If you watched TV news in the last day or two, you must have seen one or more of our broadcasters celebrating an extreme case of redistribution from (mostly) poor and working class people to a few newly-minted millionaires.
Every time this happens, the talking heads seem to agree that this was a wonderful result, and they say that, even though most of them favor redistribution in the other direction.
I can't recall seeing any TV talking head say anything negative about these numbers rackets, other than a very occasional warning note about gambling addictions.
And the state lotteries are numbers rackets, though they don't pay as well, or offer as good service.
Today, many state lotteries offer similar "daily numbers" games, relying typically on mechanical devices to draw the number. The state's rake is typically 50% rather than the 20%-40% of the numbers game. The New York Lottery and Pennsylvania Lottery, even use the names "Numbers" and "Daily Number", respectively. Despite the existence of legal alternatives, some gamblers still prefer to play with a bookie for a number of reasons. Among them are the ability to bet on credit, better payoffs, the convenience of calling in one's bet on the telephone, the ability to play if under the legal age, and the avoidance of government taxes.
It's true that these numbers rackets contribute to the government, but it is also true that some gangsters contribute to private charities (and, in many areas, supplement the salaries of government employees).
Posted by Jim Miller at December 01, 2012 01:17 PM | Email ThisOn one hand I believe it is a suckers game, one in which I will not/do not participate.
On the other hand, it's a free country and if people want to throw good money after bad, who am I to tell them they can't? That their economic ignorance might fund schools [/eyeroll] is a bonus that might [/eyeroll] keep my taxes lower.
Conservatism is about freedom. That freedom includes the freedom to be stupid, the freedom to waste your OWN money, the freedom to believe in an incompetent Obama and the freedom to believe in lottery leprechauns who will let you win a pot of gold.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on December 1, 2012 01:49 PMLiberalism wants to protect us from ourselves in every aspect of our lives. Liberalism thinks we're too stupid to wear seat belts without a law. They think were too stupid to eat healthy, too stupid to protect our children, too stupid to protect the environment for our children, too stupid to home school, too stupid decide our own healthcare and on and on and on.
The state run numbers game is one place liberalism should protect those too stupid. That they don't says volumes.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on December 1, 2012 01:57 PMThe trick is to play these games with moderation. That's something each individual must develop on his or her own. It's not something in which the government should interfere.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on December 1, 2012 03:18 PMHad you forgot?
It was none other than the last Republican Governor of our fair state of Washington, John Spellman. Signed the legislation July 16, 1982 to fund education during the budget crisis caused by the Reagan Recession.
Was there any other significant lasting achievement the last Republican governor obtained other than getting your government into the Numbers Racket?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 1, 2012 03:34 PMThe Republicans had a majority in both chambers, with a sizeable advantage in the House and a one-vote margin in the Senate.
Interesting isn't it?
Your double standards (and Orwellian doublespeak) are showing.
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on December 1, 2012 03:47 PMhttp://pewresearch.org/pubs/1818/reagan-recession-public-opinion-very-negative
Taking a different approach from the typical status-quo comments, it is time for conservatives to do something about that to offer an effective alternative - the last one who did such was Andrew Breitbart, but that movement seemed to die when he did back in March. Sad but true.
Posted by: KDS on December 1, 2012 04:34 PMThere are low information voters - the regressives and then there is are low perception politicians - the GOP leadership.
Posted by: KDS on December 1, 2012 05:20 PMThere are low information voters - the regressives and then there are low perception politicians - the GOP leadership.
Posted by: KDS on December 1, 2012 05:20 PMIn the meantime, a bunch of people dealing with the realities of life, a depressed economy, their own nature etc. are going to buy lottery tickets and we'll pour some of that money into the bottomless pit of education, while still underperforming!
Progress!
Posted by: chr1 on December 1, 2012 05:24 PMThis city's got Nicole Brodeur, more indie bands, more "art" and "creativity," more gardening men and more men on bicycles, and more unionized dockworkers that you can shake a stick at.
What more do you want?
A balanced budget?
Are you insane?
Posted by: chr1 on December 1, 2012 05:29 PMYou are like ignoramuses observing a stream mistaking the ripple behind the boulder for a permanent thing. Your vision is OK, it's your mind that's skewed.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on December 1, 2012 09:15 PMYou are like ignoramuses observing a stream mistaking the ripple behind the boulder for a permanent thing. Your vision is OK, it's your mind that's skewed.
Huh?
I sorta, kinda, almost understand what you are babbling about, but your confusion seems to be with coerced 'redistribution' and voluntary redistribution by free and fair trade and by the natural opportunity of the free market. You have the right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness, not the right to happiness by coerced redistribution.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on December 1, 2012 09:32 PMThey make up arguments - no one craves redistribution except commie/pinkos like him. Dork - Show some courage and move to a totalitarian dictatorship if you crave redistribution so much. Otherwise, stick it where the sun don't shine.
Every country in the world has it, but to varying degrees. End of story.
