Ernest Cleveland: The Gold Standard for District Two
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:50:33 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Ernest Cleveland: The Gold Standard for District Two
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Ernest Cleveland: The Gold Standard for District Two  (Read 2695 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 10, 2007, 12:10:01 PM »

Uncasville, CT (Outside the Mohegan Sun)

My opponent Mr. Moderate has an strange plan for dealing with the public finances.  He plans on getting the Federal government involved in running what should be a private business, namely gambling.  Using that same logic, one could argue we should have the government run gas stations, liquor stores, and bordellos as monopolies to raise revenue for the government.

I do not dispute the need for government to regulate gambling.  Nor am I adverse to the idea of using so called "sin taxes" to both raise revenue and discourage certain activities.  However, I challenge Mr. Moderate to come up with a reason why lotteries should remain government run monopolies instead of government regulated private businesses as is the case with other forms of gambling such as those provided here by the Mohegan Sun.

Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2007, 02:26:04 PM »

However, I challenge Mr. Moderate to come up with a reason why lotteries should remain government run monopolies instead of government regulated private businesses as is the case with other forms of gambling such as those provided here by the Mohegan Sun.

I'd be glad to indulge the gentleman from Delaware.

(1) A state-run lottery is a better deal for taxpayers.  Atlasia gets to keep 40% of lottery revenues (plus the tax revenue on winnings).  And there's no associated major investment in compensatory infrastructure.  That's a tremendous deal for taxpayers.

For megacasinos like the ones involved in the Connecticut Tribal-State Gaming Compact, Connecticut gets only 25% of revenues.  And that's a relatively good deal—California only gets about 12.6%.  And Since both are Indian tribal enterprises, these are revenue sharing agreements, and can not be taxed by standard mechanisms.

(2) And worse yet, unlike a state-run lottery, casinos bring significant problems that the state has to compensate for.  Casinos require an increased police presence.  Casinos cause significant increases in traffic.  Casinos cause a massive proliferation in pawn shops and street prostitution.

(3) I'd argue that oversight and regulation is far simpler with a state-run enterprise.

I can support privatization where I think privatization might be beneficial.  But handing over lottery gaming to private casinos would be a horrible deal for taxpayers—that's why the legislatures of Indiana and Illinois have opposed such lottery privatization schemes.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 10, 2007, 03:29:46 PM »

Your reasons appear to be that the convenience of the government should take precedence over personal choice, an opinion I do not hold to.

(1) A state-run lottery is a better deal for taxpayers.  Atlasia gets to keep 40% of lottery revenues (plus the tax revenue on winnings).  And there's no associated major investment in compensatory infrastructure.  That's a tremendous deal for taxpayers.

And a terrible deal for consumers.  With competition, the bettors who prefer lottery-style gambling will be able to choose contests that have better payouts than the miserly ones state lotteries provide, or perhaps more entertaining games if that is what concerns them most.  I don't view gamblers as cash cows to be milked by the government, I view them as people.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

They are subject to Federal law.  While Indian gaming is not subject to State regulation or taxation it is subject to Federal regulation and taxation.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any large successful business or industry will generate traffic.  Does the gentleman from Massachusetts prefer banning shopping malls and large industrial plants so as keep traffic flows low?  I believe you see the absurdity of that.  The solution to the problem you mention here is to ensure that, just as with any other large business, the public costs created are recouped through an appropriate level of taxation or impact fees or if those costs prove high enough to cause such businesses to not open, then they will have served their purpose as well.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Problem drinking and other drug use also cause those problems.  Does the gentleman from Massachusetts support prohibition or state monopolies for the sale of alcohol and other drugs?  If not, why the difference between drugs and gambling?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Things are always simpler if you limit consumer choice.  Imagine how much more efficient and smaller supermarkets could be if there was only one brand of peanut butter, chicken soup, raisin bran, chocolate ice cream, etc., available.  That doesn't mean that government should step in and limit consumer choice.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd argue that they opposed it because they weren't offered the full value for their monopoly business.  That assumes that it should be a monopoly that limits consumer choice in the first place.  The schemes you mentioned would be akin to turning over collection of the State sales tax to private companies to operate a business, but I don't favor, despite the example of Matthew, of having modern day publicans.

