How ironic that Republicans have a flaming liberal to add to their list of thank you cards. She might be a woman, but Janet Cowell had some seriously balls to tell the Governor to go fuck himself.

I might not agree with her on any other issue, but I'm actually tempted to work on her re-election campaign...

8/24/2005 11:45:06 AM

a lottery is a good thing

8/24/2005 11:48:37 AM

Quote :

"nutsmackr: a lottery is a good thing"

Agreed...

...for the bureaucrats, and the "educators", and the corporations making the profits, and...

8/24/2005 11:50:08 AM

state run lotteries are evil.
Legalize gambling, and tax all lottery receipts at 50%. It collects the revenue, and doesn't cost the state a thing.

8/24/2005 11:50:59 AM

How about a tax on people that are bad at math?

8/24/2005 11:51:45 AM

haha doesnt cost the state a thing?? yeaaaaaaaaaa...except for the department that would have to be made especially for gambling and everything else that goes with that....yea, it certainly would be 'cost free.'

8/24/2005 11:55:49 AM

reread:

Quote :

"It collects the revenue, and doesn't cost the state a thing."

8/24/2005 11:58:03 AM

a lottery is nothing but good. I don't understand the republicans in this state. shouldn't they be for more freedom?

8/24/2005 12:03:05 PM

Really? I figured the existing sales-tax collection agency could collect it. They won't be receiving any more checks, just larger amounts. Nevertheless, it will cost something, my obvious mistatement.

But let private companies handle the messy business of advertising and management. This way, North Carolinians that want to play the lottery can play national lotteries with larger payouts, all the while still paying the 50% in taxes.

8/24/2005 12:10:13 PM

Janet Cowell was also a strong supporter of PTC

what's the whole story, TGD, regarding Janet Cowell and the Gov.?

8/24/2005 12:13:38 PM

^^because of right now, the state is still too shitlessly scared to allow for multistate powerballs.

8/24/2005 12:20:44 PM

Janet Cowell's one of the most principled people I've ever met. Kudos to her and the other progressive Democrats in the Senate for standing their ground.

And, while he's on the other side of the issue, kudos to Sen. Basnight for the way he handled the issue regarding the absence of Sen. Horton. I'm never quick to give Basnight props, but whether you like him or not, you've got to admit...that was some classy shit...

[Edited on August 24, 2005 at 12:23 PM. Reason : add]

8/24/2005 12:21:17 PM

I oppose the lottery for one reason: this state doesn't have the fiscal discipline to handle the revenue responsibly

particularly when you think of the cost its going to have on the poor and stupid of our state. its just wrong to set up a system that you KNOW is going to sucker the poor and stupid, and give the proceeds to a bunch of irresponsible people who are just going to waste it on pork and DOT.

now maybe if we had some discipline, and were going to ACTUALLY spend lottery proceeds on some beneficial shit, then we could rationalize the exploitation of the poverty stricken among us.

[Edited on August 24, 2005 at 12:24 PM. Reason : s]

8/24/2005 12:21:59 PM

lottery proceeds will go to education

^^opposing the lottery isn't exactly progressive. It's conservative.

8/24/2005 12:26:03 PM

Quote :

"nerdBoy: what's the whole story, TGD, regarding Janet Cowell and the Gov.?"

From what I've been told by some friends in the Senate, the folks they were targeting in the GOP caucus weren't going to budge (although, as Kay_Yow noted, the stress caused some serious blood sugar issues w/ Sen. Horton) so the Governor started making urgent phone calls to the 5 liberal Democrats who were opposing the issue.

Senator Cowell told him to fuck off, albeit in much nicer terms. That took a lot of guts considering she's only in her second term, and NC Senate 16 is hardly a safe Democrat seat.

Cowell reminds me a lot of Hillary Clinton. Liberal as hell, but very much a "stick to her guns" type person. I respect that in a politician.

8/24/2005 12:27:41 PM

Quote :

"nutsmackr: a lottery is nothing but good."

what state are you from?

---

Quote :

"nutsmackr: I don't understand the republicans in this state. shouldn't they be for more freedom?"

how exactly does a government-run lottery produce more freedom?

---

Quote :

"nutsmackr: ^^opposing the lottery isn't exactly progressive. It's conservative."

Unless you care about the poor, or don't like corporations preying on them to make money, or believe in properly funding education without relying on a hoax.

