CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

NoGiftsPlease — Thu, 17 May 2007 20:36:33 -0000

If we're going to expand gambling, why do we want to limit to only locations where only rich investors will be able to profit from it? Why not make gambling closer and more accessible to anyone who wants it so they won't have to waste all that gas money driving to a casino.... and let all the small businesses take advantage of it? Then they can return the video poker machines to the bars in Lyons and Dick Duchossois won't be the only one taking the large % off the top. Actually, I don't believe the state should be financed through gambling. Get a backbone and accept that we have to pay for governmental services.

Re: Question of the day

observer — Wed, 16 May 2007 22:48:28 -0000

YES Slots at the tracks has shown to be a proven economic developer in other states (and in Canada as well). The growth in the agriculture industry around the state would be tremendous if only the tracks got slots - as opposed to a loss of jobs if the racing industry is not allowed to regain its vitality.

Re: Question of the day

Kevin Highland — Wed, 16 May 2007 08:50:59 -0000

Yes, expaned gambling! Video Poker Machines in all the taverns....it'll make up for the loss of business due to the smoking ban!

Re: Question of the day

Reformed — Tue, 15 May 2007 22:54:00 -0000

Yes we need expanded gambling to pay for the free health insurance for all the people who can't afford health insurance because they have a gambling addiction.
We also need to legalize marijuana to pay for the free health insurance for all of the people who can't afford health insurance because they have drug addictions.
Hamster wheel....

Re: Question of the day

Jechislo — Tue, 15 May 2007 22:22:09 -0000

Yes I support expanded gaming. Put the casinos where the people are - Cook County. I'd love it if there were slots at racetracks; I think they should even have slots at the OTB's. Gambling is a voluntary tax. I'd be happy to see gambling revenue from Cook County benefit the rest of the State.

Re: Question of the day

Gregor — Tue, 15 May 2007 20:17:14 -0000

Gambling money is not "free money". It's money that was already here and available to be put to work for the public good.

It comes out of the local economy, and most of it rolls on out of state to the owners of the casino licenses. It comes out of other uses, like savings accounts, investments in refurbishing a home and property, it comes out of money that could have been spent on buying a house or car, or even just groceries, or heath care, or tuition, local goods and services. The state takes a small cut and the rest flows out of Illinois like a river.

It is far, far from "free" money.

"So what" you say; "It's my disposable income to do with as I wish".

Yes, for the well-off, it is a matter of "so-what". But the bulk of the target market for these casinos are not high rollers or even tourists. They are mid to low-income people. They are being preyed upon, under the guise of being divertingly entertained.

The revenue the state gets out of the casinos goes thru many, many open hands before what's left becomes services and support for those very same people.

They, and we as a state, would be way ahead to invest the money directly in local business and services and programs, instead of scrabbling for the meager leavings as the bulk of the gambling money departs for the sunny West. Gambling is a robbery where you make the victim hold the gun on himself while you go thru his pockets. It's as regressive as you can get.

Re: Question of the day

A Citizen — Tue, 15 May 2007 18:26:34 -0000

I'm going out and buying a vintage nickle dime quarter one armed bandit and putting it in my den. Then I am going to indulge in too many adult beverages and gamble my rearend off. The worst that will happen is I'll get a hangover. But I won't be paying any "taxes" on my fun. I can hardly wait to be up and in operation, heck I may throw a party and let friends and neighbors play my machine. All for fun, of course.

Re: Question of the day

bored now — Tue, 15 May 2007 17:55:35 -0000

ok, if you have to have gambling, i agree with turning the governor's mansion into a casino. may as well do something with it...

Re: Question of the day

Objective Dem — Tue, 15 May 2007 17:45:12 -0000

PalosParkBob,

Actually Chicago already has an area like your proposed "Debauchery Island." Its the Viagra Triangle on Rush Street.

