About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors

Contributing Writers
elwood
Jennifer Daler
Mike Hoefer
 susanthe
ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Dorgan
DiStaso
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes for Senate
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
billmon
Bob Geiger
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
RSS Feed

Blue Hampshire RSS

Slots - Snap Poll

by: Dean Barker

Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 06:01:48 AM EDT
Do you support expanded gambling in the state of New Hampshire?

My suspicion is that like seat belts and marriage equality, gambling is an issue that does not neatly fall into party boundaries.

So take the utterly unscientific poll (located below the fold).  You need to have a Blue Hampshire account to do so, but it's free and easy to sign up.

And if you want, let us know your thoughts on why or why not in the comment section below.
Dean Barker :: Slots - Snap Poll
Poll
Do You Support Expanded Gambling in New Hampshire
Yes
No
Undecided
Results

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Slots - Snap Poll | 62 comments
Why not? (4.00 / 4)
We need to make a real commitment to a tax structure that works and is fair.  Every time we avoid this, we put off the reckoning.  

We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.
a tax structure that works and is fair (4.00 / 2)
= an income tax. Any way you slice it.

We are, what? The 6th highest income state in the nation?

According to Wikipedia, our median household income currently is $62,369.

Yet we constantly are scrimping pennies. Hmm.

=Equal rights now!=

[ Parent ]
Chuckle luck (4.00 / 3)
Government has to be paid for and no gambling fairy is going to show up and do the work for us. Supporting government with "sin taxes" attempts to accomplish the support of government on the backs of people suffering with addictions and already suffering from economic disadvantage. It is commonly thought that gambling is done by the rich and they won't mind this kind of tax. Everyone in New Hampshire minds every kind of tax and tries to put them off on someone else. Slots and video poker are aimed at low income people, not the "Sky Madisons" and other high rollers often envisioned. The kinds of crimes which degrade the quality of life in the surrounding areas (petty theft etc.) receive much more disapprobation than the legalized theft of stock brokers and bankers. It is just another way to distance voters from their government and make all government look corrupt.
Diversified revenue is the key... (0.00 / 0)
If we are to preserve the NH tax model then we need to continue to look for diversified revenue opportunities.  Slots at the tracks is a great opportunity.  People go to the tracks with cash to have fun, let's take a share for the state.
Ah. "Preserve the NH tax model" is the goal. (4.00 / 2)
From that, much flows.
[ Parent ]
For me it is... (4.00 / 2)
I like the NH tax model and the self reliant NH pay as you go way of life.  I like our toll roads where you pay for the service you use.  NH has high real estate taxes to make up for no income or sales tax and over all we're in the lower third for tax burden.  I like small government, if I wanted more services I'd move to MA.  The problem is that MA residents have moved to NH and they want the services they miss and they don't want to pay for them.
[ Parent ]
once more (0.00 / 0)
talking points right out of the GOP playbook. Do you have some proof of your assertions about these alleged people from Massachusetts?  
[ Parent ]
Common knowledge....... (0.00 / 0)
There has been a huge influx of MA residents over the past 20 years, I've been here almost 30.  I live in a 10 yr old, 30 home subdivision in Southern NH I know about 20 of the homeowners fairly well and 14 come from MA, another 5 from other states and 11 from NH.  There is a mix, almost half complain about services the other half don't want more services.  Talk with any realtor about the influx of MA residents and they will confirm my allegation.  
[ Parent ]
I'm shocked, I tell you (0.00 / 0)
to hear this is happening in the GOP dominated part of the state! All those new Republicans creeping over the border need some  lessons in how things work in NH.

[ Parent ]
Interesting Republicans, then (4.00 / 4)
Polling indicated that people who had recently moved into the state were among the most likely to support Republicans. If people who move into the state are also the ones demanding more services, then that suggests that Massachusetts Republicans are fleeing their state, coming to New Hampshire, and finding that New Hampshire's level of services is too far to the right for them?

