Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would not be stupid to buy a lottery ticket for entertainment, if you can afford it and if you have a budget for that kind of entertainment and you stay within your budget. But if your credit card is maxxed out and your wife has a grunt job to get your kid's teeth fixed, and you think lotto is going to repair your broken life, you are stupid.
Well said.
Apparently not everyone who buys a lottery ticket is stupid.
I play twice a week - that's $ 8.00 a month.That's a lot less than what some people spend at strip clubs or in VEGAS. But It's fun, and that's what we all want in life, right? Fun and hope
Apparently not everyone who buys a lottery ticket is stupid.
No, but some are. And I object to a lottery that thrives at their expense.
Since a lottery ticket is an acceptable thing for the poor to be spending their money on, how about letting people buy lottery tickets with food stamps? Do I hear any objections? Just think---winners of the big jackpots won't need to be on food stamps anymore, and that will save the state money.
We all agree the chances of winning big are very very small, but hardly the same as not playing in which your chances are zero.
I'll wager (pun intended) that you have almost as much chance of finding $6 million as you do winning the lottery.
When the lottery started in my state, I was against it (I still am). I'd rather see casinos and the like. At least casinos provide jobs and the odds of winning are many times better. I think it's funny the way some folks pick numbers-certain dates, their dogs age, shoe size, etc. Like it makes any difference. The numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 have as much chance of winning as any series of numbers.
No, but some are. And I object to a lottery that thrives at their expense.
Since a lottery ticket is an acceptable thing for the poor to be spending their money on, how about letting people buy lottery tickets with food stamps? Do I hear any objections? Just think---winners of the big jackpots won't need to be on food stamps anymore, and that will save the state money.
Yes, some people do make poor choices.
To allow Food Stamps to be used for anything other than FOOD would certainly be counter to the goals of that program. People can't buy certain consumables (alcohol comes to mind) with Food Stamps, so why would lottery tickets even fall under the purview of the Food Stamp Program? That would be like allowing folks to spend Section 8 Housing Vouchers on a trip to Disney World.
To allow Food Stamps to be used for anything other than FOOD would certainly be counter to the goals of that program. People can't buy certain consumables (alcohol comes to mind) with Food Stamps, so why would lottery tickets even fall under the purview of the Food Stamp Program? That would be like allowing folks to spend Section 8 Housing Vouchers on a trip to Disney World.
It's a wonderful commentary on your sense of morality, that you think things that are specified in current law are, by that fact alone, the right things to do. It would be "wrong" (as in immoral?) to even think about food stamps being used for lottery tickets, because they do not fall under the purview of the Food Stamp Program and would be counter to the currently stated goals of that program. Do you ever think for yourself?
Do you think it is OK to keep taking advantage of people, as long as they don't know they're being taken advantage of?
Anybody who wagers when the payout is less than the take, is stupid, unless you can have knowledge that improves your chances of winning. Do the people playing the lottery know that? I bet not. Please feel welcome to present your opposing arguments against my "assumptions".
I've got a deck of cards, and I'll cut them. If it's an ace of spades, I'll pay you $40. How long will you keep playing at a dollar a cut, freely and without duress?
I've said that lottos are a tax on the "mathematically ignorant", which is pretty much what you have said. Not everyone who plays the lottos are being taken advantage of. There are those who play every once in a while when the pot gets big. But those are not the folks who keep the lottos going. Those who keep the lottos afloat are too often those who can least afford the few dollars to play.
It also should be said that just because a person throws his money at a losing venture willingly does not mean that he is not being taken advatage of.
Personally I with you, I do not feel good about swindling the uneducated. But when push comes to shove I would probably have to go along with the sentiment that I can't hold the hand of my fellow citizen and guide them through life. If they want to toss their money away, I won't stop them.
It's only stupid if you look at it from a math (expected value) basis instead of an economic (utility theory) basis.
With that said, I defer to giving people the freedom of choice to play the lottery or smoke or drink too much....not my business.
P.S. An interesting economic study would be whether stupid people use more resouces or are more of a societal burden and thus should be taxed more (or just the opposite).
Years ago I said that taxpayers with children should be given an additional tax rather than tax credits. It sounded more fair although I don't think I was going for fairness. At the time I think I was after something to persuade people to have fewer children and thereby reduce population growth.
Of course my notion never came to fruition, and now those extra kids are the ones playing the lottos.
It's a wonderful commentary on your sense of morality, that you think things that are specified in current law are, by that fact alone, the right things to do. It would be "wrong" (as in immoral?) to even think about food stamps being used for lottery tickets, because they do not fall under the purview of the Food Stamp Program and would be counter to the currently stated goals of that program. Do you ever think for yourself?
There you go assuming again. Please read the lines I write and try not to read between them based on your obvious distaste for anyone who disagrees with you.
I didn't say anything about whether I AGREED with the current Food Stamp guidelines or not. I said such a use would be counter to the goals of the program. That doesn't imply my support or dissent of the program guidelines.
And yes, I think do think for myself and that I believe is what you find so objectionable. You like it much better when posters roll over and bow to what you perceive as your superior intellect.
I didn't say anything about whether I AGREED with the current Food Stamp guidelines or not. I said such a use would be counter to the goals of the program. That doesn't imply my support or dissent of the program guidelines.
Exactly. You offered no opinion. Which implied that parroting the official line was an endorsement, or at least a tolerance, of it.
Why don't you just come out and state categorically that you are opposed to killing the foolish geese that are laying all these golden eggs for you, by contributing disproportionally to a revenue base, leaving you with less to pay. Stop trying to skirt around the edges of it, and just say it.
And don't say they do it "voluntarily". You can always get volunteers to do stupid things you're unwilling to do, if you make it sound attractive enough.
Last edited by jtur88; 03-30-2010 at 03:31 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