Besides, I'm not arguing for turning the current public monopoly over lottery games into a private monopoly.  I want it to be a private competitive business, where the bettors will place their bets with the lottery of their choice that they believe gives them the most value, be it better odds or higher production values.  Why do you oppose consumer choice, Mr. Moderate?
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 10, 2007, 04:58:54 PM »

And a terrible deal for consumers.  With competition, the bettors who prefer lottery-style gambling will be able to choose contests that have better payouts than the miserly ones state lotteries provide, or perhaps more entertaining games if that is what concerns them most.  I don't view gamblers as cash cows to be milked by the government, I view them as people.

I don't consider gamblers to be "cash cows" either, but first and formost, I need to hold the interests of the whole—the Atlasian taxpayer—over the interests of a special group—those who gamble.  The purpose of a state-run lottery isn't to provide gambling activity, it's to raise money for the common good.

There's room for both lottery and casino gaming in Atlasia.  Both have their own pros and cons for the consumer—and I believe it's best for the consumer to have the right to choose.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

My lottery plan, in no way, creates roadblocks for casinos to try and run some manner of similar lottery game.  For the most part, they don't, because casinos offer a completely different type of gaming opportunity than the lottery does.

Casino games, by and large, are about instant gratification.  You go to the casino, put a coin in a machine, and six seconds later, you either have won or have lost.  With the lottery, you buy a ticket and hold it for an extended period of time.  You're not just buying a chance at a jackpot, you're also buying the opportunity to dream and fantasize.  And, at the same time, you're investing in the government—most lottery players know and appreciate the fact that even when they lose, they still, on a level, win.  Because "proceeds benefit older Pennsylvanians," or because they go in a scholarship system, or, in the case of the proposed Atlasian lottery, because proceeds go towards education and expanding Pre K.

There is no similar factor in casino gaming.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the schemes I mentioned are akin to...turning the public lottery over to private companies.  And private companies would love to get a hold of it—the lottery is a massive cash generator!  They want to take as much of the state profit for themselves as they can.  They have absolutely no interest in being responsive to the taxpayer.

The lottery is inherently a monopoly business.  People enter into a lottery because they want big payouts.  Splitting the lottery up between a number of different operators dilutes the payoffs and will inevitably hurt ticket sales.  It's like saying that a county-by-county lottery game would be more successful than a state-by-state lottery game.  It just wouldn't be, and we have a real world experiment we can look at to prove it: multistate lottery compacts.  These compacts generate far larger interest and far larger jackpots than their single-state counterparts.

I don't oppose consumer choice in principle.  Again, for me, its about what's best for the taxpayer, not the occasional gambler.  I oppose selling off a highly successful, taxpayer-owned entity in favor of lower tax receipts but "more interesting" lottery games.  Lottery profits should not be split with big business.  Ridiculous.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 10, 2007, 05:10:17 PM »

I must say I was supportive of Mr. Moderate's lottery plan until Ernest brought up some valid points against it.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2007, 05:50:18 PM »

first and foremost, I need to hold the interests of the whole—the Atlasian taxpayer—over the interests of a special group—those who gamble.

What other groups do you consider "special"?  Gun owners? Small business owners?  People who don't speak English as a first language?  It's all too easy to say a group is special and therefore doesn't deserve to have their interests considered.  Why should gamblers be considered special?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually they don't run lotteries because existing Federal law makes running a private lottery illegal.  They can't use the mails, and banks and broadcasters are barred from having any association with lotteries unless they are government run.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The real money maker for State lotteries are the scratch off tickets which offer that instant gratification you say is the distinction, not the daily or semi-weekly big prize drawings.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most players perhaps, but most of the tickets are sold to a few players, who because they aren't concentrated in one place are easier to ignore than casino players, despite being just as vulnerable and subject to the dangers of gambling as those who frequent casinos.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those are merely the public face for where the real money in State lotteries is made, scratch off tickets and the daily or twice daily pick3 and pick 4 games.  More people may buy the occasional big money ticket, but they account for a small fraction of lottery revenues.  They just happen to make the games respectable enough to cause people to not think where the money is really coming from.  Furthermore, if your inherent monoply argument held water, why do we have both Mega Millions and Powerball?  It is true that for those seeking big jackpot games, there appears to only be sufficient interest at present to allow for two such games in Atlasia that reach the nine digit mark in their jackpots, but that is a function of limited demand, not inherent monopoly.

