Former Vice-president Hubert Humphrey frequently observed “The moral test of government is how it treats people in the dawn of life – the children, people in the twilight of life – the elderly, and people in the shadows of life – the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.” This quotation is found above the entrance to the Hubert H. Humphrey Building’s offices of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in Washington, D.C. where Don Berwick served as Administrator from 2010-2011. The quote inspired Berwick’s work there and has become a touchstone of his campaign for Governor. He recites it at campaign appearances often.
When government encourages and promotes casinos as a means for economic growth, it fails to meet the moral test. Don Berwick understands this well and is not afraid to provide the leadership necessary to defeat them. Now that the SJC has ruled that the voters of the Commonwealth will decide the future of casinos in Massachusetts at the ballot box this November, it is up to us to follow this leadership.
Both at the same podium speaking as one voice against casinos would be powerful. Voters can put 1 and 1 together (O’Malley can’t endorse Berwick officially but when on the same side on the ballot question means something) and I believe this would attract more moderate voters to Berwick which he should try to get.
Dan, this is a very interesting suggestion and you are right that Don needs to reach out across the political spectrum for support where there is common ground. Incidentally, Don will be hosting a Town Hall Meeting this Monday, July 7 from 7-9pm at Doyle’s Cafe 3484 Washington street in Jamaica Plain. I hope many BMGers will attend.
Going to be webcast, available for cable access TV and blogged (preferably on BMG?) This is a great opportunity for voters to listen and hear Don’s articulate and intelligent approach to governance. It would be a value-added opportunity to be able to tune in from near/far for those who will not be able to attend in person and to very importantly reach those undecided who will vote in the Primary.
Thank you.
Will be recorded, and the video will be posted online.
n/t
I’ve never thought this was the best way to raise revenue, but the more revenue we raise the more we can help those that Humphrey was referring to. While you might be able to make the case that casinos also have the potential to exploit some of those groups as well you don’t do that in this diary. Rather than simply assert that they fail to meet the moral test as you do if you had made the connection more clearly it would IMO strengthen your argument.
The fact that gambling revenue comes primarily from those least able to afford it has been demonstrated multiple times here. The fact that struggling cities and towns like Chelsea make a large net contribution in lottery revenues that is then distributed to prosperous cites and towns like Concord, Carlisle, and Lexington has been demonstrated multiple times here.
You know as well as the rest of us that this plundering of our least affluent in order to spend more on our most affluent is why casinos fail to meet the moral test. It strikes me as disingenuous at best to complain because the OP didn’t repeat something you already know.
The revenue raised from casino gambling, if it happens, will be regressive. It preys on those who suffer from a gambling disorder, and it preys on those who are so poor that they are desperate. It is no accident that the proposed sites are in poor cities and towns — our prosperous cities and towns do not want a casino anywhere near them.
None of this is news, all of this has been hashed and rehashed multiple times here at BMG.
No “maybe” about it.
By choosing the most regressive revenue stream as a band aid for our fiscal condition we neglect to actually cure it with progressive taxation policies, a higher corporate tax rate, and real revenue that could fix the inequities in local aid and the funding formulas. We need to make sure no one in Massachusetts is left behind. Casinos would leave many behind that we ought to be lifting up. Seems the opposite of old Hubert’s adage .
None of what you posted is fact or has any basis in statistical realities or the realities on the ground in regards to the casino issue. It is mere conjecture, opinion, and skewed and biased opinion at that. Your passion on the issue and your stance is understandable as you are a casino opponent. However, that doesn’t make your observations and opinion fact in any, way, shape, or form. Trying to debate casino opponents like Les Bernal and others who have created “facts” and their own interpretations from non peer-reviewed statistics would be like Don Berwick trying to debate single payer health care with Glen Beck or Sean Hannity. There is no value in it politically.
There are well over 1000 casino type facilities in over 40 states and the idea that they are all located in depressed areas is laughable. Further, your statements that revenue from these facilities comes overwhelmingly from those least able to afford it and mostly gambling addicts is beyond laughable. The average median income of casino patrons across multiple demographics is near $55,000 a year. The breakdown of casino patrons across multiple demographics and states shows that college educated patrons outnumber blue-collar patrons by over a 2-1 margin. Beyond that, the idea that -casinos prey on and are packed with senior citizens least able to afford it is utter nonsense. Only 13% of casino patrons come from the “elderly” demographic.
Then we have this nonsense drawn from a statement by Loveman and Caesars ( who have become a disgrace to the industry by the way) that goes from — more revenues are drawn from patrons who visit an establishment more often than casual patrons who visit less and that gets twisted into 90% of casino revenues come from 10 % of patrons who have a gambling problem. Utterly ridiculous and not just the statistic itself. Take any form of entertainment or a hundred other things and there are people who visit or take part in an activity more than the casual. Season tickets for sports ring a bell ? People attending musical concerts more than the casual fan ring a bell ? People attending movies once a week as others attend or visit infrequently ? People eating fast food more frequently than others ? Are all those who take part in those activities and a hundred others all addicts ? Sports addicts, music addicts, movie addicts, fast food addicts.. ect ? People who go to casinos more regularly than others are those than can afford it in most cases and not people who can’t. Casinos prey on the poor and those least able to afford it is a bunch of nonsense. Beyond that, those so called statistics were drawn from those who visit casinos and use player rewards cards. Those statistics never factor in the hundreds of millions of casual visits to the casino of patrons that never even use a player card.
Study after study shows that only 1% -1.6 % can be classified as problem gamblers and the Harvard Medical School Of Addictions and numerous other research bears that out. We continue to see outrageous claims from casino opponents that the percentage of pathological gamblers is over 10% and that well over 50% of revenues (and some claiming much more ) all comes from addicted problem and pathological gamblers. It is so ridiculous that no rational person with even cursory investigation into the issue could believe such hysterical tripe. Even the most anti-gambling slanted of supposed independent studies – not produced by the utterly hysterical Grinols, Kindt, ect.. crowd – put only between 5% – 10% of casino revenues coming from addicted patrons and gamblers.
Then there are the outrageous claims of other social ills — like crime, bankruptcy, ect… rising dramatically with the introduction of casino type facilities. None of the anti-casino hyperbole matches the facts on the ground and the real research. In community after community, nearly every community leader along with police departments across the country agree that there is NO SIGNIFICANT RISE IN CRIME with the introduction of casinos. It has been proven over and over and over by statements from community leaders that a casino brings no more crime than a new mall, a shopping center, or any kind of entertainment venue other than a casino. The claims of rising personal bankruptcies attributed solely to casinos has been proven false over and over again by studies including the U.S. Treasury and multiple other studies that claim the same.
There is also ZERO independent research that claims that a loss of home values can be attributed solely to the siting of a casino type facility. The reality is that almost every single study conducted on home values claims that the siting of a casino has either no effect positive or negative and in many cases home values have risen in areas and communities that have sited a casino. The argument that casinos cannibalize existing entertainment venues and other businesses has also been proven to be emphatically false in study after study after study. Over 90 percent of areas that site a casino report no such cannibalization of other businesses – large or small – and the exact opposite is true in many examples. The casino has brought about growth in other businesses that were doing worse before the casinos came on board.
Then we have claims that the bankruptcy of a handful of casinos across the country is somehow indicative or an indictment on a whole industry or the well over a 1000 that exist in 40 states. As if there is no other industry that doesn’t have closings of some outlets. It is always bad when a business goes bust and people are put out of work. To single out one industry for such closings and layoffs as some kind of argument to ban something is the utmost of hypocrisy. Every day you hear of supposed industries that “we cannot do without” laying off thousands of workers. It’s certainly not casino specific.
The bottom line is this. Neither you or the staunchest of casino opponents have made any case that deals in facts or realities except offering your opinions that casinos – as a single corporate entity out of thousands – are bad as a stone cold fact and then claiming that those who disagree with that stance are not to be taken seriously. I don’t blame Grossman or Coakley for not getting involved in such nonsense. Berwick has some decent ideas, but he is wrong on this and buys into the propaganda. Trying to debate the issue with people who buy the propaganda of the anti-casino movement as fact has no value whatsoever. for Coakley or Grossman. There is nothing to be gained but giving more publicity to the absurdities and misinformation of a anti-casino movement that thrives on fear mongering to the populace. This law was not shoved downed people’s throat as casino opponents would claim. It has been years in the making with input from all camps including casino opponents. To claim otherwise is an outright lie.
For over three decades the citizens of Massachusetts favored casino or racino type facilities by over a 2-1 margin in nearly every poll taken in those years. It was stonewalled by anti-casino forces in the legislature. Whether that has changed or not will be decided in November. There is no case to be made that this law was just suddenly foisted upon the people with no debate or reasoning.
It is one thing to oppose gambling on moral grounds. That is an argument in which all gambling must be declared immoral. There is no call for ending the lottery, keno, ect… that exists in every corner of the state, so that argument carries no weight. Beyond that, prohibition of such things, on such grounds, has never worked as evidenced by the Prohibition on alcohol years ago. It simply drives the activity underground and makes things much worse as people will continue to drink and they will continue to gamble.
With that said, there’s no valid case to be made for repeal of this law as many workers will be hurt, and thousands of potential jobs will be destroyed. Within the context of Capitalism, that Don Berwick doesn’t understand that is sad.
you did not appear to be a shill for the casino industry.
You can quote all the statistics you want, but if you give the impression that you are working directly for the casino industry, then it pretty much negates all of your arguments, whether or not they are valid.
if the grammar and punctuation were better. It’s quite bothersome from a personal perspective. I would think the casino industry would want a more well spoken representative with much better grammar. Alas, I have a right to an opinion on this issue and many others despite the poor grammar and structure of my postings and comments. The thoughts and rationales are still clear, despite the poor grammar and punctuation. You would do well to address the critiques against the anti-casino movement rather than attack the messenger as a shill of the casino industry. I can assure you, I have been completely short changed monetarily if that was the case. Of course, I have long suspected paid posters of propaganda among the anti-casino movement so, it does work both ways in the accusations department.
