Your thoughts on gambling to get revenue for states?

After reading Auntie Pinko I remembered that Democratic Governor Ed Rendell wanted to put slot machines at race tracks in PA. The Dems seemed to support it because 100% of the proceeds would go to education. And everyone goes to West Virginia and New Jersey to gamble anyway so those revenues should stay in PA.

The Repubs were mostly against it because they argued that it is poor people who go to gamble and ruin their lives. Poor people will go to a place down the road to gamble, but wealthier people would travel out of state. People with addictions would find it easier to go to the place down the road rather than drive across state lines.

I'm still not entirely sure on this issue because I want funding for education but don't want people to ruin their lives for it.

I'm not against gambling. However, it's no way for a state to raise money. It hasn't done CA schools one damned bit of good.

am happy with Horse/Dog racing.

With Casino Gambling, it's virtually impossible to win over a period of time. (How do you think those beautiful gaudy casino's get built?)

At least with horse racing a patron can handicap a race by various factors ....Class, speed, jockey and have a decent chance to win if he is able to "Out-Handicap" the other patrons.

It just seems more fair to me.

ON EDIT: For those that don't know....When you bet in a Casino, you're betting against the house and since the house ALWAYS has the advantage the game is, in fact, rigged for the house.

In horse racing you bet against the other people at the track (You win what they lose and visa-versa) the horse track couldn't care less who wins.

it would be ideal. However, politicians get a wiff of a revenue source and the money will go to whatever pet project a pol needs for hometown support. I live on a state line (Mississippi, Louisiana) and I see a lot of poor folks from MS going to LA every Wednesday and Saturday to get their powerball picks. And republicans could not possibly care less about poor people spending money on gambling. To them it is a holier than thou issue. And like you, I have no definitive opinion one way or the other. However, if politicians were judicious with tax revenue, lotteries would be a moot point.

the arguments for both are good and noble.

that got mixed results. Funding for education is a fairly important issue in PA. They already had to raise property taxes at the state and local level. Pittsburgh is apparently bankrupt. hmmm...this is a tough one.

and now that fed funds are drying up and PA has debts to pay...and the schools need money...well they gotta find it somewhere.

People are too pigheaded to understand that we need more tax revenue and therefore we need to increase taxes...but these same people don't mind gambling which is a tax for the mathematically challenged...so voila...there is your solution... is a good one? no but its at least a start.

during the depression horse racing was taxed to pay for stuff as well so we are truly going back in time...

Personally I think we should slash the number of reps in the state assembly to about half the amount and we would save probably around $20million a year that could go to education.

PA has 202 reps in its state house and they make $61,900 a year, get full benefits and they have two offices...one in their locale and one in the state capital of harrisburg.