[mimpdaddy]

This guy thinks he speaks for all of Alabama. He thinks he is a dictator and I use to like Gov. Riley.For all of the economic development he tried to bring this state this is what he will be remembered for.
Alabama Gov. Bob Riley asks other states' gaming commissions to keep bingo machines out of Alabama | Breaking News from The Birmingham News - al.com

[PortCity]

I don`t git it this state supports dog track racing but not machines ughhhhhhhh !!!

[midtownruth]

Nothing new, but annoying nonetheles. You can't impose religious ideals on people through government. Laws like this don't make people "pure" or whatever. If you don't want to gamble, that's fine, no one has a gun to your head. However, if you want to gamble, I say go ahead. It's a voluntary tax, and everybody here gives all their money to Missippi (casinos) and Florida (lottery) when it could be going to us. How do they not see this?? At least make it county by county, so that we can have it down here and then whoever doesn't want them, they won't get them. We need this- our public schools need this. Come on.

[PortCity]

I agree to let the county decide.

[EscAlaMike]

Originally Posted by midtownruth

Nothing new, but annoying nonetheles. You can't impose religious ideals on people through government. Laws like this don't make people "pure" or whatever. If you don't want to gamble, that's fine, no one has a gun to your head. However, if you want to gamble, I say go ahead. It's a voluntary tax, and everybody here gives all their money to Missippi (casinos) and Florida (lottery) when it could be going to us. How do they not see this?? At least make it county by county, so that we can have it down here and then whoever doesn't want them, they won't get them. We need this- our public schools need this. Come on.

Don't be fooled, more money does not equal better public schools.

That said, the state should not have the power to regulate gambling. The state (in theory) exists to serve us, the people; not to tell us right from wrong. I don't gamble, but it's none of my business if other folks do.

[bluebeard]

I don't have an extremely strong opinion, but I'm mildly against it, for reasons having nothing to do with religion. It should be noted that gambling revenues are regressive, and end up being proportionally a larger burden on the very populations that it portends to help. We currently complain about how financial firms are detrimental to the US in their current free-wheeling bloated existence that owns federal government. It is however not impossible that introducing large monied gambling interests into the Alabama political environment wouldn't also be toxic. Either way, its hardly a cure to all of Alabama's woes. If gambling is allowed it should highly regulated/taxed, transparently run, with devoted and committed revenue streams going towards specific governmental purposes that are difficult to screw with (including the currently legal dog tracks and such), and should be in parallel with the anti-corruption, ethics, and government reform laws being talked about.
http://www.tcf.org/Publications/EconomicsInequality/lotterybrief.pdf (broken link)

The poor spend about the same number of dollars on lottery tickets (about $165 per adult per year) as those who are better off, so they spend a much larger share of their income on state lotteries. The poorly educated spend more on gambling than the better educated. Blacks spend much more on the lottery than whites or Hispanics.

frontline: easy money: Business-Economic Impacts of Licensed Casino Gambling in West Virginia | PBS

In states with legalized gambling activities which were initiated allegedly to bolster tax revenues to "education," the funding in "real dollars" has almost uniformly decreased....
In 1994, all of the various experts who testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Small Business criticized the impacts that casino-style gambling activities inflict upon the criminal justice system, the social welfare, system, small businesses, and the economy (Congressional Hearing 1994). Utilizing legalized gambling activities as a strategy for economic development was thoroughly discredited during the hearing.
Florida is the only state which has conducted a comprehensive statewide analysis of the impacts of legalized gambling activities. Its report concurred with the congressional hearing's conclusions...
Specifically, the legalization of various forms of gambling activities makes "poor people poorer" and can dramatically intensify many pre-existing social-welfare problems. Demographic analyses reveal that certain disadvantaged socioeconomic groups tend to gamble proportionately greater amounts of their overall income and marketing efforts, particularly by state lotteries, have allegedly been directed at these target groups

[mimpdaddy]

I think the people should be able to make a decision on whether they want it in their district are not. Not one MAN. News flash counties like the black belt are already screwed up and I don't see how casino's could hurt. But our Governor closed down the only source of jobs for people in Lowndes Co. and that's just wrong. Every county doesn't have jobs like Madison Co., Jefferson Co, Mobile Co, Montgomery Co, etc.. Those people want to make a living like anyone else because no governor has ever brought jobs their way.