I think many casino opponents are unable to deal with a different opinion on the issue, especially when confronted with examples and real statistics that they are unable to counter. The anti-casino arguments in most instances are based on raw emotion, fear driven, and in many cases, rank hypocrisy at it’s worst. The majority of the anti-casino arguments rest on a foundation of straw and ring quite hollow to most rational people.
No party,
Your comment reads like the talking points of a Casino industry lobbyist and if they were true, Berwick’s opponents would not shy away from the debate.
You’ve got to know when to hold ’em
Know when to fold ’em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run
You never count your money
When you’re sittin’ at the table
There’ll be time enough for countin’
When the dealin’s done
People are not as dumb as casino opponents think and don’t need surrogates to guide them on the issue of whether to gamble or not. The simply need to know their odds before doing so. Let’s talk addiction and this is the lesson for the day. That being said, and as an advocate for casinos for jobs, revenues, and help to communities that voted yes, I think it’s important that people actually know what there getting into when gambling. Those of us who want the casinos and those who don’t – rarely do we talk about odds besides the anti-casino peeps calling everybody stupid and bad at math. I don’t think it’s a case of either in most cases. Some people know the odds and just don’t care. Most don’t have a clue because they never even take the minimal time to study the odds of the various games before putting money down.
Scratch tickets, keno, and the lottery in all forms is the biggest suckers bet known to man and I think most people realize that. Much much worse than any casino game. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out and I think most people realize that and play accordingly. Of course there are always those who will fall into the suckers trap and overdo it by chasing a big score that will never come for the vast majority of players.
Beyond that, there is an inherent problem with those who would advocate against casinos and think the lottery is just peachy. There is no really no entertainment value whatsoever in regards to lotteries. It is one large vacuum cleaner with a hose into the pockets of the general public with little entertainment value.
Casinos offer much more than gambling and I doubt that any anti-casino opponent would dispute that fact. Hell, for the price of a couple of $30 scratch tickets one can easily have a frugal day of entertainment at a casino by playing bingo for a few hours, betting a few dollars on the ponies in the casino race book, having a cheap all you can eat buffet, browsing the stores and other attractions for that same $60 and get some entertainment value out of it.
For half the price of a $30 scratch ticket people can pick up a book and get their odds on beating any casino game in the house. People really should know their chances before setting foot inside a casino if they are going to gamble for anything more than minimum discretionary entertainment value. It’s really not a matter of people being stupid as anti-casino opponents claim. It’s just a matter of failure to study – even at a cursory glance – what the odds of the various games actually are before people decide to play. It is statistically impossible to beat any casino game in the long run except for poker where one is not playing against the house but against other players. People should definitely understand that – whether they have a small amount to play or a larger amount to play – if they are going to partake in the gambling side of casino entertainment.
It is somewhat amazing that there are people out there who think they have systems to beat the casinos in games like roulette or craps. It is statistically impossible in the long run to beat those games. The only games that can be beaten in the long run are poker and horse racing because they involve much more skill. Even at that, one has to put in many hours of study to become a good poker player or a profitable horse player.
To sum it up, slots are the worst gamble in the casino followed by roulette, craps, baccarat, and blackjack in that order. Blackjack offers the best chance of cutting the house edge down to very little but that’s with hours of practice and perfect basic strategy. Card counting puts the edge in the players favor but you will be quickly banned from the casino for life if caught doing it. Video poker offers good value but that also entails finding the right machines and hours of practice to get the perfect strategy down to cut the house edge to the bare minimum.
I think that needed to be said. People really need to know what they are getting into before setting foot inside a casino to gamble. And again, the price of a book for $10 or $15 will give anyone the information they need to have an enjoyable experience without expecting too much.
Most people go to a casino without a care in the world and what they can afford to lose and expect that outcome. That’s fine, but people should at least be aware of their best chances to win while enjoying a day or night of gaming. It’s when people have zero or very little knowledge of the fact that casino games can never be beaten in the long run that they get themselves in deep chasing their losses thinking they can get even. It rarely happens. And it has nothing to do with people being stupid or bad at math. Bottom line is nobody is required to set foot in a casino or racetrack. If they do and intend to gamble they should know there odds which are not good in most cases. Treating it as entertainment rather than expectation of getting lucky and winning big is what most people do. That doesn’t mean people can’t win. It means they can’t win in the long run except at poker of course. Poker is an honest trade Ispinti 🙂
Happy now Ispinti ? I hope that resolves any issue about where I stand.
Nopartyaffiliation,
Yes you have made it clear where you stand, but the question remains whose interest are you representing. It would appear to be the Casino industry.
Yes, the casino industry would want a better advocate than you have been, but grammar/punctuation aside, you still *do* appear to be a shill for the casino industry. Whether you have a financial interest in the matter or are merely obsessed with the topic (you have commented on nothing else as far as I can tell), doesn’t much matter.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but the way you have chosen to voice it will automatically make people distrust you. Posting extremely long comments full of uncited statistics isn’t actually going to win you any arguments. And insulting people who have have established credibility on this site is likewise not a good way to win arguments.
It is too bad that you fail to understand this. Until you do, you should not be surprised that your rants fail to have any impact.
It is you who miss the point. You have not answered to one thing I’ve posted, but instead have chosen to attack the way I post as a shill. Noting surprising there, it is the anti-casino playbook in full glory. But please do continue to fail to critique what I’ve posted and instead make it about your personal feelings towards the messenger rather than address the message.
As to your comments about “uncited statistics”, that is quite amusing seeing that’s about all casino opponents have to offer. Rachel Volberg herself, who is doing research for the state on this issue, and who is hardly a casino advocate, had this say when speaking of Grinol’s work on social costs— ” The numbers have acquired a reality that I do not believe it merits … it is not based on actual data on the costs of pathological gambling in any reliable sense … I wouldn’t stand up in a peer-reviewed panel and try to defend this approach.”
And believe me hrs-kevin, “my rants” have a lot more impact than you care to admit. The majority of people do not agree with the anti-casino stance and you will find that out in November. This is way past Nimby arguments which caused the vote to go no in some specific communities. This is now about infringing on the choices of people to chose to take part in entertainment facilities that already exist in 40 states. You will not convince many that they should accept that infringement in the overall picture especially with other forms of gambling existing in every corner of the state.
does that make hrs kevin a jedi or something?
What a bizarre comment.
… you can go about your business…
… move along…
I see lots of insults, blather, accusations of industry shills, move along, and the like, but no constructive responses to prove what you offer up as fact. Very easy to debate in a bubble when your limited audience agrees with you. Gets tough for you when you leave your comfort zone and have to actually back up what your offering up as facts on this issue. You got nothing.
Yes. Exactly.
That’s exactly what the benefit of casinos are… Nothing. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Bupkis. The buffalo shit on the nickel. Zero.
I’m now more convince than ever that you are being paid to believe the opposite.
You’ve seen lots of insults….
are they the ones you’ve written?
Oh, yes, you’re just a ray of sunshine dishing out compliments left and right.
/snark off
Spare us your worry about insults and blathering. You’re the one who’s come here to disparage and insult anyone with an opposing view.
We can do without an industry stooge to add to the ranks of our BMG trollcave — and, given your tantrums, you fare even worse than they in the light.
casino opponents should take a look in the mirror. They post at the Globe daily. Any dissenters will be swarmed with vitriol and personal attacks. Your side created those tactics, why can’t you own them.
Casino opponents created the “tactics” of rude comments on the internet?
You must not get out very much.
I should have scrolled down more
..
I am not really trying to counter your arguments. Others are doing that. I am merely pointing out why you are having such a hard time convincing anyone here of anything. It is pretty clear that you feel a very strong vested interest in the outcome. The fact is that people who suddenly appear on a web site with a strong single issue agenda make themselves suspicious.
You could have made your points a thousand times more effectively if you understood how people perceive you and how that affects their assessment of what you say.
Like it or not you now have to wear the clothes you have made for yourself here.
here of anything. There is a rock like denseness to the arguments of casino opponents that is impenetrable. However, why should this blog offer only one side of this issue and have readers and lurkers take that as fact ? Do you call that democracy ?
What you are talking about is what used to be called the “fairness doctrine” and has zero to with “democracy”. It is no different than the whiny asses who think that a TV show like Cosmos, has to offer equal time to “Intelligent Design” nuts and “Climate Change Deniers”. Get over yourself.
And “Boom Goes the Dynamite!”
“But the arrival of casinos has not fixed the deep-seated social problems plaguing a city where nearly 30% of residents live below the poverty line. Unemployment remains high, at nearly 18% last year. Gangs roam in low-income neighborhoods, and the crime rate in 2011 was 107.2 incident per 1,000 residents, compared with 39.3 for Atlantic County.”
So nopolitician, the proposed casino in Springfield, is that in a thriving community or is it dilapidated? Why Springfield? Why Revere?
The rest of your argument boils down to free will and I get that, I’m a Libertarian at heart. So prostitution, should that be legal? Cocaine and LSD, all legal b/c people “do it anyways”?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/11/atlantic-city-casinos-money-squandered/2412791/
Far, far, far away from right wing Libertarianism politically, although the bottom line on this is very simple. Nobody is required to set foot in a casino, a racetrack, or partake of that type of entertainment venue.
As for Atlantic City, it doesn’t apply. Nobody is talking about shoving 12 casinos into a town with 39,000 people. The comparisons are ridiculous Dan. Beyond that, Atlantic City had very serious problems long before the casinos entered the picture. One business entity can’t be blamed for failure to fix all that ails a community. Obviously Atlantic City is a very different situation.
Recently, I took a few trips to the Plainridge Racecourse and rapid construction continues there. That is a medium sized Racino type facility being built by Penn National, integrating Harness Racing with a gambling area, along with a few new restaurants and dining options along with a large Flutie Sports Bar and a few other entertainment options. The whole complex is hardly noticeable being set off of Route 495 and Route 1 and is not all that big. It’s smaller than a shopping center for gods sake. The Super Target store across the road has double the projected traffic trips as the new Racino facility being built.