IT for John Lynch '04 and NHDP '08 - I'm liking my track record so far!
[ Parent ]
Most are Dems (0.00 / 0)
Most of my neighbors are Dems with young families, the older empty nester transplants are Repubs who are not interested in more services.  They refused to support the school bond, but they also didn't vote against it.
[ Parent ]
of course they are (4.00 / 1)
they couldn't fail to be anything but - after all, these are your anecdotes.

More right wing talking points.  

[ Parent ]
Do you ever make a real independent point? (0.00 / 0)
I went back and reviewed a number of your comments.  They are full of LW jabs at my supposedly RW or GOP talking points because they aren't left of center enough for you.  You question everything and add nothing.  My points are dismissed as anecdotes, while your unsubstantiated blather is deemed to be beyond refute.  You obviously think very highly of your self.  
[ Parent ]
oh dear (0.00 / 0)
you seem to forget something important. This is a site for progressives. Right over on the LEFT hand side of the page, under the blue picture are the words, "progressive online community."

You are no progressive.

You're a right wing troll attempting to masquerade as a moderate, and fooling no one but yourself.

[ Parent ]
More than diversified revenue sources, (4.00 / 1)
we need to instill in New Hampshire residents the principle that they must pay for the services they receive.

Gambling is simply another way to attempt to shift the responsibility for our costs to someone else - preferably people from Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine and Connecticut. That, unfortunately, is the crux of the "New Hampshire Advantage".  I touched upon this issue in a recent column published in the Laconia Daily Sun which can also be read on the Laconia Democratic Party blog.  http://laconiademocrats.blogsp...

Our failure to pay our fair share is the reason we're facing a budget crisis, and anyone who believes that slots or casinos are reliable income streams should talk to casino operators who are discovering the downside to over-saturation in the market.

[ Parent ]
Fat Fingers (4.00 / 3)
Meant to vote no, accidentally voted yes. :-(

I don't think that gambling is a net benefit for the  state. It's not a productive economic activity and the profits go mostly to out of state conglomerates.

However, I think I've found a compromise I can believe in. I would support legalized gambling located in any of the top 10 wealthiest towns in the state. Any kind of casino would be allowed under the liberalized gambling regulations available in these special economic zones.

Residents of these towns shouldn't complain, because gambling brings such wonderful benefits to the state, and helps keep their taxes low.

Here's the thing for me (4.00 / 2)
Gambling can certainly be a very profitable business, for the owners particularly, and it works great as a tourist attraction as long as it's unusual. But the expansion of gambling is spreading, and once there's no significant tourism advantage over other states, no net money will flow into the state from elsewhere, and we'll just have another addiction-based industry with profits being drained out of the state economy and into the owners' pockets. I'm all for personal entertainment spending, but enabling and encouraging addictive behavior, it seems to me, will incur human, social, economic, and yes, social service costs. Being the Nevada of New England is one thing, and we already do some of that (hello NH Liquor!), but once gambling is "expanded" everywhere...we just have a process of turning social service money into gambling profits, human suffering, and some quantity of entertainment.
Take a chance! (4.00 / 1)
I hate illegal gambling. There is illegal gambling going on across New Hampshire, and the only people benefitting are criminals. By legalizing expanded gambling, we will knock the legs out from a poisonous industry that corrupts at several levels. With a properly established gaming commission, legalized gambling has more regulation than investing in the stock market. As I have said before, who is the bigger gambler - the person who blew $200 at Foxwood last month, or the person who lost $50,000 in their 401(k) in 2008? At least the person who blew it at Foxwood knew s/he had a good chance of losing. The person with money in the 401(k) was doing what allegedly honest institutions had been telling him/her to do for years.

Also, many of the arguments against expanded gambling are just a touch elitist. There is a notion that if you gamble, you are declasse. The idea that some of us know better than others on how we are supposed to spend our entertainment money bothers me.  The idea that everyone who gambles is an addict is like saying everyone who enjoys a beer is an alcoholic.  