[bluebeard]

Originally Posted by mimpdaddy

I think the people should be able to make a decision on whether they want it in their district are not. Not one MAN. News flash counties like the black belt are already screwed up and I don't see how casino's could hurt. But our Governor closed down the only source of jobs for people in Lowndes Co. and that's just wrong. Every county doesn't have jobs like Madison Co., Jefferson Co, Mobile Co, Montgomery Co, etc.. Those people want to make a living like anyone else because no governor has ever brought jobs their way.

But the argument is that it doesn't work. I don't really care if Riley takes a "one man stance" against it or not. There's a million other things politicians do that annoy me far more than taking a strong action against gambling.
The main point was the evidence isn't really there that legalizing gambling will help Alabama society on the whole. There is actually evidence that it will be negative towards those at the socioeconomic bottom. And as I said before, by itself it definitely doesn't solve all problems. Check out the states with lotteries today and you'll find some have the largest budget deficits and that their education systems are not any better or better funded.
You said you don't see how it could screw up the Black Belt even more, but that's precisely what the evidence points to. It states that blacks and poor people end up spending less on clothing, food, housing, education, etc... when gambling is legalized.
Belief not based on facts is no different than the bible-thumpers you resent. Like I said, I'm only mildly against it, but selling this idea as the #1 solution to Alabama's problems is silly. I guess all politicians sell dreams, but at least some aren't so obviously ridiculous and at least pretend to deal directly with the issues that they are telling you they'll solve.

[mimpdaddy]

Originally Posted by bluebeard

But the argument is that it doesn't work. I don't really care if Riley takes a "one man stance" against it or not. There's a million other things politicians do that annoy me far more than taking a strong action against gambling.
The main point was the evidence isn't really there that legalizing gambling will help Alabama society on the whole. There is actually evidence that it will be negative towards those at the socioeconomic bottom. And as I said before, by itself it definitely doesn't solve all problems. Check out the states with lotteries today and you'll find some have the largest budget deficits and that their education systems are not any better or better funded.
You said you don't see how it could screw up the Black Belt even more, but that's precisely what the evidence points to. It states that blacks and poor people end up spending less on clothing, food, housing, education, etc... when gambling is legalized.
Belief not based on facts is no different than the bible-thumpers you resent. Like I said, I'm only mildly against it, but selling this idea as the #1 solution to Alabama's problems is silly. I guess all politicians sell dreams, but at least some aren't so obviously ridiculous and at least pretend to deal directly with the issues that they are telling you they'll solve.

But it's not my choice or your choice it should be the people choice to decide.

[Reactionary]

It is not a one-man stance against gambling. 'The people' have decided, through their representatives, that slot machines are illegal in Alabama. The court found that the 'bingo' machines in those casinos were slot machines (DUH!), and are therefore illegal. "The people' have decided, through many direct votes, that lottery games are illegal in Alabama.

mimpdaddy - your argument is flawed. For example, selling drugs employs people and "Those people want to make a living like anyone else because no governor has ever brought jobs their way". Should the State legalize drugs because the trade will employ people?

BTW bingo, played with paper cards and markers and ball machines and an announcer, is still legal. Also, bingo / slots are still legal at the Creek casinos (which are technically not Alabama).

I think that there will be a bill this year to outlaw all gambling (including dog tracks) in the State (if passed, subject to a direct vote by 'the people').

bluebeard - right on. Dog tracks have been legal for decades, are located in the poorest counties, and have done little to nothing for 'the people' of those still poor counties.