MGM Resorts strikes agreement to build casino at National Harbor near nation’s capital (Charlestown: low income, health insurance)
Washington, DC suburbs in MarylandCalvert County, Charles County, Montgomery County, and Prince George's County
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.
Let's see where else you can spend money for entertainment and no tangible return.
1. Sports venues.
These days one can spend up to $200 or more for a pro or even college sports event. No tangible return. Just entertainment.
2. Cable / Pay per View
At up to $10 a shot, one can spend up to $50 a month if that's your thing. Maybe more. I know my wife and I order Amazon movies and shows every month.
3. Dave & Busters
This is the closest venue to a casino I think. You get cards to load money on to go play video games with NO chance or opportunity to get anything back. Pure entertainment. On some games you get tickets. Like Skee Ball. For the Christians, this could open the door to video slot gambling.
4. Theme Parks
The ultimate money pit. Sure, it makes the kids happy, but on the way home, you just have tired kids and a lighter wallet. Those skill games? Yeah. pay to play and you MAY win a prize. Sound familiar?
There are tons of places we spend extra money just to be entertained either by being a passive observer of a game or participating in a game ourselves. A casino is just a big Dave & Busters for adults.
Let's see where else you can spend money for entertainment and no tangible return.
1. Sports venues.
These days one can spend up to $200 or more for a pro or even college sports event. No tangible return. Just entertainment.
2. Cable / Pay per View
At up to $10 a shot, one can spend up to $50 a month if that's your thing. Maybe more. I know my wife and I order Amazon movies and shows every month.
3. Dave & Busters
This is the closest venue to a casino I think. You get cards to load money on to go play video games with NO chance or opportunity to get anything back. Pure entertainment. On some games you get tickets. Like Skee Ball. For the Christians, this could open the door to video slot gambling.
4. Theme Parks
The ultimate money pit. Sure, it makes the kids happy, but on the way home, you just have tired kids and a lighter wallet. Those skill games? Yeah. pay to play and you MAY win a prize. Sound familiar?
There are tons of places we spend extra money just to be entertained either by being a passive observer of a game or participating in a game ourselves. A casino is just a big Dave & Busters for adults.
I said this once before and I will re-iterate it again. Going to a casino is different than those other places. Ultimately it comes down to the intent of the person who goes there, but really it is a matter of why they are there. The casino is the one place out of all those things that you CAN go to it in hopes of obtaining a greater return than what you walked in with, which is essentially gambling. Sure there will be people who don't see it as a place to gamble and see it as a source of entertainment, but every one isn't like that. In a situation like this there will be people who will use gambling as a source of generating more money for them and hopefully hitting the 'big one'. That is what separates casinos from everything else you just listed.
Sure there will be people who don't see it as a place to gamble and see it as a source of entertainment, but every one isn't like that. In a situation like this there will be people who will use gambling as a source of generating more money for them and hopefully hitting the 'big one'. That is what separates casinos from everything else you just listed.
You can't say, well since there are some who go to a casino for hope of hitting it big, therefore the casino is bad for everyone. Some people bet on football games and attend those games. Some kids go to Dave & Busters for hopes of getting enough tickets to get the largest stuffed animal. You can't throw the baby out wit the bath water. People don't say, well since there is betting on football games (pools/vegas), therefore there should be no football. That would be ludicrous. In addition, people hope for a lot of things in a lot of ways. When you go to a football game, you hope your team wins. That's why you go. To get that feeling of victory. Though not monetarily. You still want something in return. You don't go to Dave & Buster's hoping to loose at every game you play. You don't go to a theme park or carnival hoping you loose at every game you play. If some people do, do we say, well, theme parks are bad because people go there hoping to win stuffed animals at the games.