Will gambling be a stable guaranteed source of revenue? Of course not - there is no such thing, look at states with sales and income taxes, their revenues are way off, too. But, it will be a revenue source, and it will also create jobs, which is a good thing.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

The difference (4.00 / 1)
Is that the house always wins.

I don't think everyone who gambles is an addict. But it's known to be very difficult for some people to limit the time and money they spend gaming. I don't see the benefit of freedom of entertainment choice outweighing the costs of profits flowing out of state and increased demand for social services for problem gamblers...let alone the economic costs of those who manage to gamble themselves into bankruptcy or foreclosure.

In the absence of a significant inflow of out-of-state tourist money, it just doesn't look good to me economically. The jobs that gaming "creates" are jobs funded by those gambling dollars, which will still be there for entertainment even without gambling.

[ Parent ]
elitist? (4.00 / 2)
Not quite.

I'm opposed to gambling. NH is already the pusher of the two most addictive and destructive drugs - nicotine and alcohol. Despite the profits reaped from selling these drugs, we spend next to nothing on treatment for those who become addicted. We will do the same with gambling. We will continue to use the prisons as our source of rehab - which pretty much negates the profit to the state.

That's NH. Always ready to pay the pound of cure.  

[ Parent ]
are you then opposed to scratch tickets and lotterries ? (4.00 / 2)
You mean you are opposed to 'expanded' gambling.
I have yet to hear someone opposed to gambling speak about repealing the get rich quick and 'instant' lottos etc.

www.KusterforCongress.com
[ Parent ]
I take it you are opposed (0.00 / 0)
to discussing the issues I raised.  
[ Parent ]
How can you possibly know these things? (0.00 / 0)
Illegal gambling continues in places with legal gambling. There is so much refutation of your crystal ball gazing that I will only copy one instance:
Legal gambling does not drive out illegal gambling. If anything, just the opposite is true. As legalized gambling comes into a state, it provides additional momentum for illegal gambling. The Organized Crime Section of the Department of Justice found that "the rate of illegal gambling in those states which have some legalized form of gambling was three times as high as those states where there was not a legalized form of gambling."(11) And one national review found that,

In states with different numbers of games, participation rates increase steadily and sharply as the number of legal types of gambling increases. Social betting more than doubles from 35 percent in states with no legal games to 72 percent in states with three legal types; the illegal gambling rate more than doubles from nine percent to 22 percent; and commercial gambling increases by 43 percent, from 24 to 67 percent.(12)  

[ Parent ]
This is very funny (0.00 / 0)
Since you did not provide a link, I copied your quote and googled it, and found that you were quoting from Probe Ministries, and that you left out parts that said things like,

Even though the Bible does not directly address gambling, we can derive a number of principles from Scripture. First, notice the contrast between the Bible and gambling. The Bible emphasizes the sovereignty of God (Matt. 10:29-30), while gambling is based upon chance.

What is Probe Ministries?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to reclaim the primacy of Christian thought and values in Western culture through media, education, and literature.

Here is the link you did not include:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/pr...

Your first quote, with the footnote 11 reference, is not to a DoJ publication, but to Emmett Henderson, State Lottery: The Absolute Worst Form of Legalized Gambling I haven't been able to find that book or article on line, but I did learn that Mr. Henderson is with the Georgia Baptist Convention office of ethics and public affairs.

This is not to say that the stats you quote from these sources are wrong; I don't know. I do know that the source you are quoting is not an unfiltered DoJ report, but a Christian site quoting a Georgia Baptist citing something which I can't verify, and both the site and Mr. Henderson are very much opposed to gambling on religous grounds. With all the refutation you say is out there, why did you pick these quotes, and why didn't you provide a link?      