The hysterics coming from the anti-casino groups in Foxboro and Plainville are utterly laughable and a running joke in the area. They are a complete laughingstock in the area and the surrounding areas. This facility will do NOTHING to negatively affect anything in the Golden Triangle of the Route 1 area. It is simply an entertainment option added to a surrounding area with tons of other businesses. The people in Plainville voted almost 80 percent for expansion of the Racetrack into this new facility. There is absolutely NOTHING that would compare this facility to Atlantic City in any way, shape, or form. Hundreds of jobs involved in the Harness Racing and the jobs of those who work at track will be gone if this law gets repealed along with the potential of several hundred new ones at the facility.
Beyond that, you say why Revere, Everett, or Springfield ? Because they voted yes. Everett was not Wynn’s first choice, Foxboro at Patriot Place up the road from Plainridge was, but they drove him out of the area without a vote. Suffolk Downs was always a site that was recognized as a location for a casino. Because Eastie voted no, that means that Revere is being taken advantage of ? Ridiculous. Springfield voted yes and Palmer voted no , so it ended up in Springfield. Who is anybody to decide what’s best for Springfield, Everett, or Revere if they don’t reside there ? Not my choices. I think Taunton off of Route 495 is the best location if the tribe gets their land. I thought Milford was a great location. The people in Milford didn’t want it and voted no. That’s how it goes.
These are not enormous 2-4 billion dollar casinos being planned. These are facilities much smaller than Foxwoods or the mega-casino resort model that are having trouble in the United States right now. There is more than enough market share to support these facilities and that is a fact. Jesus, I do sound like a Wall Street pimp 🙂
Bottom line Dan. I support these facilities for the jobs, I support the trades unions, there is also opportunities for organization of hospitality workers, and other unions at these facilities. Thousands of jobs that will take the strain off of the unemployment rolls, provide some opportunities for a lot of blue collar and some white collar people who are struggling desperately to even find regular part time work that isn’t of the temp variety. Why Springfield, Everett, Revere ? Because the people their want the jobs and the added revenues.
Will they save Springfield from all that ails that area ? I don’t know and probably not, but it certainly isn’t going to hurt. People always mention Detroit as if the casinos caused what happened in Detroit. Detroit was decimated by the near-collapse of the auto industry. If they did not have the casinos which employ thousands of workers, times would be that much tougher for a lot of people.
Are casinos the way forward ? No, I don’t believe so. But then, I don’t believe Capitalism is the best way forward either. But under the circumstances, how does singling out one business entity help that outlook. Under the current circumstances, the workers and jobs are the priority. Casinos do not pollute the environment, casinos do not outsource jobs, casinos are of minimal concern in the overall picture in the current state of capitalist society. So there you have it. Call me a Commie with a penchant for casinos 🙂
From what you said, these will be small facilities in some remote area with no negative impact on other businesses. Perhaps the race track in Plainville would fit this description, but not the other two sites being proposed.
I mention Atlantic City b/c the promises made by politicians and casino owners back the the 70’s have not come true, still half the people living in that area are on welfare of some sort and a magnet for prostitutes and drug dealers.
If one builds in a urban area like Springfield or Revere, the typical players who visit such a place will tend to live near the casino itself, visiting it multiple times a week. Casinos tend to operate inward, meaning once a visitor enters the facility, all focus and attention remains inside the casino in attempt to have the patron spend all of his/her money at the casino (slots, restaurant, entertainment, etc). Even if a convention is taking place in Boston, do you want these business people to spend their monies at a casino (one location) or at potentially multiple businesses in and around Boston?
As for social ills, “In his 2004 book “Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits,” Baylor University economist Earl Grinols totaled the added costs that cities must pay in increased crime, bankruptcies, lost productivity and diminished social capital once they introduce casinos to their economic mix. He found that casino gambling generates roughly $166 in social costs for every $54 of economic benefit. Based on this, he estimates that the “costs of problem and pathological gambling are comparable to the value of the lost output of an additional recession in the economy every four years.”
“The typical customer of an urban casino is neither a tourist nor a deep-pocketed whale, but a local of modest means. Dave Jonas, president of Philadelphia’s Parx Casino, told the Pennsylvania Gaming Congress in 2010 that his typical customer spends $25 or $30 dollars a visit — and many of them return three, four and five times a week.
Much of the tax revenue produced by gambling comes out of their pockets. A “tax on ignorance” is what Warren Buffett once called it.
“I find it socially revolting when a government preys on the weakness of its citizenry rather than serving them,” he added.
So all you union workers pushing for casinos b/c of the temp construction jobs, you are equally guilty in preying on the weakest of society….
http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/gambling-cities-article-1.1206079
http://thegazette.com/2012/12/29/gambling-away-our-cities/
It’s pure rubbish with no factual basis in reality and it has been destroyed by his own intellectual peers. That’s a fact. I posted that here and it was deleted. People can find it if they so chose. I have no problem with Grinols religious beliefs. He is an Christian Evangelical economist who makes no secret of the fact that he thinks all economic development should be viewed through that lens. Same way with Jonn Kindt, James Dobson, Kris Kris Mineau, ect… That’s a pretty hard thing to be pushing in these times Dan. Not going to sit here and criticize what people believe, but that’s religion and has no place in economic decisions.
Some of that crew actually advocates stopping people from playing a game of poker on the internet from the privacy of their own home. You can’t get any more Zealot than that. The majority of people are tired of such nonsense.
Further, to use the twisted and debunked statistics they use to advance their moral agenda on this issue is pathetic and wrong. I assume you lean a bit more to the Right on some issues than the Progressives here but the fact that Progressives would buy into the garbage that Grinols and Kindt are selling and presenting it as fact to the public is so stunning that it’s beyond all words.
Nothing too big like Vegas, nothing too small that won’t attract too few patrons since we have Foxwoods and Mohegan in CT, but something that is just right where the host and surrounding communities saw unemployment drop, crime stayed the same or went down, existing businesses survived (not thrived, just remained open) and revenues to the state and host towns increased an they were projected by the casino supporters and their politicians.
Thanks for the respectful dialogue, I embrace different opinions and I’m always open to changing my mind.
remember that almost all the “research” favoring casinos is funded by the other side — case in point, one of the biggest Ma cheerleaders, Clyde Barrow. He’s been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to go up and down the New England and the Northeast to count license plates.
His annual study of how much Massachusetts “loses” to Connecticut is based on a 3 day license plate count every year on President’s Day Weekend — when Massachusetts residents have a three day weekend and are far more likely to travel around the region.
Very little independent well-funded research has been done on casinos in America because only the industry has the means to pay for them — and states are loath to pay for them, in case the casino proposals they push through ends up being not such a great deal. Massachusetts never had an independent cost-benefit analysis done on casinos — not once, never, not even before the bill passed.
Amendments to have a cost-benefit analysis done were in fact rejected — and no hearings were allowed on the bill.
If the industry thought casinos were such a good bet, you can bet your bottom dollar that there would have been a cost-benefit analysis done and there would have been hearings on the bill that was pushed through.
Some years ago, when casinos were first proposed, the ‘model’ was of ‘destination tourism’: a more or less contained space wherein people from all over would travel (think Las Vegas or Monte Carlo) and spend their vacation time in a nice hotel, some gambling and some, more-or-less, traditional ‘entertainment’ (with possibilities ranging from a nightclub act, — be it comedian, singer or magician — to a sojourn to a local brothel.) There was an exotic, once in a blue moon, ‘what happens in vegas stays in vegas’ vibe to the whole thing. People could plan and, to some extent, contain their enthusiasms to a specific time and place. Why else travel to Connecticut, if not to ‘cut loose’ at a place that is distinct, and separate, from the place you inhabit daily? Las Vegas has built an entire city on being able to fly in, do your hedonistic worst and fly out. That’s the cachet. That’s the draw. That’s why Las Vegas, a huge reckless sprawl in the middle of the desert is successful, at all.
And that’s not a new thing. Horse racing was once called ‘The Sport of Kings” and held a similarly vaunted place in the imagination of luxury: People would dress up and make a summer day of it; the royalty for the fun; the gentry for the idleness; the lower classes for the imitation of gentry it would, however temporarily, give them. But it’s no mistake that Suffolk Downs is trying to rid itself of “The Sport of Kings” in favor of the perceived cachet from ‘destination tourism’. Everything old is, indeed, new again…
That exoticist vibe for any CommonWealth casino is completely missing. Casinos are ubiquitous. It’s, now, just another form of ‘entertainment’. And the notion of who “loses’ to Connecticut is made moot by an increasing reliance on local gamblers and not the destination gambler… all in the context of a purpose built destination casino… Which makes either the casinos themselves, or the ginormous hotels attached to them, potentially very large, very white, elephants… The only person who’s going to make more money than Las Vegas is the guy who puts a casino between here and Las Vegas, only somebody’s already planning to put a casino between that casino and here… and somebody else is planning on putting another casino betwixt that one and here… and so on until there is one right outside my door and the distance between my planned debauchery and the space I inhabit daily thins out until the choice between debauchery and daily living is always before me. This we call ‘entertainment’…
Penn National runs 21 Racinos across the country and nearly all are doing fine. I expect the same at Plainridge Racecourse. Mohegan Sun Pocono Downs runs a great facility in Pennsylvania and expect the same if Suffolk gets the license. Wynn properties all do well, That goes without saying. MGM runs top notch facilities.
“Casinos are directly linked to many positive impacts: They have created more than 12,700 jobs statewide, including more than 4,460 for table games; reduced property taxes; generated money for community projects; and spurred economic development. They serve as a tourist and entertainment destination, increasing traffic that benefits nearby businesses.