Opposition to the lottery is bipartisan for a reason...

8/24/2005 12:29:20 PM

thats right

raise our fucking taxes while the people that live within 50 miles or more of the border of every other state around nc drive, spend their gas money driving to other lotteries to spend their money in other states

IDIOTS

8/24/2005 12:31:12 PM

pennsylvania

allows people to spend their money without an abitrary omg, gambling is a sin bullshit.

education in this state cannot be properly funded without a lottery.

8/24/2005 12:31:55 PM

Time to dust off this old stand-by, with all the old lottery threads on TWW having disappeared...

http://www.carolinajournal.com/jhdailyjournal/display_jhdailyjournal.html?id=488

Quote :

"The Two Lottery Teams By John Hood July 15, 2002 RALEIGH — In describing North Carolina's lottery debate, pretty much everyone uses the shorthand of“pro-lottery” and “anti-lottery” to refer to the two sides in dispute. But the sides aren't monolithic. They are really coalitions of North Carolinians who may bring very different concerns and priorities to the debate, and whose may agree little with their teammates on a host of other issues. For a recent speech, I came up with the following breakdown of the two lottery teams: ======= The Anti-Lottery Coalition • Religious Right —These are cultural conservatives, primarily Protestants but including some Catholics, Jews, and others. They constitute a Republican-leaning voting bloc in general, though the GOP's economic agenda is not what galvanizes them. They oppose the lottery because they view it, and pretty much all other forms of gambling, as immoral. • Religious Left —These are, for the most part, not cultural conservatives but faith is still central in their lives. They oppose the lottery not only because gambling is wrong but also, and most strongly, because it takes advantage of the poor and minorities. • Goo-Goos — These good-government types can be found among the ranks of universities, government agencies, nonprofits, and the news media. They oppose the lottery because it is an unreliable source of funds, an inefficient and regressive form of revenue collection, and an invitation to corruption of governments and elections. • Ga-Gas — A term referring to “ galloping gadflies,” these are the well-meaning left-wingers of the secular variety who oppose the lottery because it preys on the poor and because they've heard that someone, somewhere might make a corporate profit if a lottery is created. • The Club — These are the corporate executives, private university presidents, retired politicians, and the well-placed people who work for them in trade associations and chambers across the state. They oppose the lottery in part because, well,it is simply beneath us as a state to rely on a lottery to fund our government.Since everyone they know (fellow club members and all that) are also against the lottery, they figure that a few well-placed phone calls ought to be enough to kill the idea. Don't snicker — so far, they are right. • The Liberty Lobby — These are the anti-tax conservatives who oppose a state lottery because it would be a government-run monopoly that, even if successful, would merely give the government more money to waste. The argument sounds familiar. ======= ======= The Pro-Lottery Coalition • Misguided Libertarians — I don't mean members of the Libertarian Party, most of whom oppose the lottery for the reasons listed immediately above. What I mean is a broader segment of the state's population who don't want to be told what to do.They believe in the right to gamble their money away if they want to. They also think that other North Carolinians will play the lottery and thus shoulder the cost of government, allowing for a tax cut. The latter is pure fantasy — lottery states have higher tax burdens than do non-lottery states, on average — and the former is evidence of faulty reasoning. Whether to allow North Carolinians the freedom to gamble is a separate issue from the idea of having the state of North Carolina monopolize gambling and actively promote its citizens to play. • Misguided Libertines — These are the folks who actually want to play the lottery. The best I can say for them is that they lack the sense to go on the Internet and gamble to their heart's content at better odds and with more enjoyment than they will ever get out of a state lottery. In fact, they ought to make some friends and play poker with them. All in all, a deluded lot. • Democratic Party Animals — These officeholders and consultants believe that a lottery on the ballot means high Democratic turnout and plenty of gambling dollars to use in the 2002 campaigns. I think they are miscalculating, because a lottery referendum would likely bring out more religious conservatives who haven't been voting lately than it would members of the Democratic base. The money issue is more understandable, though I would note that it is an obvious way to evade campaign-finance rules. Hypocrisy, anyone? • The Blob — Bill Bennett's old term for the education establishment, the Blob represents all those organizations supposedly dedicated to our children's education but really just grabbing for more of other people's money. They are putting in a shameful performance on this issue, and enraging truly principled education leaders like former UNC President Bill Friday and former State Board of Education Chairman C.D. Spangler. • The Mob — The gambling industry views North Carolina, the largest state without a government lottery,as prime territory for its expansion. `Nuff said. ======= Email me if you think I've forgotten someone. And, yes, I know that one can belong to several of these groups at once. The idea here is to see how people can get to the same political destinations by taking a variety of different routes"

8/24/2005 12:35:12 PM

Who is arguing that a lottery is a sin?

