Discussion of California Ballot Initiatives

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And the 2100 filthy rich indians will get filthier.

By the way, gaming has become an $8 billion industry in California, soon to overtake the trucking industry, dairy industry and perhaps even the Hollywood film industry as the leading industry in the state.

So?

When I lose $500 in Vegas that is money that doesn't get spent in California restaurants either. And to me, this is essentially the same thing as us having a vote on what Nevada is allowed to do.

You disagree that the tribes are deserving of any distinctive rights but I don't and also don't consider it my role to determine what is fair among them. Besides, unless the reservations have developed complex service and industrial infrastructures I've not heard about, that $30,000 month earned is ultimately spent back in California so you can tax it then.

So Alex says vote yes on props 94, 95, 96, and 97 because it is none of our damn business.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Alex

So?

Damnit Alex: you stole my opener.

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Regardless, it's a move by four rich tribes - filthy rich I might add - to get richer by adding 17,000 more slots to their casinos.

To quote Alex: So?

Since when is making money a problem? I've never understood that argument. Revenue is being generated, people are employed; where is the harm in that?

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

The two sides on this issue have spent more than $100 million dollars, making it the costliest initiative fight in California history ... maybe in history, period.

That is great news! That means that they have injected $100 million dollars into primarily the California economy and for certain the US economy. We should be thanking them for the near-term economic stimulus at a time when it is badly needed.

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Says Cal State San Bernardino economics professor Eric Nilson, "When someone goes to a casino and loses $500, that's money not spent at a local restaurant, at the video store or at a local mall - all businesses that pay state taxes. The casino pays no state or local taxes on that money. This is just shifting money around."

And what does someone do when they WIN $500? They typically spend it on items that are taxed, thus creating income for the state and local economies. While I concur that there is more money lost at the casinos (be they local or Nevada), the differential is minimal (in the sense that it is not a 10:1 ratio of money lost to money won).

I have yet to hear a solid argument against the propositions that would sway me to vote no on them.

[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?

[Alex]

Yes, it is none of my damn business and they should be able to do whatever they want. So, I think it is wrong in the first place that they have to negotiate with the state to do that but to the extent that I am given the opportunity to loosen the reins and allow them to do that which they were forced to negotiate, I will vote yes.

But then, as usual, we come from different axiomatic starting points. I see nothing obscene about earning $30,000/month or $3 billion/month so long as everybody involved in the financial transactions are willing adults.

As an extreme example, if given the opportunity would you have disallowed Maria Altmannn from selling in 2006 Gustav Klimt's Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer for $135 million? She is 90 years old. That works out to about $125,000 for every month she had lived at the time. And all she had to do was have the right uncle.

[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. In light of some of the other crap I've seen them try to pull using initiatives in the past (one gaming initiative would have basically forced the state to automatically renew gaming compacts. Forced.), I don't trust for a second that there aren't things hidden in the text of this one that will serve them a whole lot and the rest of California not at all. Besides, there's enough gambling already in this state. If CA needs more slots, let another tribe open them. At this point, about the only gambling-related initiative I'd vote for would be one that removed the requirement to involve cards in the games (eg: California Craps, and such stupidity).

(*-said with the understanding that there is nothing wrong with people making money, but the sheer amount of money they must stand to make from this, given their investment in it sets off my "shenanigans" alarm something fierce.)

[innerSpaceman]

And yes, Alex ... if given the opportunity to vote Robin Hood style on forbidding the sale of an inherited painting for $125 million, I would.

That's not to say I agree such a thing should be up for a vote by me. But if it is, then Errol Flynn will be my guide.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And yes, Alex ... if given the opportunity to vote Robin Hood style on forbidding the sale of an inherited painting for $125 million, I would.

That's not to say I agree such a thing should be up for a vote by me. But if it is, then Errol Flynn will be my guide.

May I ask why you wouldn't allow someone to sell their own property?