Casinos also caused negative ripple effects, such as bankruptcies, divorces and mental health problems, according to critics and statistics from the Council on Compulsive Gambling of Pennsylvania. The more money people spend at casinos also leaves less discretionary income for other business, critics argue.”
http://m.thetimes-tribune.com/news/area-casinos-creating-dramatic-ripple-effects-in-local-economy-problems-1.996478
This article is from 2010 during the height of the recession too.
Is a temporary boost. That is fact. The construction phase is the only phase that is true economic development with goods, services and labor creating a product that boosts the regional economy. As the Exec Director of Parx casino in PA stated they cater to, “local low rollers.”
Governor Patrick should have had the stones to pull-out when the data came forth that the markets were becoming saturated, online gambling was proliferating and the generation of bricks and mortar mega-casinos has gotten closer and closer to being a memory.
industry-funded “research” to show us?
Also, cigarette smoking is very healthy and getting healthier every year, say these important medical research documents from independent researchers Phillip and Morris.
Meanwhile, in the real world, cities are being destroyed by casinos, a dying industry attaching itself wherever it can:
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/216044/moodys-downgrades-u-s-gaming-industry/
Can we do better in Massachusetts? We already have. Let’s continue to invest in industries that bring out our best, not prey on our residents and send billions of dollars to Las Vegas. Let’s not ruin that hard work we’ve already done preparing for the economy of the future.
no matter how much you wish it to be so. I’m willing to venture… the research I’ve done on this issue far surpasses that – of those like yourself – who attempt to make definitive statements based on mere emotion and fear that rely on completely debunked nonsense of a small sect of anti-casino researchers like Grinols ect… The majority of what I post on this issue are facts on the ground from real people in real communities that have a casino. The vast majority of community leaders ( Mayors, Police, Fire, ect- well over 85 percent in fact – completely disagree with your mere opinion on the matter that these facilities cause the harm you claim as fact.
Facts on the ground matter. For instance, if 9 out of 10 communities and community leaders show without a shadow of a doubt that crime has not risen by any appreciable measure due to a casino type facility, that tends to be fact. You will not dispute it as “industry funded research.” The overall picture shows the anti-casino movement is, not only wrong, but also quite deceitful in their claims after having been proven wrong time and time again.
And, there is no “we” that you speak of, that are doing “so much better” in Massachusetts. Many are not doing better AT ALL. And many will be doing much worse if this law is repealed and their jobs are gone. The cognitive dissonance displayed is stunning by people who claim to care about such matters.
If you’re looking for facts, there are plenty of links to click below. I’m reposting this from another thread, but the bottom line is that the preponderance of current evidence points to Casinos as a losing proposition for States. How can MA realistically expect to derive the expected windfall of tax revenue from a rapidly imploding Casino Industry?
Beyond the compelling moral argument against introducing casinos in MA, there is an even more compelling fiscal argument.
Economists have long known that there’s casino saturation in the US, especially severe in the Northeast, so why are some Massachusetts politicians so eager to introduce casinos now? The news is so bad, and the returns that other states hoped to reap are diminishing so quickly, that it’s hard to imagine anyone making a cogent argument for a State to get into the casino business now.
Moody’s has just downgraded the outlook for the national gambling industry to negative, but in the Northeast the news is even worse. Delaware’s been hit with a preciptious decline in revenues from casinos, impending casino layoffs and now a $10 million dollar casino bailout! Foxwoods is $2.3 Billion in debt and is counting on a new outlet mall for its salvation. Atlantic City is facing a wave of casino closings and bankruptcies. Gaming revenue in New Jersey has fallen 42 percent since 2007, annual revenues are down by over $2.5 billion and it’s not just the casinos that suffer, but State programs large & small that counted on their tax revenue:
How can some Gubernatorial candidates say (with a straight face) that they’re being “realistic” when they propose that we depend on Casinos for new revenue to fund vital programs in Massachusetts? Looking at the evidence, that’s a ridiculous bet to make.
..
You have no idea how much research I have done on casinos, I suspect you heavily underestimate it. Two things:
1) Quality over quantity matters in research.
If you are reading Gaming Association press releases for your sole research, you aren’t really learning anything. I have heard your same arguments over and over again — JOBSJOBSJOBS — that never look outside the actual casino building at the community around. I realize it’s hard to quantify which businesses were closed because casinos came to town, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. The independent research and statistics (not the Clyde Barrows of the world) all point to the same uncomfortable truth legislatures and casino industry backers don’t want to hear: casinos drain economies and replace local businesses.
2) Common sense economics
Where does money from casinos come from and where does it go? It comes from our residents and it goes to casino owners. They kickback a bit to a hungry legislature, but the profit — billions of dollars over decades — leaves the local economy. This is a fact that state governments are willing to overlook at the expense of their actual population. They overlook it because they get to spend some of it themselves. Shifting money from residents to out of state casino owners and the legislature isn’t good economic sense, its a bankrupt path thats been tried and failed all across the country.
NoParty.
Perserverating proclamations
with no proof, and charming characterizations of casino opponents as a pack of preachy overemotional battle-axes.
Actually, the leaders of both Foxboro and Plainville anti-casino groups are articulare, intelligent people who have done their research and put in a hearculan effort trying to keep the gambling industry out of their respective towns. Just because some people laugh at those engaged in David vs. Goliath efforts (and they do) does not make that effort laughable. Mahatma Gandhi said it best, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
I’ll say.
Raw emotion: Moody’s just downgraded the U.S. gambling industry from ‘stable’ to ‘negative’, citing
Fear driven: Market saturation & declining revenue
Rank hypocrisy: Weren’t casinos supposed to be bailing us out?
BTW, the measure was supposed to help save jobs, but the legislature failed to extract a promise from the casinos not to cut the work force.
Well, having had my life threatened by a casino proponent, I can assure you that passion isn’t confined to just one side of the issue.
Here is a link to a short video of Dr. Hans Brieter of Harvard and Mass General (he studies brains) and Dr. Natasha Schull of MIT testifying before the Mass. Legislature, fleshing out those revenue percentages. As you can see, Dr. Schull is clearly irrational. She was probably on her period.
…A single corporate entity whose by product is addiction – combined with a troubling governmental dependency on tax revenue that would kick in just as the regional casino market is reaching saturation, facing declining revenues and receiving taxpayer bailouts…
It wasn’t my side that brought the axe to the discussion.
So, for 30 years the legislature debated expanded gambling and said no? Well, that’s quite the fluke. No sudden foisting of laws to see here folks.
Your insistence that the collective arguments of casino opponents are an imaginary fluff bubble of hyped-up hyperbole is absurd. Casinos aren’t shelling out multi-million dollar mitigation packages to host and surrounding communities out of the goodness of their hearts. That money is to combat some of the the negative effects a casino will bring – to those cities and towns anyway. The rest are out of luck.
Question 3 didn’t get on the ballot because everybody is fine with the idea of embracing the gambling industry.
And for the record, opposition to gambling is not new. Throughout U.S. history gambling has been alternatively accepted and outlawed. Now why would that be?
Ah yes, the ‘political control by gaming interests’, which I’ve witnessed in all it’s grotesque glory from local boards to Beacon Hill, makes it among the top reasons to stop casinos from gaining a permanent hold here in Massachusetts.
Actually, Les Bernal is a friend, and I can tell you one thing with certainty, that when he does debate on this issue he is mature, restrained and professional enough not to characterize his opponents as hysterical, irrational and fear driven. If you’re looking for a counterpart to Beck or Hannity, try the mirror.
I know your work. It’s worse fear-mongering and debunked nonsense than that which is produced by your side kick Middleboro Remembers or is the same ? It usually is. You’ve come to the wrong pew and are barking up the wrong tree with your protestations and debunked nonsense. The only thing new in your screed is the Moody’s outlook which is something that happens daily to hundreds of industries. Those adjustments are meaningless in a broad context. But do tell how the anti-casino crowd just waits for such stimulating tidbits to advance their “cause.” In this case the “cause” is destroying current jobs and workers. How noble.
Others, I will attempt to debate with. The nonsense you spew as facts, I will not even acknowledge as credible in any way. You are deeply embedded in this cause and have been for years. The tactics that you and your posse employ are beyond redemption and not worthy of consideration.
There are over a 1000 casinos in 40 states and the vast majority are producing revenues and jobs and you WILL NOT get around that fact no matter how much you protest otherwise. What’s it been 10 years or more you been trying to make the same case in multiple incarnations ?
Methinks you doth protest too much.
As for “over a 1,000 in 40 states,” this here says different: 464 in 2012.
there are close to 400 tribal casinos run by federally recognized Indian Tribes like Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. Then there are the legalized card rooms at many of the racetracks that don’t offer slots. Add in charitable gaming facilities and there is well over 1500 such facilities.
So aren’t we approaching the Law of Diminishing Returns here?
people who go to the casinos are already going to Rhode Island and CT in large numbers. Keeping that revenue here is only logical and the jobs are not an illusion by any means.
So there.
(Seriously, I do hear about casino layoffs and declining revenues … there are limits.)
in many industries. It’s not casino specific by any means. Nowhere does anyone address that in these casino debates but instead they chose to single out one industry as evil.
Everyone pretty much acknowledges that casinos are toxic, so if we’re going to build them, they have to be a better option than other industries. If they’re no better economically than other industries, then there is literally no reason to have them.
How is that possible jim when over 1000 exist in 40 states and not once has one every been repealed in referendum ?
That’s the acknowledgement. I’m also not sure those 40 states have all had referenda.
In another post here, days or weeks ago. You’ve raised this argument here before, in almost the same words, and it’s been answered before, fairly comprehensively. Pretending that it wasn’t, and repeating the same talking point as though no one had ever engaged with it at all, is disingenuous in the extreme.
It doesn’t even serve your interests, since it makes it very, very hard to take you seriously. (As does another of your comments to this post, where you dismiss an editorial against casinos as not constituting actual research — which would have been a fair point, if you hadn’t cited an editorial in a gaming trade magazine as perfectly sound evidence for your own position only a few days ago.)