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

[ Parent ]
Sorry, I guess I'll have to drop down a few levels. (0.00 / 0)
Did you miss the point or are you just being obtuse or funny? The point is that anyone can say anything as you often do. There are no links in your opinion. If you can blurt out this stuff why can't anyone blurt out anything. I am sorry not to have laid out this similarity. Your are being just like the Bible thumpers. Is that clear enough? There are a whole bunch of articles on both sides and I have read them till my face is blue. It appears that both sides have come to oppposite conclusions back to the antiprohibition fight. So when you complain about the ranting of the Bible thumpers, understand that it is identical to your own ranting. I don't know either, but this kind of proclamation, "the only people benefitting are criminals. By legalizing expanded gambling, we will knock the legs out from a poisonous industry that corrupts at several levels." As you know, if you have read my stuff above and other times, I also oppose gambling. I am disgustingly opposed to unsubstantiated or even commonly opposed statements from on high. Authoritarianism is no acceptable technique in argumentation. Well, at least to me. The elitist argument is not even worth a response.
[ Parent ]
Dude... (0.00 / 0)
You need to make up your mind. On the one hand, you say, "I guess I'll have to drop down a few levels", on the other you say, "I am disgustingly opposed to unsubstantiated or even commonly opposed statements from on high."  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    
[ Parent ]
one other thing (4.00 / 1)
The second quote, with the (12) footnote, is to a 1976 report. Could be stale.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    
[ Parent ]
You ought to read the actual bill (4.00 / 2)
The expanded gambling bill is a complete disaster First our government funds a monopoly, second they aren't given any deadline to pay their liscense fee (the casino operators could put it off until after they open their doors), third most states take over two years to open a casino (we're going to do it in 9 months to balance the budget), fourth most states find that at least a year is needed to do thorough background checks on the applicants (the bill gives our AG 60 days, if you think they can speed that up just realize that without extensive interviews of former associates, neighbors etc. many poseurs can pass for a clean background), no state has had all their liscenses filled and all have fallen short of their projected targets, the bill to achieve the anticipated revenue for the state needs 13,000 slot machines to run which is more than Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun combined, etc. etc. etc.
[ Parent ]
NIMBY (4.00 / 1)


New Hampshire's stimulus: a train to Boston.
Visit NHBTI.org to learn about the NH Capitol Corridor project.
not a simple issue (4.00 / 1)
With the exception of an occasional raffle ticket I'm immune to gambling. I've been in casinos and it's kind of creepy watching people fixated on slots. There are all these flashing lights, no windows, and people glaze over. I went to Atlantic City once with a friend, borrowed a quarter to try the slots, won, paid him back his quarter and walked out. But there are lots of things other people enjoy that are not for me.

I go back and forth on expanded gambling. I just hated it when non-profits in the state started raising money through poker tournaments, especially when they were held at the racetracks. Greyhound racing is an industry that has a dubious moral record.

I'd be easier with expanded gambling if we actually built regular casinos in limited tourist areas and let the racetracks die out.

Distraction (4.00 / 2)
I copied this from a post I made about the perennial gambling issue last summer. My views are still the same:

I think proposing gambling as a revenue source is really more of a distraction. We really need some sort of fair method of raising taxes, perhaps a graduated income tax, with supplemental methods, such as meals taxes, and I think gambling revenues could be part of this supplemental source. But the idea of proposing gambling first seems like we are fooling ourselves, or delaying the need to implement a real, sustainable, and equitable means of generating revenue for expanded and improved state programs and infrastructure.

Sure (0.00 / 0)
Existing contract law tends to penalize people with poor reading skills (since they can miss the important takebacks in contracts). It's only fair to institute a voluntary tax on people with poor math skills too.

IT for John Lynch '04 and NHDP '08 - I'm liking my track record so far!
Like I said (4.00 / 1)
A touch of elitism to some of the arguments. I know you are joking, but people who gamble are aware of something called "odds".  Most people don't play powerball until the jackpot is huge. Because the odds are horrible, throwing a buck at a lottery only becomes fun when the payoff is huge. Which is why the roulette tables are typically not crowded; the odds are worse on roulette than most anything else in the casino.

