I'm generally in favor of legalizing gambling in Texas, but I think it should be restricted to Galveston, at least initially. It's a natural location for such a tourist-attraction, and we all know how much Galveston could use the infusion of jobs and money into the local economy. With the right regulation and strings attached, I think it is our best shot to revive one of our most historic cities in Texas without relying on excessive taxpayer burden. As far as the idea of regulating/prohibiting vices like gambling, I'd be interested to see any statistics on the number and percentage of people who "ruin" their lives due to casinos in places in which it's already legal. i don't doubt that it happens, but if it's a a relatively low percentage, it may be a cost we are willing to pay as a society, like already do with alcoholics, smokers, etc. I imagine it's also something we could apportion a certain amount of gambling-related revenue to address.
People really need to go there to appreciate just how bad things are. I expected it to be badly damaged, and at first, I was surprised that there wasn't more destruction than I could see driving around. Then I looked closer. The buildings were empty. Not dozens of buildings, hundreds. The businesses that thrived before the storm around the Strand and the other busy areas on that side of town were gone. I noticed that huge numbers of historical buildings were going to need to be gutted and rebuilt, if they weren't torn down. And they shouldn't be torn down. God knows, Texas has been beyond cavalier with its history. We've lost so very much of it. We need to take a stand with Galveston and say, "It stops here. We're going to save Galveston's history and rebuild, and do it in a way that makes a repeat of this disaster far more difficult." Our ancestors did that after the 1900 storm. I don't see why we cannot be equal to the task. All it requires is the will to act, and a willingness to pay for it. And where is the administration? I've heard talk about NOLA, and NOLA needs help, of course, as do the rest of the areas of the Gulf damaged from the storms of that year, but what about Galveston and the Texas coast? I know several folks that live(d) in Galveston and had businesses there. Those people have talked to dozens and dozens of folks. They all tell the same story. Still waiting for help. Still waiting for money to rebuild.
I say hell no. I think of it this way. People were allowed and almost encouraged to take teaser rates for their mortgages. Out of desperacy, people took these rates with or without knowing that when rates go up, they'll be screwed. When feds raised rates, USA had a housing market problem. Now everyone is b!tchin that "ohhhh those people deserved it" blah blah blah. In my head, if teaser rates never existed, we wouldn't be in this mess. People were stupid and were taken advantage of. Society paid the price (i.e bailout). Same with gambling, if it isn't so easily accessible, I think people would be better off. Gambling chances in a casino are set to 51% house chance at a minimum. With enough cards dealt, roulette wheels spun, and dice tossed the PEOPLE end up with a loss. And a lot of people are stupid, should we let them be taken advantage of? maybe it's late and I dunno wtf I'm on about
Out of what? Except that the rates in these mortgages were tied to LIBOR. That is the London Inter Bank Offer Rate. The Fed had nothing to do with it. Chalk up another vote to the people being too stupid to control their destinies. This guy also wants government to think for people. This is just sad.
Yes. Welcome to the natural order of life, where the solution is never Mother Government. You should maybe move to Europe or something if that's the type of society you'd like.
Aren't european societies generally more socially liberal? If that is what we're talking about.. after all..
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RR_ZMtXr1gM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RR_ZMtXr1gM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> We need freedom.
I guess I support this... I used to play quite a bit of poker and I think vegas is fun. But IMO slot machines are the most depressing things ever invented. Nothing beats me down more than seeing a sea of old people feeding dollars into the slots all day. In South Dakota, slot machines are really prevalent. There are slots in gas stations, bars, and there are shacks with 'casino' signs on them that have 20-30 slots inside. I think turning galveston into a mini vegas is a good idea, but please don't enable people to build these obnoxious trashy slot shacks anywhere they want.
Yes, I am a save-them-from-themselves kinda guy. Government can be used for a lot of things -- anything we have sufficient votes to order it to do. Controlling vice is something that I would like government to do. That's how I will vote. Obviously, you'll vote the other way. My apologies. Apparently, I have reading comprehension problems. I could continue to argue the point, but I think we're at an impasse. And, I have the flu and don't have the strength. I will address the issue of Galveston, though. 1. It is sad that Galveston is dying, but it's been on that track since 1900. I don't know if we can save it. 2. A casino might save it, but a casino isn't necessarily the only option. 3. If this was all just about Galveston, we don't need all the proposed casinos in Houston, Dallas, and Austin. Cut the others out and leave just Galveston (and the tribes, because I'm sure we'll get into a big legal fight with them if we said they couldn't open casinos but Galveston could). The other casinos would dilute the benefit to Galveston anyway. 4. I don't think I'm willing, as a voter, to surrender the public good to bolster the economy of one (if great and historic) town.