I’m not going to repeat the entire previous conversation and analysis here. Instead, I’m going to follow the excellent advice of HeartlandDem and rcmauro and back off from this conversation. But I felt a certain obligation not to let the repetition of the talking point, and the failure to acknowledge any previous discussion that might have punched inconvenient holes in it, pass unremarked.
so far I’ve seen nothing from the anti-casino side besides a lot of talking and opinion with ZERO to back it up along with a steady stream of accusations of trolling and other assorted dodges of the issues. Opinions vary. Facts on the ground matter.
Please produce the independent evidence of dramatic increases in crime, bankruptcy, addiction, suicides, prostitution, ect. Please produce the evidence of cannibalization of local economies and businesses. Please produce the evidence of dramatic decrease in home values attributable to casinos. Please produce the evidence that a handful of casinos going out of business is the death knell of the whole industry. Please produce the evidence that Massachusetts cannot support the four facilities being proposed. Please produce any solid, concrete evidence and bring it to the table so the merits of such claims can be examined. And please produce facts and evidence that the claims of the anti-casino movement are happening in the majority of communities that site these facilities.
So far, I haven’t seen that here or anywhere else and many agree that the anti-casino claims are based on a foundation of straw. It’s very simple. Prove the case against casinos with solid evidence and facts that the things you claim are happening in the majority of host communities that site a casino.
Do you really think that you could go on with this crusade here or elsewhere with nobody challenging those views ? Good night and please do back up your case with more than opinion. Opinion is cheap on both sides. FACTS ON THE GROUND MATTER.
Use of all caps.
Do continue…
I don’t think trolling “means what you think it means”… how droll of you to be so well versed in internet quips most often used by those with no valid arguments to make.
Was it this one?
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2014/06/support-for-casino-gambling-has-taken-a-huge-dive-in-just-a-short-time/
Seems to me that the economy has been improving, albeit slowly, particularly in the northeast, and with it has come slow improvement in employment. Declining figures in a generally slowly-rising market is NOT a good sign.
It seems to me that these things will be sold on the temporary construction jobs, and the promise of All That Tax Revenue– but once the construction stops, the jobs will be largely confined to the low-wage hospitality sector variety. Low-wage, but a lot of individual jobs.
All That Tax Revenue will be nice until the novelty wears off, and then the new place will be left with the same population of “regulars” and occasionals that Foxwoods once gorged on, but must now share with the ever-increasing number of these things popping up everywhere– which is why Foxwoods is now having trouble paying the mortgage.
Eventually, when the casinos have trouble, like Foxwoods and others, paying their own debts, because, gee the projections that we made up didn’t figure that every other state is building these things too and that there would be all of this dang competition, the casinos will ask for a break from paying All That Tax Revenue, under threat of eliminating all of those low wage jobs.
Then the government will cave, because we have to save those jobs,just like Delaware just did, and will bail the thing out.
So, on the whole, it certainly seems to me like
1.) there will be a temporary surge of great jobs related to construction and opening;
2.) there will be a lot of low-wage hospitality sector jobs;
3.) the boost in tax revenue will be ephemeral, non-existent; and
4.) there will still exist the various societal costs well-documented elsewhere, but the tax revenue to address such costs will have to come from somewhere else.
That doesn’t seem like a good deal to me.
The casinos will ultimately fold, and Revere will look just like it does now but with an empty and crumbling casino instead of an empty and crumbling race track.
CMDs item 4 is crucial, and that will end up being the gift that keeps on giving.
debate?
Unlike you, I provided context and links in my post. As the forum requests, I am attempting to contribute bold, witty, incisive and substantive commentary.
And no, I am not Middleboro remembers, nor do I practice multiple incarnations. And frankly I couldn’t care less if you acknowledge me or not.
As for fear-mongering and debunked nonsense? When the public was repeatedly told a tribal casino was inevitable, that it would be built w/in 18 months of the vote, I was one of the first to provide factual information about federal Indian policy, the Carceiri ruling and the myth of inevitability. (With links.) But I suppose that, seven years later, the continued lack of a tribal casino is a a figment of my imagination.
The video link I provided was of two respected scientists testifying before a State House committee on an opposition panel. They have not been ‘debunked’. They were not spewing nonsense. They were discussing their research, not fear-mongering. You simply dismiss the facts you don’t like and insult the messengers.
Despite your tactics and divisive efforts to destroy that community and anyone who disagreed with your group, the people of Middleboro overwhelmingly voted yes in the referendum all those years ago.
As for your asking for links, I have provided several. They are awaiting moderation. I posted several in a thread a week ago and many were deleted as they were not welcome in the format presented. I’m not interested in sprinkling cherry picked links in post after post. I’m interested in bulk research with a point. I presented more than a dozen links that proves beyond a doubt that the arguments of increased crime are nonsense. For years we heard claims from your group and the Grinols crowd about outrageous spikes in crime around the CT casinos. That was smashed to ribbons in 2012 when the real facts came out. Crime dropped in nearly every town around the CT casinos since they opened. That is just one example.
You may go here and look at some of the information if you wish at the end of this thread at the Globe. As I said, you are barking up the wrong tree. I have facts on the ground to back up my claims on every single thing to refute the anti-casino arguments. The problem with casino opponents is they are unable to be challenged on their beliefs without resorting to attacks on the messenger.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/24/state-high-court-rule-casino-repeal-ballot-question/vULLFY7zoyIfqn4MezqVVI/story.html
and stop dismissing everyone else’s claims out of hand.
And really? What I and others put forth in Middleboro is beyond redemption? Seriously? A rushed vote that only got to a vote at all because of casino opposition? Lawyers telling the public that it was a done deal and that they had to vote for a casino or get one without mitigation? A new tribal gaming lawyer who worked both sides of the street and conveniently forgot to mention that there was a Supreme Court ruling in the mix. Silencing and intimidation of casino opponents by sitting selectmen? Opposition members forced to scramble ahead of the vote to get a non-binding question at town meeting: Do you really want a casino in town, to which voters resoundingly voted No. (According to the moderator, not me.) All of this not mentioned in most newspapers at the time, but definitely on my blog. And more…
Earlier I challenged you directly on several of your comments to this blog post – that the legislature did not foist the gambling law on Massachusetts, that addiction to revenue statistics cited by opponents are bogus, that the information provided by gambling opponents has been totally debunked, and that opponents are nothing more than overemotional hysterical irrational head cases.
I provided context and links to my rebuttals. You did not refute a single one, but did challenge me points I never put forth on this post.
You post a Globe link but I’m supposed to understand what the article means in the context of my comments to your post?
And then you have the audacity to concluded your statement with “the problem with casino opponents is they are unable to be challenged on their beliefs without resorting to attacks on the messenger”? For the second time today I find myself asking you to pick up a mirror.
I am unable to post in that form here due to David’s request I don’t do so. I’m really not all that interested in what you have to say gladys-kravitz. As I said, I’ve followed and researched this debate for years. I’ve seen the tactics. I’ve seen members of these anti-casino groups aligned with despicable anti-Indian organizations like CERA and others. The Plymouth faction of the anti-casino movement was up to their ears in CERA propaganda during that time. Casinofacts.org is one of the most despicable organizations that has ever been formed and their tactics are well known all over the net. Don’t make me have to rehash all that for you because you know there isn’t a defense or leg to stand on in such regards.
Now, what have you actually said here. You’ve offered up an article about a Moody’s outlook on the casino industry. Big deal. Do you plan on banning every industry with a forward negative outlook that changes like the wind. How ridiculous. And you offer that up as some profound evidence or fact as a gotcha. You offer up Les Bernal and the propaganda of various anti-casino organizations as indisputable facts to the general public. Are you kidding me. Produce the independent peer-reviewed research of your claims on every category of this issue.
You say the anti-casino group in Plainville and Foxboro are thoughtful and intelligent people. Maybe so. But they certainly haven’t covered themselves in honest debate or avoided rank hypocrisy. The anti-casino group leader in Foxboro was running around the state claiming that casino jobs are all minimum wage jobs that pay under 22,000 a year and distributing that as absolute fact. Then goes further and professes a “deep concern for such low wage jobs” and the people who work such jobs. Not only is that claim categorically false but the hypocrisy of such a claim id beyond redemption. The leader of that group is an executive vice president of Panera Bread. You know Panera Bread — “that bastion of high paying jobs.” Panera Bread with one of the worst wage systems recorded when it comes to competitive wages. Imao You can’t make stuff like that up in a comedy show.
You’ll have to do better Gladys-Kravitz if you want to convince the majority of the masses of your cause.
It appears to me gladys-kravitz is doing just fine.
It is, in fact, you who seem to be demonstrating that your comments here are not only incorrect about a great many things, but rude, abusive, insulting, boorish to boot.
how the citizens of Massachusetts who have no problem keeping the law and casinos like being referred to daily as sheep, losers, uneducated half-wits bad at math, and worse by casino opponents. Own it.
Falling on deaf ears, but hey, these are the types of posts that have their own life as reference.
This isn’t my field, but I devoted most of a day to researching this topic. However, I don’t want to debate with a troll and therefore this will be my last post in this thread. I offer the following points in support of this assertion.
(1) If you search various phrases from nopartyaffiliation’s posts, you go directly to pro-gambling blogs.
(2) Nopartyaffiliation does not seem to understand scientific research. If scholar A looks at a certain set of gambling sites from 1990 to 1998 and concludes that they contributed to crime, and scholar B looks at a different set of sites from 1995 to 2004 and doesn’t find that, it doesn’t mean that scholar B “refuted” scholar A or that scholar A is “hysterical.” It means that you have to look carefully at the premises and procedures of both studies and weigh the evidence.
(3) Nopartyaffiliation does not seem to understand that various industries have “house” journals devoted to promoting their point of view. If I see (these are hypothetical only) a study in the American Journal of Public Health with one conclusion, and six studies in the International Journal of Bets and Jackpots with another, I will have a hard time believing that the first study is thereby “refuted.”
