the state that requires regulation, enforcement and oversight, and brings with it addiction and crime? Isn’t that the question Senator Tucker was asking?
<
p>Maybe it’s time to get behind Cape Wind and support a company that wants to manufacture wind turbines in the US instead of importing them and creating jobs in Europe?
<
p>Opposing casinos and slot parlors isn’t a moral argument. It’s a financial argument because they don’t make economic sense and the author doesn’t seem to understand that.
I’m glad I’m not the only person trying to find a middle ground, rather than the no-way, no-how, no-casinos orthodoxy on this site. I could support a single resort casino as an experiment, which could be abandoned, or at least not expanded, if the negatives prove to outweigh the positives. (This isn’t obvious by the way; until it happens we’re talking hypotheticals and some other states obviously think differently as evidenced by the fact that they have these facilities.) The poll, while interesting, is meaningless, both because the respondents are self-selecting and because it’s on a site catering to a certain pursuasion anyway.
I find it curious that you gave me a 4 in my first comment on this thread. I wasn’t going to mention it, but your comment here brings up my thoughts again.
<
p>In response to “compromise makes the world go ’round'”
<
p>I said
<
p>
<
p>You gave me a 4 for that.
<
p>Do you think it’s good to pass bad policy, if it took “compromise” to get us there? It seems to me, on numerous issues, you do think that. Furthermore, do you think it’s good to “support” an issue, even if whatever passes coming from that issue will never, ever, in a million years look like what you want or expect it to. It’s naive to think we’ll pass one casino in this state, but no other slots. The lobbying power in this state is strongest on racinos — that’s what the Speaker and Senate President want. Would you support racinos in this in this state? That’s what we’re likely to get with any slot legislation. You need to frame your thinking with what’s possible in reality.
<
p>What makes you think an ‘experimental casino’ could be abandoned? Name me one single casino, in the course of human history, that was an “experimental casino” that was later “abandoned.” How do you do that? Are you factoring in the fact that the casino lobby is one of the most devious and powerful lobbies that exist in states which legalize slots? How do you “abandon” them? What makes you think that’s possible in Massachusetts, after all these ethics abuses and scandals?
<
p>That’s some nice rationalization. Given that BlueMassGroup is compromised mainly of activist Democrats — the base of this state’s Democratic Party — why do you think our voices don’t matter? What makes you think that’s acceptable? Keep in mind that the State Party just passed a resolution in June saying we don’t support slot machines in Massachusetts. BMG feels the way the State Party feels. We’re the ones who get Democrats into office and allow them to stay there, through the primary process. What we say, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise, matters. Democrats in office should beware.
<
p>My last question, how can we ever prove if the negatives of a casino outweighs the positive, when we haven’t issued a fundamental study of all the costs and benefits from a nonpartisan source that isn’t connected to the industry. You honestly expect that to happen after slots pass? The only major studies ever done in this state have been from the industry, be it Spectrum Gaming (the bias is in the very name) to Clyde Barrow, who as recently as 2008, took at least $15k to help a campaign to pass slot machines in Maine. He’s taken money from Connecticut gambling groups and others, as well. This is the guy who’s “research” fueled Patrick’s plans — and numbers.
Or at least, I’ll try my best.
<
p>First, don’t take the 4 too personally. I often use that rating as a lazy and shorthand way to simply say I disagree, especially when we’ve already been round and round and neither your arguments nor anything I could say in response are likely to change. There are certainly such things as bad compromises, but the rating addressed this particular context. To your point that I think compromise gets us there I must plead guilty, or at least no contest. I agree that I probably am more pragmatic, and you for better or worse, are more dogmatic.
<
p>I never suggested that our opinions don’t matter, though I would suggest that elected officials serve their entire constituency and not just their base. My perspective is that of a political science major who was required to take classes in polling and statistics. As such, presenting it as a poll could lead people to draw the wrong conclusions as to how representative the responses are.
<
p>My classes in logic have taught me never to credit slippery slope arguments. That is the quintessential logical fallacy. We can ban a previously legal business just as we did with dog racing. I’m all for an unbiased study; I would be most persuaded by arguments that it will cost the state more financially than it benefits rather than arguments about taxing the poor and addiction. The state absolutely has the authority to say “that’s enough” and issue no additional gambling licenses. If the casino proves more trouble than it’s worth then absolutely let’s shut it down. I refuse to accept either that it can never be stopped once started or that we cannot include regulations I have previously suggested. Whatever happened to the Patrick-Obama mantra of “Yes We Can!”?
err… lobbyists.
<
p>(It was Force of July weekend on Spike…)
ban an “industry” if the state guarantees tax free bonds for them??
<
p>How do you banish slot parlor if you’re on the hook for the investment?
<
p>The downside of a casino is not immediately visable, the worst becoming evident about 5 years after opening as crime increases and gambling addiction becomes more widespread.
<
p>That was the point that Professor Goodman was trying to make.
<
p>The state will become the biggest stakeholder and move from being a gambling regulator to being a gambling promoter.