The odds aren't good at life, either - the house ultimately wins. But we still live.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

[ Parent ]
reservations (0.00 / 0)
Right now, I support expanded gambling, but with serious reservations.  It would not be a panacea to solve the budget problems.  It would only be one component and there would have to be other, much larger components.

Still, it could be worth it and could provide economic stimulus to the region involved.  However, if I were a legislator, I would want to have a clear idea of the extent of the negative effects.  This has been done in enough places already that those states should have a good idea of what the effects are on crime rates, employment, addictions, etc.  I would want to see unbiased reports on the positive and negative effects in other states before casting a vote.

I don't gamble. But, what other people do with they money they (4.00 / 1)
have in their pockets is their own business, unless the money's been stolen.

There are people who believe that the state is a source of secular morality, sort of in competition with religious establishments.  I don't see it that way.

Money is a figment of the imagination as are the letters of the alphabet.  How people use it may or may not be pleasing and satisfying to other people, but the proper response is not restrictive.  If it were, I might be inclined to ban poems.

At the risk of being pounded bloody (4.00 / 2)
by some of you estimable folks, I have to say that while I am somewhat indifferent to the issue, I am inclined to favor some expansion, if planned carefully.

At this point, I must disclose that I have an offspring employed in that industry (not as an executive, investor, or lobbyist!) in another state, but he would be the first to tell you that this fact would not affect my opinion on the subject (other than the natural parental desire to keep offspring gainfully employed).

That said, it's pretty clear that a lot of money flows out of the state by the busload in the direction of Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun, etc. on a regular basis, and it would in our best interest to try to reverse the flow to some extent.

However, I do not harbor any delusions that this one aspect of revenue generation is likely to solve all our problems, it's just something that we need to consider as a possible resource.

OK, face mask in place - whale away if you must!

rec'd for thoughtfulness (4.00 / 1)
I like your nuance. I feel, with no evidence mind, that this is a no-win game. No community benefits in the game of "offer tax breaks to get a WalMart" that used to get played a lot; some just got slightly less hurt. While appreciating that it would be good to cut down on the money flow out of the state, maybe there are other ways than in joining the race to the bottom....? I don't know what though.
[ Parent ]
New Hampshire? Sure (0.00 / 0)
Massachusetts, no way no how.

But my snark is moot. Both states will get it.

5 will get you 10 (4.00 / 3)
Do You Support Expanded Gambling in New Hampshire
* No - 24 votes (48%)
* Yes - 22 votes (44%)
* Undecided - 4 votes (8%)
Total votes: 50

5 will get you 10 that NH will have expanded gambling if this result is indicative of where the NH Progressive community is on the issue

Susan I am anti-gambling, but agree with Kathy that it becomes an issue that appears to have some people looking down there noses at others. I asked you that question, because it is never asked. It was not to snark off discussion. I find that position untenable but usual.

I maintain a position of one...
To have gambling pass, if I were a Legislator, I would also demand a concurrent limited income tax. Not one without the other, nor either alone. The income tax could be set at say 4.0% and then automatically drop to 2.5% when the deficits are erased, or in 12 months which ever is sooner.

At the saem time I would vote with Jackie Cilley against doing away with the credit against BET on the BPT. Let's not kill business and jobs when they are flat out having the worst time in my lifetime. Even the best have stopped 401K contributions etc. My fear is that if a recovery does not materialize soon, with all the money the Feds have dropped in, many more businesses will fold.
Unlike the banks who caused this clusterf*ck of an economy in a no regulation rethuglican environment, small business can't get a  bailout, yet they provide 70% of employment.

www.KusterforCongress.com

well, Jon (4.00 / 2)
I choose not to participate in the lottery - and it embarrasses me that I live in a state so desperate to avoid taxing millionaires that it relies on encouraging addicts to engage in destructive behaviors to help fund state government. The hypocrisy of our state is visible on the highway. First the sign reading: "NH has Tough Drinking and Driving Laws", followed by the sign announcing: "State Liquor Store, Next Exit."