(4) Nopartyaffiliation seems to think that scholarship is all about proving something “good” or “bad.” There is an activist version that can be, but most it it doesn’t have to be. For instance, a study could try to assess the economic impact of a casino within a range of parameters. It might conclude that the net economic effect is neutral, although there are obvious negative effects on crime and substance abuse, and although negative effects of another sort were not included in the study because they were too hard to measure. Nopartyaffiliation would cite this study as supporting gambling, although that would not be the intention of the authors at all.
Don’t believe what this person is selling, and don’t feed the troll.
Sentence 2 of point 4 should read
“There is an activist version that can be, but most OF it doesn’t have to be.”
what have you actually said here ? Nothing really. What is actually accomplished by writing in a certain style, with meaningless words strung together, to make ones thoughts seem more profound than the incoherence and vindictive emotion they actually represent ?
Facts on the ground matter. For years we heard the anti-casino movement and their researchers claiming dramatic increases in crime in towns near the CT casinos. Was it true ? No it wasn’t. Facts on the ground matter. Here is an example. These examples are true in the majority of locations. Hundreds of Police Departments across the country give the same results. Little if any measurable crime rise associated with these facilities.
http://www.masslive.com/talk/index.ssf/2012/02/crime_fell_around_connecticut.html
For many months now we have heard casino opponents claim that there is devastation in all communities that site a casino. Is it true ? No it isn’t. Facts on the ground matter. Here are two examples out of hundreds that tell a different narrative.
http://www.semissourian.com/story/1675845.html
http://www.toledofreepress.com/2012/11/29/casino-answers-critics-with-six-months-of-success/
Facts on the ground matter much more than biased studies by a small group of anti-casino researchers that are recycled and circulated into every prospective host community in the country considering these types of facilities. It’s no secret. Go to any community blog or newspaper in any community in the country considering a casino and the anti-casino arguments are all identical, put forth by anti-casino activists drawing off the same tired research of that small group of debunked researchers.
If I go to the first link, it doesn’t really say what you think it says — or even what its headline says.
Generally, crime has been trending downward. This trending downward has been a very happy surprise — especially in the face of a recession. From the first link:
This seems pretty equivocal to me. One could just as well conclude from this article that casinos increased crimes, that, if they were absent, the crime rate would be lower still.
*
Can we trust this guy’s other sources?
crime fell in nearly every community around the CT casinos. It was claimed that it had dramatically risen in all those communities. You won’t find many takers to dispute those facts even among some anti-casino groups. They’ve given up on those claims near the CT casinos. Facts on the ground matter. You could be shown crime statistics by the FBI and local Police Departments and still dispute it. I’ve been waiting ten years for the report “produced by Selectmen in Preston CT” that claims a drop of 35 percent in home values in that area that is used relentlessly as fact by the anti-casino movement in every community that is potentially siting a casino. Funny thing is, the study can’t be found anywhere on the internet and HAS NEVER BEEN PRODUCED FOR PUBLIC VIEWING. Amazing what passes for “fact” once it gets started. lol
.
…and maybe I should have made that clearer. I am calling on someone to make a stronger case which will ultimately make her argument more persuasive. We have to sometimes remember that BMG can be a bit of a bubble in which everyone mostly agrees, or at least is assumed to agree. When the diary is titled “Casinos Fail to Meet the Moral Test” and a sentence says, “When government encourages and promotes casinos as a means for economic growth, it fails to meet the moral test.” without elaboration it leaves the reader feeling like there is more to it that’s not being said. Maybe I’m being too much of an English teacher, but I just felt this diary left me hanging.
How many diaries have we dug into the issue that casinos prey on those who can least afford it? It’s indisputable at this point — even the industry understands that, phrasing the term “playing to extinction” as their ultimate goal.
Harrah’s (the largest casino company in the country) makes 90% of its profit off the backs of 10% of its players — and that 10% aren’t the high rollers.
You would have a point with your post if we haven’t had dozens or hundreds of diaries on how casinos are bad for families that live week to week… but we have.
There is no “simple assertion” here or “potential” — casinos exploit. That’s what they do. And that goes doubly or triply for those who could least afford to be exploited.
She does not explain how that connection is made and just assumes we all agree. I was taught that such an approach is weak and got marked down on several essays going through school for making an argument without at least some explanation.
For this reason, I think there should be a handy index on the front page, perhaps using the keywords people use, that makes these previous threads easier to find than they presently are, and linking by topic.
I forgot to mention the Town Hall Meeting that Don is hosting at Doyle’s
in JP this Monday from 7-9pm is specifically on the topic of Casinos. He may be doing a second one later in another location as well. I understand that his opponents in the primary were not willing to accept his challenge to debate this.
If true that is the definition of political arrogance and cowardice. Do you have their actual statement refusing to debate citing they have a “busy schedule”.
I don’t know precisely what happened, and once again, I want to emphasize that I don’t speak for the campaign or have any special inside information. It would be nice to know what did happen, though; in the absence of real knowledge some speculation is inevitable, and may be as inaccurate and unfair as it is inevitable.
But certainly the challenge was issued, and certainly it looked at first as though something might come of it; and then negotiations had broken down irrevocably and we were left with the town hall(s) as the available alternative.
Why, it’s simply astonishing that neither Ms. Coakley nor Mr. Grossman want to debate their pro-casino position in front of real people and real cameras, with an articulate (and surging) primary opponent.
I guess this is more evidence of the true extent of their political courage. Looks like we’re learning more about what “leadership” means to Ms. Coakley and Mr. Grossman.
Polling showed that casinos were overwhelming popular among the Mass. electorate. I would guess that they may be unpopular among Democratic Primary voters.
So likely this is not going to be a debate either of them can “win”.
I get it. In overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts, our two “leaders” choose to ignore the opinion of Democratic Primary voters. I don’t quarrel with your analysis. To the contrary, I think that’s precisely what we see playing out.
So much for “progressive”, “leadership”, “courage”, and all those other fine words.
With “Democrats” like these two, who needs Republicans?
Polls don’t all show such popularity. Example here.
I notice that more than 20% of the respondents of that poll cite Fox News as the source they “trust the most” — almost double the nearest competitor.
Yikes!
However, CBS + CNN > Fox.
Maybe she’s gotten better on it, but Coakley did a strikingly bad job of handling the casino question back in February at the Northampton forum. (Seems like a lifetime ago, doesn’t it?) Steve Grossman was much better, and I don’t see him as being afraid of the debate. But I can see him, or his people, feeling strongly that since both he and Coakley are pro-casino, to benefit from a debate he needs Coakley’s participation. She’s the one whose voters might be persuaded to switch.
And for similar reasons, I can see it not being a worthwhile risk for Coakley at all. She’s polling strongly, and her political inclinations have always been in the direction of doing the safe thing. Which, under these circumstances, is not to debate.
All speculation, of course. I don’t advise campaigns. Just, if I did, this is all stuff I’d think about before I suggested my candidate say yes to a single-issue debate.
…are distractions, wastes of time, and usually involve a candidate trying to one-up another. Let’s just have a couple of general debates. I’m sure this and other issues will come up.
That’s the problem with the usual “debate,” from my perspective at least. For one thing, it’s almost never a true debate, where people with different convictions about an issue are able to challenge each other to explain what might or might not be weaknesses in their arguments or facts. But beyond that, those two to five-minute segments only seem long because all too often, the time limit forces candidates to spew generalizations and platitudes rather than engaging with the issue. And it’s engagement, with enough time to lay out whatever fundamental facts you’re relying on, explain your reasoning to the audience, and respond meaningfully to arguments that cut against you, that gives the audience both a reasonable shot at coming away with an understanding of whatever the issue is and a chance to evaluate the candidates’ thinking about it. I’d much rather see three debates, each of which focuses on a single important issue, than ten that try to cover every issue voters might be interested in: I think it would be both more helpful and more entertaining to watch.
I know so many casual voters “want to watch the debates” before they make up their minds on candidates, but I really dislike debates as a way of informing public on issues. They’re subject to the whims of the moderator, and candidates can eat time with stump speeches and evasions til the clock runs out. It’s a rare moderator who really pins candidates down with follow-up questions.
(which, incidentally, was one of the things that made the Progressive Mass Gov forum in Worcester so freaking awesome: Jordan Berg-Powers and the Magic of the Follow Up Question).
I think narrowly focused debates have their place, just the way they are often proposed rubs me the wrong way. It’s often one candidate saying, “I’m so confident that I have this particular topic nailed that I want to invite my rivals right into the lions den so everyone can see me mop the floor with them.” If a series were prepared by a neutral party with the premises alternating between being favorable to one candidate then the other that would be OK. I did Lincoln-Douglas debating in high school and for two-candidate races that format would work well in a series.
?
Count up all the debates and forums that the Democrats have had. Charlie and Fisher have had one, possibly two? That’s pathetic.
Looking forward to it.
It’s too far away for me to either get there myself or drag my local anti-casino activists. (One reason I’m still sad the briefly-mooted Springfield debate didn’t work out.) I’ll watch and distribute the video when it becomes available, but that’s never quite the same thing.
All of which is to say, you’re now tasked with having enough fun for all of us!
I have learned from the Twitters that the Casino Town Hall will NOT be “livestreamed” — but they plan to have it up on the web to view later this week.
Short of livestream, the next best thing might be live tweets from the event. The campaign is going to be using the hashtag #CasinoTownHall; read there at 7-9 (or after) to see 140-character reports and commentary from/on the event.
I’m still trying to figure out how to make the Twitters work for me (as you can imagine, I find 140 characters something of a challenge), but I can read tweets, even if I can’t quite get the hang of conversing in them.
You can just open up the #CasinoTownHall hashtag stream in your browser and watch as people twitter their tweetnesses.
Worthwhileness all depends on whether the twitters are bringing their “A” game or not. But worth a try if you’re watching Dancing with the Stars or paying bills on the side.
I skipped over the part where you said that you already know that. #Doh.