Re: Question of the day

QC Transplant — Tue, 15 May 2007 17:43:09 -0000

I understand the perils of gaming. I had a friend whose marriage went down the tubes due to gambling. The interesting aspect of this was that my friend's marriage did not go down the tubes due directly to gambling but due to hiding the fact that he was gambling (trust). So, I have seen what gambling can do. However, through all of this, I can't help but wonder if he would find a way to gamble even if gambling in Illinois was completely illegal. Therefore, I would be supportive of an expansion of gambling, especially seeing that Iowa may be going to land based casinos soon. I also believe that Illinois should look into sports betting especially for the day of the Super Bowl. The amount of money the state could bring in with this expansion could be huge. On the other hand, as a way to try to stop addicted gamblers, legislation should be included that would prohibit ATMs or any check cashing located on the premisis of gambling facilities.

Re: Question of the day

Objective Dem — Tue, 15 May 2007 17:27:00 -0000

Little Brindle,

I don't know where you get the number $2 to 3 billion, but it seems way high to me. Additionally, much of the money spent on gambling would have been spent in other ways that would generate sales tax revenues. The money does not appear out of nowhere. This goes back to one of my central concerns, we need to be developing ways to generate new income and jobs in Illinois.

Likewise when we talk about expanding gambling in the state, we should be looking for ways to create a tourist draw that imports money into the local economy. I don't have any research to back me up, but I assume that gambling as a tourist activity (rather than local entertainment activity) is less likely to become a serious problem due to availability issues.

Its great that horse racing generates so many jobs, but I don't see why that means we need to give slots to the race track owners. Movie theaters generate a lot of jobs, but I don't think we should allow them to put slots in the lobbies if their attendance starts to go down.

Re: Question of the day

PalosParkBob — Tue, 15 May 2007 17:08:56 -0000

Now that M4 is pretty much done, MCCormick place would be a natural spot for a new casino.

Isn't that why Hizzoner plowed Meigs?

And while we're at it, we can build "Debauchery Island" just off the point.

It could feature legalized prostitution and a "drug sanctuary" where no illicit drug laws would be enforced. You know, kind of like the "illegal alien" sanctuary King Luis wants to make out of Cook County.

After all, in principal, there's little difference in flaunting the immigration laws or drug and prostitution laws.

Each has its own political constituency, and can bring in tons of cash, and political patronage money is really what this is all about, isn't it?

More than a little snarc, here, folks.

Re: Question of the day

20-20 Hindsight — Tue, 15 May 2007 17:08:00 -0000

As a standardbred breeder here in Illinois I am very much in support of a gaming bill that would allow slots at the race tracks - but subject to certain conditions that would allow the Illinois racing program a chance to return to a position of national prominence. Those conditions fall into two basic categories - those that deal with the new changes, and those that correct prior errors (hence the 20-20 Hindsight).

New elements.
Horsemen must get a fair percentage of the slot revenues that is guaranteed and is paid directly into their purse account. Live racing must be protected affording our local horsemen an opportunity to earn a living while also preventing the race tracks from turning into strictly casino operations. The race tracks should be penalized or rewarded for their promotion and management of the live racing product through some measurable criteria.

Corrections of old problems:
Recapture must be eliminated completely, and not later than the day the first slot machine is in operation. Recapture has cost Illinois horsemen many millions dollars every year, and we simply cannot continue to sustain that sort of loss. Commissions on wagers of all sorts and from all sources must be split evenly between the horsemen and track operators, getting back to the original concept of a 50-50 partnership.

From my perspective HB 480 still needs some work, but it also represents our best - and quite likely our only - chance to keep our farm open next year, and I sincerely hope that we are able to get it passed this session. Otherwise, ours will likely be the next horse breeding farm in Illinois to turn into a subdivision.

Re: Question of the day

Little Brindle — Tue, 15 May 2007 16:53:57 -0000

Gambling is already legal. Two to three billion $'s in additional rev. without a tax increase is appealing. New York, Indiana, Delaware, Iowa, Indiana and other states have legalized slots at their tracks. Horse racing has a signicant impact on IL agriculture and supports 40,000 jobs.