Posted by: KDS on December 1, 2012 11:12 PMBuying a lottery ticket and then winning the lottery is not coerced distribution. Paying a speeding ticket is coerced redistribution. Your little set of ideological blinders does not serve you well.
If Grover Norquist (a supposedly grown man who recently called Mitt Romney a 'Poopy Head')can inherit millions and then devote his life to forcing politicians to sign his childish 'no tax pledge', thereby undermining the security of the nation, so that he can hang on to those unearned millions, isn't that an example of coerced non-redistribution?
Posted by: dorky dorkman on December 2, 2012 07:40 AMWow. You're just a pile of stupid.
So, you'll be helping Roger in Republic understand that Governor Spellman was a Republican?
Will you also help him to understand that the Republican controlled state legislature which passed the lottery bill and the Republican Governor who signed it into law was "wrong" and "stupid"?
Yeah, I think that is going to happen some time after you pack your bags and move.
What I get Rags is that you are full of it.
On the contrary, lotteries may well be the single most insidious way that state governments raise money. Many of the people who buy lottery tickets are poor; lotteries are essentially a form of regressive taxation. The odds against winning a big jackpot are astronomical -- far worse than the odds at an Atlantic City slot machine. The get-rich-quick marketing -- by government, let's not forget -- is offensive.
Hmmm, is it any wonder it was introduced into our state by a Republican controlled government?
MBS: Wow. You're just a pile of stupid.
Yep. Or, if you want to buy into that claptrap for the sake of argument, it means that the WAGOP has not managed to elect a "real" Republican governor in 40 years. That's really sad. It says a lot about the party's descent into nuttery.
2012 was probably the best opportunity they've had in a long time. Open seat, plus the GOP ran a well-known "moderate" conservative who already held a prominent statewide executive branch office and who polled well at the outset. 2016 will probably be more difficult plus the GOP bench seems shallower than ever.
Anyone care to speculate on 2016 names?
Posted by: scottd on December 2, 2012 08:42 AMThe assertion that a real Republican has not run for Governor for 40 years is off-base. In a blue state like this, McKenna or Rossi, who are more moderate get more traction than a more conservative Craswell ever would.
Posted by: KDS on December 2, 2012 09:07 AMThis is true, however I consider gambling as a predatory business, and as a WA resident I am coerced to join in on the dirty deal.
If consenting adults want to do this, fine, but leave me out of the equation.
Posted by: travis t on December 2, 2012 10:59 AMYep. ACTIONS:CONSEQUENCES
You got the guy you wanted, I want you to keep him.
Let me know how you feel about this in a few years...
By the way, do you suppose that's the same reason Gregoire has been off the news radar ...
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on December 2, 2012 11:43 AMEXACTLY like forced participation in paying for abortions
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on December 2, 2012 11:45 AMAre you OK with that? Your examples of things that you are fit-to-be-tied about having to participate in by being a part of this society are trivial compared to a lot of other things.
They have a word for that: HYPOCRISY.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on December 2, 2012 04:18 PMIt's called the common good of the NATION. How is abortion in the common good?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on December 2, 2012 04:33 PMBut I see that you have not even tried to answer the question posed in the post's title. But then neither has any other commenter.
It seems to me that possible answers to that question fall into two broad categories: (1) The news readers at channels 4, 5, 7, and 13 do not know about the objections to our numbers rackets and, (2) The news readers do know, but choose not to tell their viewers.
(Of course, different news readers might fall into each category.)
I am inclined to think that for most of our talking heads, (1) is the correct answer; they just have never thought much about the objections to these numbers rackets. It would interesting to have someone, John Carlson perhaps, outline Nocera's objections, and ask a few of them for reactions.
If they do know, commercial reasons might keep them from letting viewers know. The stations get some advertising from the numbers rackets and, I suspect, know that they attract some viewers for whom the daily number is the highlight of the news show.
(I suppose that I should add that I am not sure that I would close our numbers rackets down, now that we have them, if only because they might be replaced by numbers rackets run by even more unsavory characters. But I would definitely object to advertising them heavily in poor areas, as some states do.)
(For the record, I should add that there are a few times when the expected value of a bet in one of these numbers rackets is actually positive, even after taxes. This can happen when you have games with cumulative prizes.
There was a Slate article, years ago, explaining the mathematical details. The analysis involved more math than you would get in the average grade school, but the author did show how to identify these rare situations.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on December 2, 2012 06:23 PMI thought that you were all about individual rights? You are the top-down authoritarian that the military is supposed to protct us against. And what's all this stuff now about the 'common good' over individual rights when it comes to your sacred cow: WAR?
Once again, you talk out of both sides of your mouth. They have a word for that: HYPOCRISY.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on December 3, 2012 05:15 AMYou just made the same mistake.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on December 3, 2012 02:56 PMI am. I want to change hearts and minds, not waste my time tilting against (sorta) settled law. I never claimed anything otherwise. The SCIENCE of 3D and 4D ultrasounds helps me.
Of course, in your anxious haste to spew your screed and play 'gotcha', you never bothered to answer the question: "How is abortion in the common good?"
In the spirit of the season, 'We're all waiting for you, Frosty'.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on December 3, 2012 04:03 PMMy comment is #35, not #36.