There were reports online that Berwick had challenged his opponents to debate specifically on this issue. Now at his campaign web site it states that after extensive conversations, the three Democratic gubernatorial campaigns were unable to come to agreement on terms for a debate about Casinos and that while Berwick is disappointed he would go forward and hold Town Hall meetings on the subject.
I think he’s the only other candidate against casinos.
Fisher’s not on the primary ballot, after all. And part of the value of a debate is seeing both sides defend their positions in the face of a challenge to them. Without the pro-casino side being represented, it’s not as helpful to either the voters or to a campaign that’s confident in the merits of its position.
It would be a townhall with the 2 candidates for casino repeal. Fisher is on the GOP primary ballot. Berwick seems to be getting the same runaround from Coakley and Grossman that Charlie is giving Fisher as to debates.
It’s insulting to compare the Berwick campaign to that of Mark Fisher.
They had a number of debates before their convention whereas Baker entertained exactly 0 debates before their convention. I haven’t followed things closely, but it seems there haven’t been many debates post convention for the Democrats. Anyone know roughly how many there have been?
An equal evil.
The most important thing is that we are slaying one dragon at a time, and in this case it’s a dragon that does not have a stake in our state yet. Stopping it from coming here, setting up a lair, hording it’s gold, in the first place, is a major victory. So let’s focus on stopping the casinos from setting up shop in this state.
The second thing is, once a dragon does get settled here, it becomes a lot harder to slay. So I think the lottery shows us the existing dangers of allowing gambling as a revenue generating policy, and once we allowed it, we opened the door to casinos down the road. It will be a much bigger fight, and in my view, a losing fight, to take out lotteries. But, it’s a fight we can’t win without first stopping casinos.
your logic is right on.
Really? If the anti-casino forces plan a campaign on moral grounds while the pro-casino crowd talks jobs and revenue, I suspect voters will go with my position and keep the law in place.
And BTW, Doyles for the event. You’re going to argue that casinos are immoral because of social impacts in a place that sells alcohol? Cause hey, nothing addictive nor that would impact society when it comes to alcohol.
Can you say irony?
Do they have a pool table, too?
Your logic is right on.
I totally agree with that, and I have been saying from the beginning that those of us who oppose casinos have to make the economic case against them. Mainly that the revenue from casinos can be offset from other sources, that the industry’s job creation and revenue numbers are bogus, and that the source of that revenue will hurt our economy in the long run.
I think the best counter to that is Reno, which according to this mornings Times, is a city that is desperately trying to get the very kind of innovation based economy we already have here in Massachusetts and shed it’s decaying casino infrastructure precisely because it’s a shaky foundation upon which to grow an economic base.
In that quote we see that if the gaming industry ain’t coming back to Nevada, it sure as hell isn’t going to come out swinging in Massachusetts. What are our strengths and how do we capitalize on them? Seems like we should double down on education, healthcare, biotech, tech, while also bringing our 20th and sometimes even 19th century infrastructure up to speed with out 21st century economy. That is how we can create employment for the trades, that is how we connect the gateway cities with the rest of the state, enabling some of them like New Bedford and Lawrence to become bedroom commmunities while utilizing the education infrastructure in Lowell, Worcester, and Springfield to diversify the economy of those regions.
I would bet (no pun intended) Doyle’s would shut off a patron who had consumed too much and call a cab for the safety of their customer. Does you new casino friends shut off their customers who lose too much money? Or would they simy point them to the nearest ATM or pawn store to hawk some jewelry in order to play some more?
Yes, bartenders are supposed to cut people off who appear intoxicated, (or is it after a certain number of drinks regardless?) One of the alleviating measures I’ve proposed for a while is limiting the number of bets or amount of money spent. Will casinos lose a bit of business that way? Sure, but bars manage to survive and so will they.
The proponents of gambling actively seek to cause problem gamblers to lose everything. That’s a central design goal of, for example, modern slot machines. The purpose of the research funded by the gambling industry is learn more about those addiction mechanisms so that they can more be effectively exploited.
You seem blind to the many demonstrations of this that have been presented here.
A better analogy is to heroin dealers who intentionally give away “free samples” in order to create an addiction in their prospective customer — and then jack the price through the roof.
there is no slot machine conspiracy or any other conspiracy designed by casinos to target addicted gamblers. Your post is nothing more than nonsense. The odds are not in the favor of the player and its that simple. You sound like the scratch ticket player who thinks the state is rigging the tickets against them. Complete nonsense. The games are what they are. People can chose to play or not. Don’t make it out to be something it isn’t. There is no conspiracy and no targeting of anybody specifically.
Now prove your points that casinos are in on a conspiracy to set up machines to deliberately cause addiction. And no Natasha Dow Shull a “cultural anthropologist” who receives large monetary grants to offer up such tripe as facts doesn’t count.
1. Casinos Target Your Grandparents
2. Aggressive casino marketing targets the elderly
3. How Casinos Target Problem Gamblers
Q.E.D.
First one is opinion by and anti-casino organization, no facts or research whatsoever. Second one is a mere article with an opinion and ditto for the third. Marketing is hardly a conspiracy of rigged slot machines geared towards addiction. Nothing there but opinion. Next ?
When someone has an industry term, it is no “conspiracy” and there is plenty of “validity” in someone’s claim.
Harrah’s, for example (which profits 90% off 10% of its players — mostly in the poorest slot parlors across the country), not only has a means of targetting these people specifically — they’ve *pioneered* it for the rest of the industry, which has quickly taken it up.
They’ve created “rewards” programs, with complex software to track people in sophisticated ways, to sucker people out of even more. So, for example, if someone who was a regular, going to a casino every week or multiple times a week, missed a few weeks… the casino could rein them back in with a free meal, room or gift certificate… knowing it will help rope them back into their problem gambling.
This on top of slot machines which are designed to trick people into thinking they ‘almost’ won — because, pyschologically, they know that’s much more likely to get people to spend more.
Mike’s picture of a head buried in the sand is right. There is no “conspiracy” here — this is the way the industry operates, and operates quite openly.
You have no idea what you’re talking about and it’s a myth. Machines are designed and set for payouts at different levels. There is no trickery or conspiracy involved. The rhythm of a machine is what it is. How do I know this. I know of people who design such machines. The odds are not good in the long run but there is no conspiracy involved. Rewards programs are hardly evidence of conspiracy and are not even specific to casinos. Marketing is a daily occurrence in multiple businesses. My god, how devolved can these arguments get. Good grief, this is unbelievable.
I didn’t say “conspiracy”, that’s your word. The evidence showing the explicit design goals of new slot machines (and the research that funded that design) has been available for some years now.
Meanwhile, the state most certainly IS “rigging the tickets against [players]”. Just as in EVERY successful gambling establishment, the odds favor the house. Complete nonsense? Sure buddy. Go play another few rounds.
The games most certainly are what they are. The practice of providing easy and convenient ways for gamblers to pledge their homes (and other assets) for house credit has been widely reported.
I agree there is no “conspiracy”. There is, instead, an industry optimized on collecting as much money as possible, and targeting (yes targeting) players who “play to extinction”.
I’m not sure why I’m bothering to reply here, your comments are flirting with the edge of trolldom.
There is nothing sinister, there is no conspiracy. The odds are what they are. If you buy a lottery ticket the odds are printed on the betting slip. Nothing targeted, nothing “rigged”. You are in a world of confusion and you’re embarrassing yourself by continuing on further with these preposterous claims. The games don’t care who is playing. The casino’s don’t care who is playing, the racetracks don’t care who is betting. The bets are bets and the odds are the odds. Of course there is marketing, it is hardly of sign of conspiracies or “rigging” of anything.
I’m sure bars would like to sell as many drinks as they can too. What I don’t understand is why if the legislature can tell the beverage industry that we are regulating you in the public interest anyway why they can’t say the same to casinos.
The casinos are supposedly going to give a very large portion of their revenues to the state as taxes. If you’ve made that deal with the devil, how does it make sense to then say, “But you have to limit that revenue to 60% of what it would be without the limits, and so give us only 60% as much in taxes.”? Not going to happen. The legislators who have those stacks of gold chips obscuring their vision are not going to deliberately make the stacks smaller.
I asked again elsewhere recently and I don’t believe it has been answered. On the one hand the casinos seem to be privately owned, but also spoken of as if they are state owned/operated like the Lottery. Any kind of business gets taxed by the state – how is this different? It sounds like the state is more than collecting routine business taxes, but is rather acting as part of the house – is that accurate? If I patronize a casino in MA how much of my dollar is going to the state, the casino, the occasional winner, and is the portion going to the state that much different than if I were to patronize any other business that pays state taxes?
I’m happy to be able to say that it’s been a long time now since I had to work through the relevant parts of the gaming legislation. But while I wouldn’t want to try to give you specific numbers at this remove, I can give you a basic answer.
The legislation provides not only for the big upfront licensing fee for successful casino applicants, but for the state to take a percentage of their gross gaming revenues right off the top. (20% or 25% sticks in my mind, but as I said, I’m not promising that’s right.) That’s specifically directed at gaming revenues, and doesn’t include income from ancillary things like entertainment or hospitality income. But the expectation, obviously, is that the gaming revenues are going to constitute most of the income stream. That’s in addition to any other taxes that they might pay in the ordinary course of business.
Interestingly, and significantly, the legislation doesn’t promise host communities a percentage of the gross. They’re left to negotiate for whatever they can get. Which says something about how the law is designed to work, it seems to me. But that’s another, longer comment.
I think this is another key point to get across to Everett, Springfield, Eastie, Revere, and other communities considering this option. Like the lottery-it will essentially take the hard earned dollars of blue collar folks in these struggling towns and give them to Wellesley and Wayland. Time to make that case-it can get even the Howie Carr/Herald reading crowd onto our side.
One of the continuing challenges of talking about all of this is that the way the legislation works is difficult for a lot of people to wrap their minds around. Just explaining that it doesn’t incorporate a right for communities to vote on whether explore a casino option in a broad sense, and clearly isn’t intended to do so, can be a struggle. I’d love to think that part of the problem is that I’m not explaining things clearly enough, but my experience has been that it’s also difficult to convey to people exactly how complicated and arcane something like a host community agreement is likely to be, or the sheer weight of the advantage that knowing how their own industry works gives a casino developer in negotiations.