I guess I’m just a little more optimistic about political courage, especially if one’s constituents get involved and demand the “impossible” change.
It’s encouraging to see young people engaged on this site in political debate. I would like to point out that those of us who are posting here in opposition to expanding gambling; slots, casinos, racinos have produced vast amounts of evidence of our research on the subject matter.
<
p>I posted questions above that are critical for the Legislature and I dare say, citizens of the Commonwealth to consider. The fact that those questions were not even raised by the Administration – they did not even develop a budget for costs to the Attorney General, is extremely troubling.
<
p>How will funding for additional public school students be achieved?
<
p>The revenues and license fees are insufficient to cover the negative fiscal impacts. Please research the issue deeper.
<
p>Good government does not promote net negative proposals.
Ryan,
<
p>Senator Tucker specifically asked a question about Barrow’s industry connections.
<
p>His reply was a creative tap dance that sidestepped the question and denied any connection, except …well…maybe he did something for the Mashpee Wampanoags back in 1985.
<
p>Not included was his 2008 work in Maine.
<
p>Other work Barrow has done for the gambling industry is easily disclosed on the internet.
<
p>Barrow presented a great deal of information in a folder to the Senators, including many blank pages that apparently represent “work in progress” and left several folders behind which surely will be commented on as they are digested. Since he is one of many Paid Casino Cheerleaders, one will expect a rosey scenario to be painted.
<
p>If you consider Maine’s experience with the audible sucking sound of Hollywood Slots sucking vitality out of the discretionary local spending, the results are all too apparent.
http://middlebororeview.blogsp…
<
p>At this point, the state needs an impartial analysis of the costs, expenses, local impacts the state needs to fund (like law enforcement, increased public safety costs, schools, infrastructure improvements) before we find ourselves in the same financial mess other states have created from subsidizing wealthy gambling investors.
Did you bring your armor?
You put up a poll. You begged folks like me to respond, and eventually 56 people (including me) did. Then, using the ruse of “reporting the results”, you seem to use the thread to advocate “compromise” to allow your favorite proposal to advance — when only 12.5 % of the results supported that approach. You asked us, and we said — loud and clear — “NO“. I think I would feel less manipulated if you had simply reported the results of your poll here, and used a different thread to advocate for your own favorite.
<
p>My own view is that any form of increased gambling — casinos, lotteries, anything — is a terrible idea. I think it’s bad public policy, bad social policy, incredibly regressive, and so on. I suspect that this forum is representative of progressive Democrats in the Boston area, and perhaps state-wide. We might be a bit more extremist, but we don’t need shades of gray to understand these results.
<
p>The truth is that a majority of us don’t want to see either casinos or slots. The truth is that only a tiny minority (less than 15%) support the position you advocate.
<
p>Given those facts, why should those who feel like me compromise? What possible benefit does such a compromise offer to us? It looks to me as though the results are clear and you simply don’t like them.
<
p>George Bush won the presidency twice (sort of), and I never could learn to like him or his policies. (Please note, I am not comparing you in any way to GWB). A majority opinion does not mean that all others must now stop fighting for what they believe in. Why shouldn’t you compromise? In all of your relationships, don’t you ever compromise? EVER??
<
p>I compromise everyday, at work, at home, on the highway, heck, merging in traffic is a compromise.
<
p>In the legislature, there are officials for and against the casino. We don’t want them to allow unrestricted casino gambling laws to be passed. Our support for that is almost unanimous in total a whopping 86% (including the votes for no casino in any capacity).
<
p>I would say that BMG does have an impact in conveying views, opening those views up to public debate using facts, statistics and personal experiences. It is a worthy resource where you will consider things you may have never thought of, learn things you never knew, and provide your own 250 cents when you want to. That would include our elected officials. It is definitely a place to come to have your eyes opened for you.
<
p>However, I’m not 100% convinced that the majority opinion here represents the sentiment of the entire state on every topic. The unenrolled vote is huge in this state, and the legislature will be looking at those sentiments as well. So if we can choose something between absolutely no casino gambling and slot parlors on every street corner, I think one resort casino in Massachusetts is a compromise that works.
<
p>I did not use you BT. I’m sorry you feel that way. You should be happy you voted. You would have been even more unhappy if the results showed the majority sentiment here at BMG was in support of a resort casino.
you see an opening. you swerve into it, aggressively.
<
p>what state do you live in?
I have removed my commentary from the post and placed it here where it belongs.
<
p>Although this may be a win for the anti-casino group here on BMG, here’s hoping that our legislature will allow at least one resort casino in Massachusetts, while giving the big “no way” to slot parlors on every street corner.
<
p>Compromise makes the world go ’round. : )
“…here’s hoping that our legislature will allow at least one resort casino in Massachusetts…”
<
p>WHY?
<
p>If Massachusetts were a trendsetter – the first to offer or open a casino…excuse me … a resort that just happens to have bunches of slot machines to enrich investors, that might be a sensible statement.
<
p>We have only to examine the experience of other states that have higher tax burdens and also have expanded gambling.