8/24/2005 12:35:29 PM

Quote :

"education in this state cannot be properly funded without a lottery."

it also can't be properly funded WITH a fuckin lottery, because our stupid fuckin legislature would waste all the money like they do everything else

[Edited on August 24, 2005 at 12:38 PM. Reason : s]

8/24/2005 12:37:22 PM

i could see a lottery being beneath us if we were the only state trying to get one

but every other state on the east coast has a lottery

and last time i looked, many of the states that have a lottery have higher ranked educational systems than we do

8/24/2005 12:39:29 PM

Quote :

"rjrumfel: but every other state on the east coast has a lottery"

At what point did following everyone else become a sign of leadership?

---

Quote :

"rjrumfel: and last time i looked, many of the states that have a lottery have higher ranked educational systems than we do"

And I'll assure you it has nothing at all to do with the lottery.

But if you want NCSU tuition prices to approach those of UVA, you're more than welcome to fight for the increases next time they come up...

8/24/2005 12:49:17 PM

Quote :

"state run lotteries are evil. Legalize gambling, and tax all lottery receipts at 50%. It collects the revenue, and doesn't cost the state a thing."

Quote :

"haha doesnt cost the state a thing?? yeaaaaaaaaaa...except for the department that would have to be made especially for gambling and everything else that goes with that....yea, it certainly would be 'cost free.'"

Quote :

"how exactly does a government-run lottery produce more freedom?"

How?--by moving gambling's "image" from one of complete illegality to one of social acceptance, a necessary step if complete legality and freedom from government is the eventual goal.

A lottery may not be the ideal proposal, but at least it might reduce the number of or influence of North Carolina’s many religious anti-gambling nuts. Then, you could move a bit further by having state-run gambling. This might help improve the image of gambling even more. Then, as a final step, eliminate state-run gambling, legalize private gambling, and repeal all gambling tax laws.

An individual should have the right to do anything they desire, so as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to the same. Similarly, if two or more individuals willingly consent to anything, be it a contract, a business transaction, a sexual act, a bet, an act of violence, or whatever, they should have the right to do so as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else's right to the same.

If I bet on poker with my friends (provided that we all are perfectly aware of the rules of the game, aware that money is involved, willingly consent to participate, etc.,) then where is the harm?--the fact that the state didn't get their cut?

(Now, go ahead and tell me some bullshit about how it’s the government’s responsibility to protect the stupid from themselves…)

8/24/2005 12:59:58 PM

Quote :

"nerdBoy: what's the whole story, TGD, regarding Janet Cowell and the Gov.?"

To add to what TGD said, they pretty much offered everything but the kitchen sink to Cowell and the 4 other holdouts. They really stood their ground under the heaviest of political pressure.

You know who's gotta be really pissed about this? Moreso than Tony Rand or even Gov. Easley? Bev-fuckin'-Perdue. If she would've been able to cast the deciding vote on the lottery, she would've sewn up the governorship for 2008.

Know who's breathing a sigh of relief right now? Roy Cooper and Richard Moore.

I suppose this is me (though, I do occassionally venture into the "Religious Left" territory):

Quote :

"• Goo-Goos — These good-government types can be found among the ranks of universities, government agencies, nonprofits, and the news media. They oppose the lottery because it is an unreliable source of funds, an inefficient and regressive form of revenue collection, and an invitation to corruption of governments and elections."

Oh, and TGD, Janet Cowell is far more liberal than Hillary Clinton.

8/24/2005 1:00:43 PM

politics = strange bedfellows

8/24/2005 1:04:40 PM

i find myself straddling the goo-goos, the liberty left and "the club" in terms of reasons why i oppose having a lottery..

8/24/2005 1:08:30 PM

Quote :

"Kay_Yow: Oh, and TGD, Janet Cowell is far more liberal than Hillary Clinton."