Plain and simple, a small segment of the population singled out gambling for no other reason than it was against the law decades ago. Now that it's legal, some groups have problems with it because at one time it was illegal. So they continue to attach an immoral sentiment towards it. Same thing with drinking and the prohibition on alcohol. Now that it's legal, some groups still think people shouldn't engage in the activity. ANd that's why I think at times, some religious groups can be hypocritical. You're either all in or all out. You can't pick and choose what vices or habits are good and ok and what others aren't. They are either all bad or all ok. If a casino is immoral, well then so is dave & busters. So are football and basketball games. So are card games. So are board games like monopoly. Etc. Etc. There are no shades or levels of immorality.
You can't say, well since there are some who go to a casino for hope of hitting it big, therefore the casino is bad for everyone. Some people bet on football games and attend those games. Some kids go to Dave & Busters for hopes of getting enough tickets to get the largest stuffed animal. You can't throw the baby out wit the bath water. People don't say, well since there is betting on football games (pools/vegas), therefore there should be no football. That would be ludicrous. In addition, people hope for a lot of things in a lot of ways. When you go to a football game, you hope your team wins. That's why you go. To get that feeling of victory. Though not monetarily. You still want something in return. You don't go to Dave & Buster's hoping to loose at every game you play. You don't go to a theme park or carnival hoping you loose at every game you play. If some people do, do we say, well, theme parks are bad because people go there hoping to win stuffed animals at the games.
Plain and simple, a small segment of the population singled out gambling for no other reason than it was against the law decades ago. Now that it's legal, some groups have problems with it because at one time it was illegal. So they continue to attach an immoral sentiment towards it. Same thing with drinking and the prohibition on alcohol. Now that it's legal, some groups still think people shouldn't engage in the activity. ANd that's why I think at times, some religious groups can be hypocritical. You're either all in or all out. You can't pick and choose what vices or habits are good and ok and what others aren't. They are either all bad or all ok. If a casino is immoral, well then so is dave & busters. So are football and basketball games. So are card games. So are board games like monopoly. Etc. Etc. There are no shades or levels of immorality.
You know what I kind of agree with you here. We as a society should not try to dictate people morals, but at the same time, I have no obligation to support this project. I look at it like this, if someone decides to go gambling, I'm not going to stop them, but if somebody ask me if I think gambling is good, I would say no. I guess we have a different way of looking at what voting is and quite honestly a lot of people more often than not see things the way you see things.
We assume because a few have decided that something is okay, that we as voters have an obligation to support those individuals and their desires. That is the same argument being used to support same sex marriage. Bottom line as a voter, I do not have an obligation to support anything just because a few people have decided it's okay. There has to be a more compelling argument than that. This is not about forcing people into a certain lifestyle, this is about being asked my personal opinion about what I believe about this topic. Of course then the argument that always get brought up is, this will have no effect on you so why don't you support it. Who says I HAVE TO support it? A few people trying to apply peer pressure? I'm not trying to change people lives, I just don't think it's a good idea. My opinion has nothing to do with stopping them, it just means I think it's wrong. If somebody ask me do I think cigarettes are good for people, I would say no, but does that mean because I have that opinion that I will stop anyone I see smoking? No, it just means, when I was asked for my opinion I gave it.
Let me say this. No matter what, anything that was made with good intentions can be made bad by man. That is the fatal flaw of our society. We as people have the ability to corrupt things that are good. At the same time, I do not see the benefit of supporting something which main intent is to get people to gamble. Casinos aren't made to strictly entertain people, they are made to get people to spend their money so that the casino owners can reap a profit. It's almost hypocritical to talk about how much revenue can be gained from building a casino and not acknowledge the basis of which they obtain their money is largely based on people gambling. I mean if it was strictly entertainment, why could these same individuals going to the casino playing table games, for example, play table games in their own home? There is obviously something for these individuals to gain. If this was a project that main purpose wasn't to gain revenue through the gambling of individuals that attend, then this would have much different context.