<
p>Please, please, find a state that is in better fiscal shape, comparable state services, and has expanded gambling and let me know.
<
p>Check out the stats for Nevada. Nowhere I’d live.
<
p>And let’s talk about Connecticut.
<
p>Check out the state Dept. of Education web site for the failed schools around the state. Aren’t they all surrounding the 2 CT casinos? And we’re not supposed to talk about their problem gambling statistics.
<
p>Shall we emulate Louisiana with a slot on every corner? Reporting a rate of Problem Gamblers at 7%? And isn’t their public education system one to emulate?
<
p>Or maybe Iowa that had a rate of problem gambling of 1.7% before expansion and 3 1/2 years later, a rate of 5.4%. Now, it’s undoubtedly higher.
<
p>Frankly, if you want to wear Depends so you can sit in front of a slot machine for hours, I don’t give a darn.
<
p>But when I have to subsidize casino investors who are raking in the dough, and I have to pay for child neglect and abuse because children are left in cars or allowed to roam the lobby of a casino at 3 AM, or pay the enforcement costs for embezzlement, or people are driven to suicide because of their gambling debts leaving families behind, or I have to pay higher property taxes to support more public safety personnel because of drunks leaving a casino, the additional traffic or additional crime, or the endless list of impacts to support an industry that preys on their own ability to addict people, then I refuse to do so.
<
p>This isn’t about “Live and Let Live.”
<
p>This is about the failure of the Commonwealth, the Governor, the legislators to do their due diligence.
<
p>Professor Goodman indicated that the criminal jutice cost of each “problem gambler” was $40,000.
<
p>If you don’t hear it, I’m hearing Cha-Ching, Cha-Ching!
<
p>Within a 50 mile radius of a casino, Gambling Addiction skyrockets.
<
p>Never mind one resort casino! How about we examine the widely circulated and IMPARTIAL studies, not conducted by the gambling industry, examine the experience of other states and acknowledge that it’s a stupid idea?
<
p>An impartial review of the costs and expenses created by the casino/slot/racino industry will reveal what other studies have already proven.
<
p>For every $1 generated in revenue to the state, the cost in services is $3 or $4.
<
p>That revenue equation makes no cents.
Quite a scientific poll. Let’s see…the Globe and Herald and Suffolk U and all the rest show Bay Staters support resort casinos by nearly 2-1. But Ryepower’s polling has resort casinos soundly opposed?
<
p>If you want to continue to make yourself irrelevant Ryepower, keep your ridiculous, fraudulent polls coming.
<
p>Okay, so we know what you’re against.
<
p>Ryepower, time to come clean. Let’s hear a tangible, substantive public policy initiative — with specifics — that can be incorporated into legislation that has a realistic chance of passing the House, Senate and Gov, Patrick’s veto pen.
<
p>No BS, no rhetoric. Just tell us all how you’re going to create $400M in new tax revenues and between 10,000-20,000 new jobs, without raising taxes or user fees?
<
p>In fact, I’ll make it easier on you. Just tell us how you’re going to raise $100M in new tax revenues and create 5,000 new jobs without raising taxes or user fees?
<
p>I’m all ears. So let’s hear it.
<
p>No BS, Ryepower. No insults. No impugning my character. Just the facts. Let it rip.
<
p>By the way, I read one of your other postings on a progressive tax. I agree. But I read your comments and, forgive me, but do you actually pay any rent or a mortgage? Your rhetoric frequently mirrors that of someone who might live at home with his parents and really doesn’t have a lot of day-to-day financial demands that many of us do. Your rhetoric frequently rings of an over-age college student. Just a sense from some your postings.
If you want to have a discussion, even a heated one, then this is a great forum.
<
p>Your personal attack is offensive, hence my “0”. If you want a sh*t-slinging contest, find someplace else.
Forced sterilizations of people caught drunk driving. You’d have lots of victims, and you could charge them huge fines/fees for the procedure. Lots of people would have to be hired to enforce and carry out the new policy. Done ambitiously enough and bombastically enough, it would meet your criteria.
<
p>You may dislike that I’ve disregarded the moral consequences — as well as the amoral ones — of such a policy, but you’re doing the same in your argument. I’m not saying the policies are equally heinous, but our shared method of arguing for these policies is equally incomplete.
Snarky? Snarky? What are you, locked in a disco-fueled haze?
The correct usage is “whose.” You wrote “who’s…” and that’s incorrect. Get a dictionary; better yet, borrow some $ from your mom and dad and buy “The Elements of Style.” So when are we going to see another one of your fraudulent polls. And, by the way, when are you going to pass legislation forbidding us who have a bottle of wine during dinner to attend AA? You want to regulate our lives in every facet. And if we disagree with you, you then impugn our integrity. It must be quite lovely to be a common scold.
It has long been considered a breach of “netiquette” to harp on other’s grammatical or spelling errors. Everyone makes such mistakes, including yourself obviously, and it is mean-spirited and petty to take advantage of them.
<
p>His sentence should end with a question mark. Honest, it’s in “The Elements of Style.”