Ernest Cleveland: The Gold Standard for District Two

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Go Ernest! We need § symbol back in our legislation.

How the hell do you make that symbol?  I've always wanted to do that

ALT+0167 = §

Or you can just cut and paste from Charmap.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Code:

alt+0167

You actually have to press the buttons ALT and then hold down numbers 0167.

On Macs it's pretty easy compared to Windows (as usual) with just Option + 6...§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§

You hold down the alt key, and then press the numbers 0 1 6 7—on the number pad.  (The numerical keyboard row doesn't work.)

There are a whole bunch of great symbols you can access through holding the ALT key.  (Including my own personal favorite, ALT+0151.)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Not only §, but also ¶, ‰, and ‽ will receive appropriate support from me should I be elected Senator.

What about ™, ¢, º, ≠, œ, ∑, ®,†,ø, π, and ß?

I can't speak for my opponents, but I have always been in favor of ⅞, ∞, λ, ¢,♪, and ₤.  I support † as well, but the government should have no involvement in it.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

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.

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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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. 

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.