Are we talking in terms of votes cast, or rhetoric? b/c Hillary's record is one of the most liberal in the country, her recent GOP-sounding overtures notwithstanding

8/24/2005 1:11:53 PM

likewise,

the bleeding heart that makes me a liberal also brings me to the closer to the pro-life camp

and the leftist in me that hates facists, brings me closer to the neocon agenda

8/24/2005 1:19:36 PM

Quote :

"TGD: Are we talking in terms of votes cast, or rhetoric? b/c Hillary's record is one of the most liberal in the country, her recent GOP-sounding overtures notwithstanding "

Either or...I don't think she (or her husband, for that matter) are as liberal as people would like to believe. Her recent GOP-overtures, as you call them, have been pretty consistent since she was First Lady...it takes a village and all that...

8/24/2005 1:23:44 PM

hello complete socialization of health care making it a felony to see a doctor outside of your PPO = radical leftist

8/24/2005 1:26:34 PM

what/who would it take to coin the tern "neo-liberal"?

neolibs would be liberals with a business friendly agenda such as Clinton, Bill Bradley, Easley, etc. neolibs with some kind of moral obligation to teach a man to fish/increase the pie/create, instead of just being for sale/getting yours in a zero some game.

8/24/2005 1:31:54 PM

Quote :

"its just wrong to set up a system that you KNOW is going to sucker the poor and stupid, and give the proceeds to a bunch of irresponsible people who are just going to waste it on pork and DOT."

I hope you don't mean The Department of Transportation. You think it's a "waste" putting money into that? You think that they have enough money as is? You think that money from the lottery is seriously going to go to something fucking useful like the DOT?

It's all going to go to some stupid shit that you don't want to pay for.

It's just a voluntary tax, and I think having it in the first place is just a clever "legal" way to make another couple hundred million a year for the state's budget.

Saying that it all goes to education may be true, but let's deal with the fact that money is liquid. They can just as easily shove all the money from the lottery to education, then take the money that they were already spending on education and put it somewhere else. They can make it look however they like on paper, it's not going to just increase the education budget by 200 mil (or whatever their figure is for annual revenue from the lottery).

8/24/2005 1:33:17 PM

Minor revision to my earlier post, my Senate insiders tell me I've got names mixed up: Sen. Garwood was the one put in the hospital for blood sugar issues, while Sen. Horton had paired with Democrat Sen. Hoyle for his absence.

---

Quote :

"hempster: How?--by moving gambling's "image" from one of complete illegality to one of social acceptance, a necessary step if complete legality and freedom from government is the eventual goal."

You realize that government-run gambling does nothing to bring about "freedom from government," right?

---

Quote :

"hempster: A lottery may not be the ideal proposal, but at least it might reduce the number of or influence of North Carolina’s many religious anti-gambling nuts. Then, you could move a bit further by having state-run gambling. This might help improve the image of gambling even more. Then, as a final step, eliminate state-run gambling, legalize private gambling, and repeal all gambling tax laws."

Or just legalize private gambling and skip the middle man entirely.

Name me an industry where the government used to have its fingers running the show, and then later on decided "well let's just get out of this and let the private market jump in."

---

Quote :

"hempster: An individual should have the right to do anything they desire, so as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to the same. Similarly, if two or more individuals willingly consent to anything, be it a contract, a business transaction, a sexual act, a bet, an act of violence, or whatever, they should have the right to do so as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else's right to the same."

Quote :

"John Hood: • Misguided Libertarians — I don't mean members of the Libertarian Party, most of whom oppose the lottery for the reasons listed immediately above. What I mean is a broader segment of the state's population who don't want to be told what to do. They believe in the right to gamble their money away if they want to...[which] is evidence of faulty reasoning. Whether to allow North Carolinians the freedom to gamble is a separate issue from the idea of having the state of North Carolina monopolize gambling and actively promote its citizens to play."

---

Quote :

"hempster: If I bet on poker with my friends (provided that we all are perfectly aware of the rules of the game, aware that money is involved, willingly consent to participate, etc.,) then where is the harm?--the fact that the state didn't get their cut?"

The "harm" is that this argument is a categorically irrelevant red herring

A more accurate analogy would be you being banned from betting on poker with your friends because the state has monopolized it...

8/24/2005 2:11:22 PM

Quote :

"Kay_Yow: Either or...I don't think she (or her husband, for that matter) are as liberal as people would like to believe. Her recent GOP-overtures, as you call them, have been pretty consistent since she was First Lady...it takes a village and all that..."