http://www.galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=d0f8366425ef4b29 Don’t bet on Texas casinos By Bronwyn Turner Correspondent Published March 3, 2009 GALVESTON — The odds are against proposed legislation slotting a Las Vegas-style destination resort casino in Galveston, legislators and local pundits say. “I haven’t handicapped it yet,” said state Rep. Craig Eiland, D-Galveston. “I think the votes are probably there in the Senate, but I’m not sure they are in the House.” Eiland said a constitutional amendment would be a better place to start a battle for casino gambling, not legislative proposals enabling casinos. “Legislators ought to keep their attention focused on constitutional amendments and not on fighting over how to split up the pie,” he said, speaking by telephone from Austin. Both Eiland and state Rep. Larry Taylor, R-Friendswood, pointed to Gov. Rick Perry’s promise to veto any bill that would expand gambling in Texas as a major roadblock. A call for a constitutional amendment does not require his signature. Casino Bill The casino proposal introduced Feb. 24 by Sens. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and John Carona, R-Dallas, includes these provisions: • Twelve “destination resort” casinos. Possible locations include Galveston, South Padre Island, Bexar County, Tarrant County, Travis County, Dallas County and Harris County; • Slot machines at existing horse and dog racing tracks, such as Gulf Greyhound Park in La Marque; and • Casino gambling at three federally recognized Indian tribal lands. The Ellis-Carona bill, if passed, would then require approval of a constitutional amendment by two-thirds of lawmakers and state voters. Backers of the bill estimate at least $3 billion could be added to state coffers. Of those funds, $1 billion would be dedicated to a trust fund for college scholarships, and $1 billion would go for highway construction. ‘Blinded By The Glitz’ Critics include Galveston businessman and community leader Harris L. “Shrub” Kempner Jr. “This is a lousy financing scheme,” he said. “Nobody understands the kinds of costs it imposes on the neighborhood. A lot of people are blinded by the glitz.” He also warned of unexpected consequences should such legislation be successful. “I think the legislature has missed one bet,” he said. Legislators are “not really paying attention to the overall advances to the rights of Indian tribes nationwide. “The bottom line is that I believe if they introduce this level of gaming to the state, there will be no check on Indian tribes opening up casinos anywhere they want to in the state.” He expects such proposals to appear in future legislative sessions. “It’s a hardy perennial,” he said. Uphill Battle A.R. “Babe” Schwartz has seen a fair share of gambling proposals in the legislature. The retired veteran Texas lawmaker said he wouldn’t bet on a successful casino bill this year. “I think the odds are against it,” he said, speaking by phone from Austin. “We would have to see a lot of momentum toward getting 100 votes in the House, and it might be even harder to get 21 votes in the Senate.” A constitutional amendment proposal would also face an uphill battle, he said. “My opinion is not terribly valid; I’m not taking any polls,” he stressed. “In order to have a constitutional amendment passed, it’s going to take a bunch of lobbyists working 18 hours a day and getting promises that those votes are there.”
^^^ That's a terrible bill. I agree with flu-ridden JV (or he agrees with me) that it should be Galveston only. The rest can wait, and wait a very long time.
What do you mean its dying? Geologically? Yes, the beaches are receding. Its not just because of the 1900 hurricane but also natural erosion. Galveston is a barrier island so its a natural process. As far as business goes, construction is booming-- but its suffering from crooked contractors that pickup and leave once a new storm hits somewhere. Alot of these guys are coming from Louisiana projects most likely, but there is a huge immigration of people from northern states moving to Galveston in hopes of work. Galveston is bound to turn around in a matter of a year or two. They are in desperate need of a new mayor though.
Natural order of life? So tell me where do you draw the line? Maybe we should make meth legal? I mean, who cares right? If they are stupid enough to use it they deserve to suffer right? And we make money as well through taxation!! Praise the All Mighty Dollar! And no, I prefer to live it Texas where gambling is illegal. Europe is more liberal on this subject. Bad example. Could you provide a link? I'd like to read about this.
Can someone fill me in on why whenever I read about making gambling legal, I read something else about Indian reservations getting a cut...or that they could open them all over the state. What link am I missing?
Ask yourself a simple question. Has there ever been a time in your life where the government would have made a better decision for you than you did yourself? If yes, in my opinion, you deserve to live with that government's decision. If no, then why does everyone want the government making decisions for them? Come back and rethink what I stated. It has nothing to do with anything you just said. In addition, Europe was not brought into the discussion because it has anything to do with the specific topic of gambling in this thread. Some kids like socialism, some kids don't. In the old days, the ones that don't were Americans. I don't know what the hell is going wrong in the schools these days, but socialists and socialist solutions belong on the other side of the oceans or something.
Unfortunately, no. I know this because in almost 7 years of Chapter 13 practice, I have read more of these notes than I care to think about. Almost all of them are tied to LIBOR. I did a quick search and found this.... Adjustable-rate mortgages have typically been tied to either of two indexes, one based on U.S. treasuries, the other on the London interbank offered rate, or Libor. The index is used to determine a mortgage’s new interest rate when it is reset, and up until recently, the choice would have made little difference. But since 2007, the rates on which the indexes are based have diverged sharply, and borrowers with Libor-based adjustable-rate mortgages are likely to pay more than they would have had their mortgages been tied to treasuries. Moreover, the proportion of Libor-based ARMs has increased significantly, especially for subprime loans. http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2009/012109.cfm