Re: Question of the day

Objective Dem — Tue, 15 May 2007 16:09:14 -0000

I have heard the warnings on casino ads. I just can't understand them because they speak faster than any humanly possible.

I do like your idea of turning the Governor's mansion into a casino. It would be a lot classier than the riverboat I went to. Maybe we could get Blago a job working as the host in about 3 years (as long as he doesn't have to spend the night there.)

Re: Question of the day

Slice & Dice — Tue, 15 May 2007 15:50:33 -0000

Obj. Dem:
I disagree with your analogy re: alcohol and regs. There are plenty of regs on gambling. To name just one: Ever hear an advertisement for a boat? Always includes an warning about addiction and a toll free number to get help. "Vices" have always been with us OD. Alcohol, gambling, prostitution, drugs and so forth - one man's vice is another man's recreation. How did you like the idea of converting the Governor's Mansion to a casino??? Blago's a big gambler eh? Threw the GRT dice you might say.....

Re: Question of the day

Objective Dem — Tue, 15 May 2007 15:37:24 -0000

Slice and Dice,

Undoubtedly some of the oppostion is based on "moralist" concerns, but my concern and the concern of many people is the societal impact.

It is simplistic to say that the "cat is out of the bag" so go fight elsewhere. It is equivalent of saying that because prohibition was overturned we don't need any laws or regulations regarding alcohol.

Re: Question of the day

Little Egypt — Tue, 15 May 2007 15:23:19 -0000

Yes, and dry dock it anywhere on the Sangamon River, complete with mosquitoes and buffalo gnats.

Re: Question of the day

Slice & Dice — Tue, 15 May 2007 15:20:45 -0000

I think the Govs mansion would make a great casino location, very old school look. Add a bacarat table in case 007 shows up. Also add a few more to the Chicago area, one near the Indiana border, one downtowm, slots at the airports and horse tracks too. The cat is out of the bag, the moralists need to go fight against something else.

Re: Question of the day

Horse Lover — Tue, 15 May 2007 14:47:23 -0000

I think the race tracks should be allowed to have the slot machines. The horse industry is spread throughout the state and the spill over from the raising and breeding of the horses is a huge economic factor downstate.

Re: Question of the day

Objective Dem — Tue, 15 May 2007 14:30:04 -0000

To put the scope of the problem in perspective, an article in the Christian Science Monitor reported that experts "contend that while 80 percent of the population is able to enjoy gambling as entertainment, as many 15 percent develop a "problem," and another 5 percent may become serious compulsive gamblers."

This doesn't mean we have to ban all gambling, but it clearly needs safeguards and limits.

Re: Question of the day

OneManBlog — Tue, 15 May 2007 14:24:07 -0000

Opps that was supposed to be on the picture...

Re: Question of the day

OneManBlog — Tue, 15 May 2007 14:23:32 -0000

Rod singing to Mike
"But you're looking through me
Like I wasn't here at all.
No reply, there's no reply at all.

Dance with me, you never dance with me.
Ooh, it seems that I can move,
I'm close to you, close as I can get."

Re: Question of the day

vole — Tue, 15 May 2007 13:13:23 -0000

Just "NO". Encourage savings and defered gratification. I've seen baby boomers having to borrow from their elderly parents because they wasted their substantial incomes at the boats and at Vegas. Sometime the boomers need to get serious about helping to support themselves in their old age. Casinos are not going to get us through the rapidly approaching bottleneck.

Re: Question of the day

Objective Dem — Tue, 15 May 2007 13:01:55 -0000

To more specifically answer your question, I would only favor expansion at O'Hare. Even then I would restrict the gambling to the ticketed passenger area in order to maximize the impact on tourists and limit the impact on area residents.

I would also make sure the city and state own the casino and rent it to the highest bidder, rather than the riverboat give-away that occured under Gov. "Skimmer" Thompson.

The only reason to expand gambling to racetracks is to prop up a failing industry of limited value and no long term growth potential.