NH begrudges every single dime it spends on anything related to helping people.  We don't treat our drunk and addicts. We put them in jail, instead. We don't treat people with mental illness - we put them in jail, instead.

It's estimated that at least 80% of the folks in NH jails had direct involvement with booze in the commission of their crimes. Not every gambler is an addict - just as not every drinker is a drunk. The small segments of the population who become addicted, however, have a huge impact on our society.  

This is a state with no safety nets. We flat out don't care about addiction hurting our communities, hurting employers, and destroying families. As long as we can make money off 'em - so what?  

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, the addicts (4.00 / 5)
receive better care while convicts. IIRC, prisoners receive some form of Medicaid. When they are released, they are left bare and receive no medical care, often returning to their previous ways. But incarcerating them costs more than health coverage and living in the community with supports would.

Ah--penny wise and pound foolish.

[ Parent ]
American motto (0.00 / 0)
diligens sestertium, aureum negligens
[ Parent ]
Agree with the sentiment (4.00 / 1)
I don't think anti-tax fervor drives casino interest. It's that it's seen as free money. Here, the principal argument is "Money spent in Connecticut" should be spent (and taxed) here.

Our unimaginative leaders think they should license gamblers to funnel disposable (and sometimes non-disposable) income to them. Governor Patrick went as far as listing the things gambling revenue would fund -- a sure sign he knew he was wrong to consider the idea (good ideas don't need to be justified, they're self-evident). Let's not fix the revenue problem by restructuring or modernizing, let's mainline some money into the system, because the House always wins. As Atrios likes to say, WHEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

[ Parent ]
The pic of Eddie Edwards hanging next to bottles of grain alcohol (0.00 / 0)
Priceless

America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand. -Harry Truman
[ Parent ]
Criminalizing gambling works about as well as prohibition worked (4.00 / 3)
and as well as the 80 year so-called War on Drugs is working today. Criminalizing social behavior only creates criminals and a hugely expensive prison industrial complex.

We would be better off taxing such behavior and adequately funding treatment programs for those who need it.


"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

Not really the question, though (4.00 / 2)
Your state is not debating whether to legalize gambling. It's debating whether to license casinos.

It's analogous to drugs: it's one thing to admit people use them and offer treatment. It's another thing to license dealers.

[ Parent ]
Pharmacists? n/t (0.00 / 0)


"Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America." Dwight Eisenhower
[ Parent ]
You are right-- they are separate, but related questions. (4.00 / 2)
So I would not be opposed to expanded gambling if done correctly. The present bill is an industry written giveaway  that fails to protect the state's interests.

As Kathy S. has noted before, a beefed up Gambling Commission should be created before the fact to prepare a report to legislature with alternatives; licenses should be competitively bid for, not given away a price Millenium has said up front they are happy to pay (this price could be the floor-- the minimum bid). Likewise the states portion of the take should be a subject of a bidding process and not dictated by a single corporation and its lobbyists.

Not all forms of gambling are created equal-- slots are particularly suseptible for abuse because of the speed and manner with which one loses. (in this respect slots are similar to cigarettes which the CDC has rated as among the most addictive substances because the 'high' derived needs to be constantly reinforced). So a full casino with slower paced games would be preferable to a hall packed with crack cocaine like slot machines.

Robert has an excellent comment above that lists other problems with the bill as written. My guess overall is that it cant be re-written in time to be the 'solution' to this years version of "The Search for The Missing Revenue (but DONT look in the box labeled income)". In sum, I wouldnt vote for the bill as it is written, but am open to the concept of state regulated gambling.