Now, since you chose to skip over this question, let me ask it again:
Does the gentleman from Massachusetts support prohibition or state monopolies for the sale of alcohol and other drugs?  If not, why the difference between drugs and gambling?
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2007, 08:08:38 PM »

Just wondering, since you two were mainly debating each other during the last debate and continue to debate each other right now, would you two like another debate to discuss these issues, or is this thread sufficient for that?
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2007, 08:10:11 PM »

Just wondering, since you two were mainly debating each other during the last debate and continue to debate each other right now, would you two like another debate to discuss these issues, or is this thread sufficient for that?

If I may interject, not everything has to be an official 'debate.'  Whatever happened to good old fashioned thread hijacking and pages of arguments?
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 10, 2007, 08:26:08 PM »

What other groups do you consider "special"?  Gun owners? Small business owners?  People who don't speak English as a first language?  It's all too easy to say a group is special and therefore doesn't deserve to have their interests considered.  Why should gamblers be considered special?

Oh, lord.  You're the one who was insisting that gamblers deserve special consideration—that taxpayers, essentially, should settle for lower tax revenue to put more money in gamblers pockets.  I'm opposed to that.

I'm fine with treating each group separately.  As a moderate, I support people's right to hunt and bear arms, but I want some common sense limits on assault weapons.  I also support people's right to speak whatever language they want, but I'm not going to pass laws that raise costs significantly for the vast majority to accomodate sixteen-language road signs.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So then, take that issue up with the author of that federal law.  I don't want to turn the lottery into a ideological crusade, I simply want to raise revenues for Atlasia.  You want to privatize the lottery, but at this point, there's no lottery there in place to privatize.  First things first.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

My lottery plan is a modest one, and does not call for the introduction of scratch tickets.  I want to leave the bulk of lottery operations open to the regions.  That's why my lottery idea "only" brings in $7.5 billion in revenue, as opposed to hundreds of billions.  All it does is introduce an aspect that the regions themself cannot start: a nationwide lottery system to benefit federal programs and federal taxpayers.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, clearly there is more than one multi-state compact.  But no single state, to the best of my knowledge, has both Mega Millions and Powerball.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I skipped over it, frankly, because it was a rhetorical question that had little to do with gaming.  The government has done a fine job so far with lotteries so far, and I see no reason to change what is a successful system in exchange for one that almost certainly would result in a net drop in tax revenues—an arguement which you accepted as likely in your initial response.

Alcohol is treated differently by different locales, and I fully support each region's right to legislate as they see fit.  Beyond prohibition—which I, of course, oppose—it's just not a federal issue.  It's inappropriate for Nyman to tell Harrisburg how to sell beer.  If Nevada wants to sell alcohol in supermarkets, it has that right.  If New Hampshire wants to only offer alcohol in state-run stores, that's New Hampshire's right as well.

With regard to drugs, Atlasia has seen it fit to legalize and tax marijuana, which I support.  With regard to the drugs which cause significant hazards to the well-being of the user and virtually inescapable addiction—drugs like heroin, or crystal meth—I certainly do not support, as the gentleman from Delaware does, legalization of these.

And now, let me turn the issue back to the gentleman from Delaware—if we are indeed to deny the government this new source of revenue—an estimated $7.5 billion—where do you propose we find the money to make up the difference?  Certainly, you're quick to criticize, but where are the solutions?  Accelerate your carbon tax?  Grow the national debt?

I appreciate that this is another significant ideological divide between us—I can't out libertarian you on this issue, and I'm not going to try.  I'm not a libertarian, I'm a moderate.  I don't want to drown the government in a bathtub here—if the government has shown itself capable of handling something like the lottery, I'm not about to risk that success for the unknown simply for the benefit of gamblers.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2007, 08:29:04 PM »

Just wondering, since you two were mainly debating each other during the last debate and continue to debate each other right now, would you two like another debate to discuss these issues, or is this thread sufficient for that?

