Discussion of California Ballot Initiatives

[innerSpaceman]

Do either of you have an argument as to why you would vote Yes on them?

If I understand you correctly, your collective point is that it's none of our damn business. So do you intend to abstain from voting on it, or do I misunderstand one or both of you?




I'd likely agree that it's none of my damn business, but there it is on my ballot. And, this is just me, but I think anyone making $30,000 a month is OBSCENE on its face, and I will vote against that for anyone in the world any time they put such a choice on my ballot.


(Most of the time, I don't get to vote against extreme disproportionate wealth distribution, so I'll thrilled at the opportunity I'll have tomorrow.)

[3894]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I think anyone making $30,000 a month is OBSCENE on its face, and I will vote against that for anyone in the world any time they put such a choice on my ballot.

The per-capitas aren't divided that simply. Quite a bit of the gaming revenue is put into diversification of the tribes' portfolios and tribal infrastructure. The tribes do not like the potential instability of gaming revenue.

Here in Wisconsin, the Ho Chunk (a.k.a. Winnebago) quickly eclipsed the Green Bay Packers in earnings. If I remember correctly, the Ho Chunk per capitas are $3,000/mo. Click here for a USA Today piece explaining why and how a different Ho Chunk group has diversified its investments.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I'd likely agree that it's none of my damn business, but there it is on my ballot. And, this is just me, but I think anyone making $30,000 a month is OBSCENE on its face, and I will vote against that for anyone in the world any time they put such a choice on my ballot.

(Most of the time, I don't get to vote against extreme disproportionate wealth distribution, so I'll thrilled at the opportunity I'll have tomorrow.)

The question aside as to whether 2,100 individuals are receiving $30,000 per month, what makes the number obscene? Is it that no one is allowed to make more than you? (And I do not mean this as a personal jab - I don't believe anyone on this board makes that kind of money.) When does an amount of money become obscene? To a minimum wage worker, $3,000 per month is a lot of money and $6,000 per month ($72,000 per year) may be an obscene amount of money. Is $10,000 per month obscene? Where is the cut-off point?

Personally, I don't believe that any amount of money made by an individual is obscene as long as it is made in an honest fashion and not at the detriment of others. In the case of the Indian Casinos issues, I am not seeing a negative to allowing.

So to me, the issue is about whether the tribes should be allowed to make a choice to expand. Since no one appears to be harmed by allowing the expansion, I see no need to disapprove it unless I want to strip someone of their choice. Wouldn't the liberals be in favor of allowing choice?

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

I'm mostly suspicious of it because of the sheer amount of money they obviously stand to make from it.* I mean, there was a "vote yes" ad on during the g*ddamn SUPER BOWL. ANY political initiative having that much money poured into it is going to make me suspicious.

Then you should be equally suspicious as to why you should vote AGAINST the initiatives as that side too had Superbowl ads and that side is also spending an equally huge amount. And that amount is being spent (largely) by private entities: Bay Meadows and Hollywood Park Race Tracks as well as other Tribes (Pala near San Diego and United Auburn).

Does knowing that affect your opinion?