Two recently floated ideas for revenue are intriguing-- taxes on sugared soda drinks and taxes of plastic bags. Both are totally non-essential items that generate significant social costs. Both fit the NH ideal of taxing the guy behind hte tree. It would be amusing to see the soft drink industry scream and might even put a dent in the epidemic of juvenile diabeties and obesity. ( factoid-- the average 18 year old weighs 15 pounds more than two decades ago, a rise that correlates closely to soda consumption).

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

[ Parent ]
An omnibus bill (4.00 / 6)
that legalized both marijuana and casino gambling would build quite a coalition. And it would have the advantages of being logically coherent - and of making Kelly Ayotte's head explode.
[ Parent ]
So, are the slots to meet state needs or (4.00 / 3)
to spare our wealthiest from a capital gains tax?
May need both n/t (0.00 / 0)


"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    
[ Parent ]
Go for it (0.00 / 0)
  People with gambling addictions will gamble with or without expanded gambling. I feel we should have these casinos in areas that have a lot of tourism. It may or may not attract more tourists, but I say take more of their money while they are here. Institute a capitol gains tax which includes profits from gambling winnings.
that doesn't make much sense (4.00 / 1)
casinos should be in the southern part of the state - near airports, bus terminals and train stations. They should be located where the people are. To pretend this is going to be a tourist industry is delusional.  
[ Parent ]
No to gambling (0.00 / 0)
I just got back from an event where top Democrats in administrative positions are singing the praises of gambling in this state.  It was really disappointing to me to hear them list reason after reason that expanded gambling will help fund critical programs in the state.  Arguing the money is leaving the state and that we might as well offer those people a shorter commute to their gambling habits somehow makes sense to these powerful people.  Additionally, these folks also argued that currently no money is going towards Gamblers Anonymous - but if we allow for expanded gambling then we'll be able to fund such a worthy program.  

Booooooo!      

Gambling? Here's an alternative. (4.00 / 3)
Why not instead have the state hire prostitutes and sell their services to all and sundry. They could erect buildings next to the liquor stores on I-93 and enlarge the rest area parking lot to accommodate the increase in traffic. A sure fire way to bring money into the state. The only legalized prostitution  outside of Nevada!

"I'll be right back. Just need to go to the men's room. You kids want a Coke or anything?"

(This is a snark, for anyone with irony deficiency.)  

...the Doo Dah Man once told me you've got to play your hand. Sometimes the cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay 'em down.

Drive-through crack stands (4.00 / 2)


America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand. -Harry Truman
[ Parent ]
Snarky, but apt (0.00 / 0)
Actually, now I'm thinking, well, prostitution has social costs, but there's already plenty of illegal prostitution in this state, we could fund the requisite support and safety programs with licensing and/or taxes, plus maybe have unionized sex workers? That would be one hell of an NH advantage...especially being so convenient to where people actually live.

I guess legalized sex work actually seems more like a potential NH advantage and revenue source than gambling. Especially with unions! Can you imagine: "Organic, Fair Trade Prostitutes! Ecologically Sound!"

[ Parent ]
Free Range 'tutes n/t (0.00 / 0)


...the Doo Dah Man once told me you've got to play your hand. Sometimes the cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay 'em down.
[ Parent ]
don't shoot the piano player n/t (0.00 / 0)


www.KusterforCongress.com
[ Parent ]
Siting (0.00 / 0)
A secondary question is, where do you put the thing? A Concord rep gets a free vote, because it surely is not going there.

Let me put that directly. Are those who support casinos prepared to have one in their town? How about next to their child's school or their mother's house?

In Manchester? Sure! (4.00 / 3)
But, not under this bill.  It has substantial problems that need to be fixed.  

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    
[ Parent ]
You're consistent (0.00 / 0)
Kudos for that.

Years ago I worked with someone from Ledyard, CT, home of Foxwoods. She was not a fan of the casino.

[ Parent ]
Slots - Snap Poll | 62 comments
Powered by: SoapBlox