I agree, I don't think Bill Clinton is liberal at all. His hooker problems notwithstanding, Dick Morris said it best:

Quote :

"Dick Morris: Bill Clinton is a moderate who dresses up like a liberal when necessary. Hillary Clinton is a liberal who dresses up like a moderate when necessary."

8/24/2005 2:13:48 PM

Quote :

"what/who would it take to coin the tern "neo-liberal"?"

neo-liberal = blue dog democrat

8/24/2005 2:17:18 PM

Quote :

"my Senate insiders tell me "

so does wral and the n&o

8/24/2005 2:28:01 PM

^
that'd be great if they delivered my paper today, but I haven't gotten it today or yesterday

8/24/2005 2:36:53 PM

Quote :

"what/who would it take to coin the tern "neo-liberal"?"

Neo-liberal has already been used to describe libertarianish economists who consider themselves clasically liberal. And is used a lot when to describe a foreign government that enacts market oriented policies. Noam Chomsky even wrote a really bad book on how horrible it is.

8/24/2005 3:01:26 PM

Quote :

"but every other state on the east coast has a lottery"

That's always a good reason to do something.

8/24/2005 4:13:16 PM

If every other state jumped off a bridge...

8/24/2005 4:18:15 PM

We should strive to be more like South Carolina and New Jersey.

8/24/2005 4:19:54 PM

Quote :

"lottery proceeds will go to education"

and then the money that is currently being spent on education will be spent elsewhere. you know, like they did with the sales tax. I would be more likely to support the lottery if I knew it would actually be an addition to education funding, as opposed to a replacement.

8/24/2005 4:49:39 PM

Quote :

"aaronburro: and then the money that is currently being spent on education will be spent elsewhere. you know, like they did with the sales tax."

If they even give the money to education at all in the first place.

Since everyone likes using Virginia as one of their examples, Virginia created its "education lottery" when I was 1-year-old. When did the first $.10 go to education? 16 years later, after I had graduated and was already on my way to Raleigh b/c NCSU was a better deal than UVA and MIT.

---

Quote :

"aaronburro: I would be more likely to support the lottery if I knew it would actually be an addition to education funding, as opposed to a replacement."

I think a lot of folks would, but even here folks end up dismissing the problem of volatility.

Let's switch around to talking about Georgia now. The lottery is essentially a voluntary sales tax. Like all voluntary taxes, they're paid only when people feel like paying them. Meaning they're prone to extreme volatility. Take a look at the Georgia lottery proceeds (I couldn't find the old TWW thread where they were discussed). Some years things go up, but other years things go way down. Government institutions can't have that.

Everyone knows how NCSU screams bloody murder at the slightest mention of cuts to their proposed budget increases, claiming all sorts of inevitable maladies that would result...a lottery would institutionalize those exact same results, and they would occur each and every single year without even the prayer of a responsible legislature stopping it from happening.

8/24/2005 5:13:40 PM

ha

totally beside the point, but she used to come into cup-a-joe all the time when i worked there.

8/24/2005 5:23:47 PM

^^ well, the volatility could be planned for, but it would require the legislature not to spend the lottery proceeds until the next year AND not to plan on using that money either. AKA, the proceeds for a year couldn't be spent until the year was over. Thus, the legislature wouldn't be able to spend the money until the next year so they would know how much they have to spend. Like I said, before, though, they would also have to not be able to use lottery proceeds as expected income or anything like against which to balance. It'd have to be spent on a "you can spend what you have right here" basis, which goes entirely against how most lottery proponents want to use it: expect it to bring in 200mill so plan to spend 200mill.

8/24/2005 5:47:29 PM

^
Agreed. But if the government would actually do that, the entire debate about all of government finance would get turned upside-down

8/24/2005 9:33:45 PM

uh, can we let the people decide what to do with their money? I mean its not like they wont spend this "lottery" money otherwise on things like booze or cigarettes. cmo'n lets cover all the sins here people.

8/24/2005 10:46:58 PM

^
so here's a novel idea...let them gamble without the government running the show

8/24/2005 10:48:52 PM

the purpose of the lottery is to make more money for education, not to add an industry. are these private companies just going to donate out of good conscience?

8/25/2005 10:20:01 AM