I appreciate the offer, but I think there's only so much debate on the lottery here that voters are going to be able to take.  Smiley

I think starting a federal lottery is a good way to provide a non-tax source of revenue, but I hardly thing it's the most important issue that the voters of the Second face.  This thread, I think, is a sufficient venue.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2007, 09:38:05 PM »

What other groups do you consider "special"?  Gun owners? Small business owners?  People who don't speak English as a first language?  It's all too easy to say a group is special and therefore doesn't deserve to have their interests considered.  Why should gamblers be considered special?

Oh, lord.  You're the one who was insisting that gamblers deserve special consideration—that taxpayers, essentially, should settle for lower tax revenue to put more money in gamblers pockets.  I'm opposed to that.

A lottery is not a tax, not unless you're going to require the people of Atlasia to buy tickets in it.  The most favorable term one can use for it is "user fee".

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I already proposed bill that became law the last time I was in the Senate that provided considerable trimming in the Agriculture and Navy Departments, enough to easily account for that $7.5 billion, but I presume you want me to mention additional cuts.

Taking numbers from the 2008 FY U.S. Budget

~$5 billion the first year: 5 year plan to cut all the non research money of the Department Education and returning their funding to Regional efforts
~$6 billion the first year: 5 year plan to cut all the non research money of the Department Housing and Urban Development and returning their funding to Regional efforts
~$4 billion: ending the war on drugs (elimination of DEA, reduction in the Bureau of Prisons, plus other related programs in the DOJ and the State department)
~$4.5 billion: elimination of the Foreign Military Financing program
$1.8 billion the first year: 5 year plan to eliminate the Federal Transit Administration
~$4 billion: immediate cancellation of all International Space Station activities of NASA
~$30 billion: elimination of the Guaranteed Business Loans of the Small Business Administration
$0.1 billion elimination of the National Endowment of the Arts

Just from a cursory examination without going into specifics and considering quite a few other potential cuts, that's roughly $45 billion in FY 2008 and once the cuts I'd prefer to phase in over 5 years were made in full, that's over $100 billion a year (including savings on interest not paid on debt not incurred).  That's also not counting expenditures that could be saved by cutting back on our foreign military activities as the level of such savings will depend on the degree to which we cut those back, or even if we do cut back.  I believe we should follow a policy that would enable us to have a smaller military, but when it comes to defense I'm of the mind that once foreign and defense policy is set (keeping in mind the costs in blood, treasure, and reputation for the various policy options) then we must fully fund what that policy requires.  In the real world, the disconnect caused by an administration that failed to prepare for the costs of what its policy would require is what caused the real life mess in Iraq.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2007, 08:21:18 PM »

Salisbury, MD

I'm here today on the Eastern Shore to talk not about the crab pots, although contemplating going back to Nyman is enough to make anyone crabby.

(laughter)

Rather I'm here to talk about Federalism and local control of government.  Nyman needs to stop trying to do tasks that can be done local governments.  There are a whole slew of Federal programs that serve only to ensure that the bureaucrats of the Federal government receive a cut of the money spend to provide local services, whether or not the people in a locality would rather have lower taxes instead of the programs.

I pledge that if you send me to Nyman I will do my best to cut Nyman out of the loop, letting localities such as the Eastern Shore decide whether or not they would rather have such programs and the taxation needed to pay for them or not.  Only where a true need for national coordination exists will I support letting Nyman touch upon tasks best dealt with by College Park, Annapolis, or the good people of Salisbury themselves.

Even then, I shall support local control and local funding to the fullest extent practicable, an extent that those who favor greater government spending will no doubt oppose.  After all, they realize how difficult it would be to get some of their schemes passed if people were in a better position to notice the costs.  It's a lot easier to hide pork among the trillions spent by Nyman than it would be among the billions spent by College Park, the millions spent by Annapolis, or the thousands spent by Salisbury.

After all, the attitude in Nyman is too often exemplified by the quote attributed to Everett Dirksen: "A billion here and a billion there, and soon you're talking about real money."  I pledge to you I will consider a dollar to be real money.  Indeed, to help it be considered real money instead of Monopoly money, I will introduce legislation to bring Atlasia on the gold standard.  It's time to mint money again instead of printing it.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 12 queries.