Do you believe football was created strictly for people to gamble? Do you think David & Busters was made for people to gamble? You are mixing the idea of a typical business with gambling. Both forms of businesses are trying to gain a profit, but it is how they gain their profit that is much different. Of course with that logic, you can argue going to get a burger from McDonald's is gambling too because you take a risk that you will get food that you actually eat, but that is not the same as what a casino is. A casino benefit is gained by individuals who are willing to risk what they believe will ultimate get them more money. If casinos were made for strictly entertainment, then people could simply have the same form of entertainment in their own homes and in a closer setting, but the truth is people, in general, go out to these casinos because there is much more to gain than strictly entertainment. The chance of winning, although small, is enticing for many.
I'm not sure as many MD citizens travel out of state to gamble as is suggested. I have been to AC once and that was because my GF's parents were in a bad auto accident on their way there. I took my dog and played with him on the beach when not at the hospital. Casinos have no appeal to me unless it is a gig for a band I may be in and it hasn't happened as of yet.
I gamble enough while at the grocery store, gas station, paying bills and anywhere else I have to give someone cash for goods in exchange. Who has money to lose?
According to Penn National's last annual report Maryland residents comprise 25% of the revenues that they received from Hollywood Casino in WV (their most profitable property). So the take is significant. As for who has the money to loose? That question is subjective and based on the individual. The same question could be asked for those that subscribe to cable, or the internet, video gaming systems, donating to churches or not for profits, the movies or retail shopping. The value of the activity is based on individual interest.
A new study was developed by proponents of question 7. It's a great reference for what has been spent by MD residents over the past decade at Hollywood Casinos WV. They also offer projections but they are overstated based on what was represented in PNG's last financial statement. A better scenario would be 25% with an annual escalation of 1 %. However, it does provide perspective. Remember this is a study which was funded by a pro group but the historical numbers are accurate. It would be interesting to see one from the opponents but I don't think that will happen since PNG is funding it and any negative slant would impact its business in MD and in other jurisdictions that they are seeking to set up shop.
A new study was developed by proponents of question 7. It's a great reference for what has been spent by MD residents over the past decade at Hollywood Casinos WV. They also offer projections but they are overstated based on what was represented in PNG's last financial statement. A better scenario would be 25% with an annual escalation of 1 %. However, it does provide perspective. Remember this is a study which was funded by a pro group but the historical numbers are accurate. It would be interesting to see one from the opponents but I don't think that will happen since PNG is funding it and any negative slant would impact its business in MD and in other jurisdictions that they are seeking to set up shop.
Hmmm....another bias study. What about the people that go to West Virginia as a getaway and would spend that money there regardless? What about the people that would decide to go to West Virginia just as much, but also go to the one at National Harbor if it's built? Maryland wouldn't necessarily lose that amount. The figures that are being thrown out there makes way too many assumptions. Although, as you said, the historical reference is certainly clear, it's nearly impossible to project that into what may happen in the future.
Hmmm....another bias study. What about the people that go to West Virginia as a getaway and would spend that money there regardless? What about the people that would decide to go to West Virginia just as much, but also go to the one at National Harbor if it's built? Maryland wouldn't necessarily lose that amount. The figures that are being thrown out there makes way too many assumptions. Although, as you said, the historical reference is certainly clear, it's nearly impossible to project that into what may happen in the future.
Most studies are biased in one way or another and typically lean towards the biases of the funding group. I am sure that they based their number on those going to the casino and not on the state's tourism numbers. Can there be overlap? Definitely but the same can be said about DC tourist that also go to Leesburg Outlet. It's not impossible to project the future numbers but you have to do so based on historical trends which doesn't seem apparent in this study. However from a historical perspective the amount that has been spent out of state by Marylanders is significant and should be considered when creating a more robust program locally.
while everyone is bickering back and forth about expanding gambling in maryland please don't forget about the "dream act" bill(supporting instate tution for illegal mexican-central american immigrants in maryland) that is up for vote along with the current debate on expanding gambling and same sex marriage..........
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.