Why do I even bother attempting to straighten you out. You are just a nitwit and there is no cure for it.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on December 3, 2012 04:21 PMAbortion is a legal medical procedure. Answer your own question, how is medicine in the common good?
And when are you going to move to some swell Randroidian state where medical procedures are restricted?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 3, 2012 04:24 PMCosmetic surgery is legal - there are far too many instances of it not being GOOD medicine. Abortion, like botox and butt tucks, is consumer CHOICE medicine, not medically necessary medicine.
Because people like MBS and dorky love abortion and are a big part of the declining US birth rate. In the long run they will kill themselves off. An elegant solution to a faulty sense of life.
Posted by: Leftover on December 3, 2012 05:01 PMMy bad - a typo.
You initially referenced yourself - you are a leftist and once again you show that leftists have problems with numbers and simple math. BTW- I am an independent that leans conservative, and not a Republican. Now, go back to playing in your sandbox.
Posted by: KDS on December 3, 2012 05:24 PMI had to remove one this morning, which explains the confusion on the numbering.
Posted by: Jim Miller on December 3, 2012 06:20 PMI had to remove one this morning, which explains the confusion on the numbering.
Posted by Jim Miller at December 3, 2012 06:20 PM
Thanks for fessing up. Dork was blowing smoke. He did not bother to correct himself initially - a projection. Regressives can't count and only know rewritten history.
I retract the "My Bad" from @45.
Posted by: KDS on December 3, 2012 06:52 PMYou referred to the legal medical procedure of abortion as "CHOICE medicine".
First let me congratulate you on understanding that it is an issue of choice. One must accept progress no matter how small.
Second, can you name a medical procedure that is not "CHOICE medicine"?
Third, I must have missed where you identified you are a licenced medical doctor. What medical school did you graduate from and receive you MD degree from?
See, while you are free to operate or not on your own medical opinions, some people prefer the opinions of those who have some education and certification in the matter. It is, after all, a matter of personal health.
Lastly, for someone who bemoans others for not addressing your questions I noticed you did not answer mine. Let's try again with the bolding you like.
How is medicine in the common good?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 3, 2012 06:52 PM
In the same vein, I suggest you consider the AIDS epidemic of Africa,
I suggest you consider the Diphtheria outbreaks in third world countries with third world medicine.
I suggest you consider West Nile Virus, Encephalitis, Dengue Fever, Malaria, Cholera, Dysentery, Hepatitis A, B and C, Tuberculosis, Meningitis, Whooping Cough, Measles, Tetanus and Yellow Fever in those same counties.
One doesn't need a medical degree (although I do have a background in nursing - OOPSIE!), one just needs something sorely lacking in knee jerk 'gotcha' game playing liberals: COMMON SENSE.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on December 3, 2012 07:23 PMYou, making the same mistake you are chiding someone else for, and then DEFENDING your nitwittery, is both annoying and funny -- a bifecta, as it were.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on December 3, 2012 07:24 PMWhoa!
When did Obama start posting here???
Darcy Burner, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Downer Debbie Wasserman Schultz start posting here???
Who knew we attracted such .... 'elites'?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on December 3, 2012 07:27 PMThe question is being asked in an ironic way. The Scout understands that medicine works for the common good. I don't see how you can be so obtuse. It's kind of amazing.
Posted by: dorkydorkman on December 3, 2012 07:31 PMYou did not answer the question, did you?
How is medicine in the common good?
"although I do have a background in nursing "
(1) Are you a nurse practitioner (NP or APRN)?
(2) Are you a Registered Nurse (RN)?
(3) Are you a Licensed practical nurse (LPN)?
(4) Or maybe you wiped asses while watching Marcus Welby, M.D.?
I'm sure you are convinced that visiting the "catacombs of Paris" or asking "dead women" is somehow equivalent to getting the advice of a medical doctor, but others don't see it the 4-D way you do.
Is that you MikeBS?
We'll assume it must be because you need clarification.
Medicine in those third world counties is lacking hence they have those horrible diseases, while we in western countries with advanced medicine do not. The FACT that we do not suffer those horrendous diseases to the devastating extent of those sad, desperate countries is in our COMMON GOOD. It keeps us more productive. That productivity allows for more advances in our society.
Is that simple enough for you BS, or shall I break out the wooden alphabet blocks? Or, will bright colored refrigerator magnets hold your attention better?
I'm sure you are convinced that visiting the "catacombs of Paris" or asking "dead women" is somehow equivalent to getting the advice of a medical doctor, but others don't see it the 4-D way you do.
I doubt you even understand what it was you were trying to say with your blathering attempt at insult.
HINT: Insults only work when they make (even a modicum of) sense.
HINT 2: The recipient of the insult is not the one diminished by it.
Posted by dorky dorkman at December 3, 2012 07:24 PM
Stop your whining. Just because you are too stupid to correct your mistake, you throw a tantrum. BTW, I was originally correct - you little phony Marxist.
Posted by: KDS on December 3, 2012 09:33 PM