My sense of the legislation is that it’s startlingly underprotective of local interests, especially in light of the claims that have been made for it. It would be interesting to see what happened if more voters were clearly aware of how the legislation actually works — though with Springfield licensed and the MGC moving forward in other regions, a lot of people may now feel that the threat to their own communities is gone, and be less inclined to care than they’d have been a year ago.
when discussing this issue mimolette. You are well spoken but you have no idea what you’re talking about when you make statements like this. The host community agreement process and the surrounding community agreement process is somewhat unique. This is not a Tribal situation like in CT when the host community hasn’t gotten such a good deal. You say you are trying to get a point across to Springfield, Everett, and Revere ? What point would that be ? These host agreements are giving millions of dollars a year to the host community. Read the specific host agreements in each community that were negotiated. In one host community for example, the monetary offer was over 30 million a year every year for the life of the agreement. That in addition to a 30 million up front one time community payment. There was over 5 million a year for Police, Fire, ect… Tens of millions of dollars for local traffic and infrastructure improvements. Local hiring preferences. Millions in payments for other community payments. Tens of millions in contracts for local qualified vendors.
Each host agreement can be found on the net and what it offers to a community. Again, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. The community hosting these facilities in Massachusetts are getting benefits that very few communities in the country are getting from such facilities. On top of that, the tax rates written into the gaming law for Massachusetts are some of the highest in the country for these facilities.
Please don’t try to sound informed when, when you have little idea what you’re talking about. The people who voted yes in Revere, Everett, Springfield know exactly what is in their agreements as they are available publicly to every citizen of those communities before a vote.
Research before making such statements. Every host agreement is online. The Massachusetts law, is in fact, designed to give host communities much more local control and input into the negotiations, agreements, and decisions than any other state or community in the United States. The surrounding community process is unique to this law. Why do you think Wynn is whining so much about being taken advantage of. lol
uncleuncleuncleuncle.
You’re correct. You’ve always been correct. You always will be correct.
Please allow me, on the behalf of the entire blog, all the anti-casinos forces — Including both the diabolical and the hirsute wings — (splitters!), the auxilliary ladies and Steve Buscemi’s many dentist to undertake and extend the most sincere, heartfelt, unreserved and earnest apologies for the meagerness of our rhetorical abilities, the daftness of our punks and our continued inability to grasp the subliminity of your arguments. Please forgive us… we are, after all, merely liberals.
For myself, I pledge that, should I ever so much as dream of contradicting you in the future, I will forthwith and without delay, undertake to wake up and apologize.
Now, please, go away.
Of course you don’t, you can’t handle the facts. For years this little group that posts on the casino issue at BMG has gone unchallenged while making completely misinformed statements and presenting one sided opinion as facts. Mores the pity because you seem intelligent enough to be able to present your arguments and defend them. Maybe you can’t.
You speak in the language of the “boss”, the ruling class. Are you a boss in real life ? ” I am the boss, I will not debate with you. You must leave. My arguments are correct. I am practical and realistic and that’s that. ”
If someone challenges you petr, the civility mask falls, you get very angry and start foaming at the mouth with passive aggressive vindictive emotion, you attack the messenger personally for supposed “trolling” and nefarious agenda without any coherent argument against what was presented. You get confused and angry when your imagined “inferiors” fail to recognize your voice as an authority on the issue.
“Don’t use that tone with me, or I will tell you to leave.”
“If you can’t be polite to your superiors when discussing, then you are a troll.”
“You are just a trolling troublemaker.”
“You are spreading negativity and harming our mission to ban casinos.”
“You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, now tone it down now or we can’t take your arguments seriously”
You have to be a boss petr… the tone is unmistakable.
based on a cursory review of your comments, and surprise, many of them are personal attacks on long standing members of the BMG community who have had the nerve to criticize the casino issue. I find your statement informative:
If this is in fact your belief that your purpose is to “school” us in the true about the Casino Issue in MA, then I think it is not too much to declare you “A trolling troublemaker” as you quoted someone above as having already defined you.
If I may quote Kirk to Khan from ST2:
140 comments, and most of them are trash, insults, and responses to same.
Beware the Gish Gallop.
I’m sorry, but there’s no benefit of the doubt left to give you. You’re not engaging in good faith, and you’ve made it clear that you never intend to. It’s very sad for me, since I actually enjoy working through this stuff, but there it is.
I am, in fact, The Boss…
It’s good to be the boss. You should try it someday.
With all due respect, and while acknowledging that I too enjoy the Music Man, the “moral grounds” you contemptuously dismiss have nothing to do with either what Hubert Humphrey or I object to.
In my view, it is immoral for a relatively wealthy state like Massachusetts to intentionally build its revenue base on plundering the already poor in order to spend even more on the already prosperous.
There is no dichotomy between “jobs and revenue” and casino gambling. The evidence is in from all over the country — casino gambling is bad for jobs, bad for revenue, bad for the community, and and most of all — terrible for the already poor.
Please spare me your false irony about having this event in a bar, along with your snarky implication that my opposition to casino gambling is analogous to the temperance movement.
I argue that casinos are immoral because their bread and butter is intentionally encouraging desperate people to “play to extinction”. I know of no agent in Doyles, or any other bar, helpfully providing “credit” applications so that out-of-control patrons can lose their house.
Please — stop running this “irony” garbage. You do your fellow workers a great wrong when you strive to bring this cancer to Massachusetts.
it shouldn’t be that hard. You are stating opinions, now prove your case that casinos don’t bring jobs. Prove your case that casinos dramatically raise crime. It shouldn’t be that hard. You’re saying it over and over as fact. Prove it.
you’ve ignored them and then insulted their character.
I’m not going to do your homework for you.
The most fundamental immorality about using gambling for tax revenue is that it is regressive — it collects money from the poor in order to spend it on the prosperous.
Sorry, but I feel no need to “prove” anything to you. Frankly, I suspect we’re all better off if I instead choose to ignore you.
anti-casino opinion will rule the day. Surely all casino revenue comes from the poor. A statement so ridiculous that not even Walter Mitty could take it seriously. Those multi-millionaire whales betting 50 grand a hand at blackjack at Wynn’s casinos are sure starving and poor. Those poor millionaires playing $100 slot machines must be on public assistance.
Casinos are bad public policy because they do harm to families and communities and because they don’t make good economic sense . Both arguments are valid and for both reasons Casinos fail the moral test.
Doyles may not have been the best choice, but it is known for it’s history as a place where folks gather for political discussion.
This topic is one of the most controversial (I am not suggesting it is the most important) issue currently facing voters of the Commonwealth. I come here to read, engage and learn about reality-based political (sports, music and a few other worthy topics, too) matters. The trolling is worse than a buzz kill.
Please stop.
when considering the arguments of the anti-casino movement. Nice accusations of trolling by the way. It’s amazing how “open-minded” and “open to debate” some so called Progressives can be.
This is simply standard troll bait. If you take a few cleansing breaths and reread this comment, you’ll notice that it is expressly designed to get under one’s skin, but it offers nothing.
It seems to me that the main, exclusive, and only value of nopartyaffiliation is as a bibliographer. If we’re all prey to confirmation bias, and this “contributor” certainly is able to turn up a lot of articles that might make one’s views of casinos more nuanced.
However, it’s clear that this completely asymmetric. While we liberals might strive to overcome confirmation bias so we can see the world as it is, it is clear from that nopartyaffiliation has no such aim. And yes, s/he’s going to be strongly for casinos no matter what anyone says and no matter what evidence is presented. This is a case of carefully cultivated confirmation bias.
Observe it. Think about how you might similarly fall prey to its cozy embrace.
This reminds me of when Stephen Colbert argues with himself, wonder if DFW is arguing with himself here.
That quote and the Walter Mitty reference are getting my spidey sense tingling.
But I did find myself wondering, late last night, whether noparty might be a brilliant experimental bot. The repetition of key phrases like “facts on the ground matter” in combination with the uncanny-valley not-quite-responsive responses to comments would make sense if that were what was going on.
And then I thought, nah. It would make a fun short story, but it’s highly unlikely that clever programmers are building bots to advocate causes on political fora around the world and testing them out here. No matter how much of a coup it might be to be able to do it, and thereby be in a position to get your views expressed without putting a real human being at risk for expressing them.
however, still no facts presented on what I asked for last night to prove you case. Try some of these.
Myth #1: Casinos increase bankruptcy .
Fact: A massive study in 1999 for the U.S. Treasury showed that there was no link between casino gambling and bankruptcy rates. States and communities without casinos at that time had much higher bankruptcy rates than those with casinos.
Myth # 2: Casino gambling causes crime.
Fact: : Multiple studies including those by the National Institute for Justice and the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago emphatically stated that there was no link between crime and casino gambling. This in addition to the hundreds of local leaders and police departments across the country that state the same.
Myth #3: Gambling devastates local economies and retail.
Fact : Multiple independent studies including the Illinois Economic and Fiscal Commission, Dr. Douglas Turco of Illinois State University and the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago emphatically disagree and dozens of others state the same.
Myth # 4 : Casino gambling increases unemployment and raises welfare costs.
Fact: Multiple studies including The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago that conducted a massive study for the U.S. Congress that showed when new casinos are brought into a community, job creation increases, unemployment rates fall and welfare costs significantly drop.
Myth # 5 : Most of the revenues from casino gambling will go out of state.
Fact: With one of the countries highest proposed casino gambling tax rates written into the Massachusetts law much more money will stay in Massachusetts from casinos than from any other national retail entity, restaurant or entertainment business.
That’s five mimolette. There are dozens more. Dispute these findings with peer-reviewed research as I asked you last night.
Plant you corn early and take no wooden nickels for the sake of the buffalo…