Ernie Gets a job.

[Louhunter]

Guess it was a finders fee...

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080220/NEWS01/802200905

[CUZZIN]

Well i hope he does a better job at this one than he tried to do in the last.And yes it does sound like a finders fee.

[mgpatty]

Well, if he doesn't do a good job maybe Pikeville Medical Center can get a casino licence......

[turkeytalker]

Guess he knew jobs would be hard to come by under Beshears Administration.

[CUZZIN]

Guess he knew jobs would be hard to come by under Beshears Administration.There is no jobs,BUT when we get our casino's this state is going to turn around and we will be out of the red:p

[mgpatty]

How exactly do you think that casinos turn a profit. It isn't from selling a product. Their revenue comes from the economic loss of hard working men and women in Kentucky. If you consider that the casino's revenue and licences are going to be taxed, then in essence the people of Kentucky are being taxed. If the economy is truly as bad as everyone claims, do you think it is wise to add another 'tax' to the citizens of Kentucky?

[CUZZIN]

NO NO you see when the casinos come in there will be jobs,that in turn will bring in tax money generated from the workers salary,that in turn is going to bring the state out of this negative budget where in.

[mgpatty]

NO NO you see when the casinos come in there will be jobs,that in turn will bring in tax money generated from the workers salary,that in turn is going to bring the state out of this negative budget where in.

Ok....I see it now. Over $500 million in revenue created from taxes paid by minimum wage jobs in 12 casinos. Don't get me wrong, everybody should have the opportunity for employment. However, in order for this plan to work Kentuckians would need to loose how much money? The people in the casinos aren't going to be the ultra-wealthy. They are going to be your average John Q. Public, earning middle-income wages and less.
I guess everyone forgets the 'crisis' that we faced in the Patton adminstration. Remember the hundreds of low risk offenders that he paroled? What about all the cost saving initiatives that he implemented? All the surplus sales and freezing of overtime? Anybody? What he didn't do was suggest a hugh pet project that ultimately benefited wealthy political donors and Frankfort politicians. Neither did Fletcher. They found other ways, and the Commonwealth survived. I seem to remember Fletcher warning Frankfort Democrats about over spending a few years ago. I guess his warning were correct.

[CUZZIN]

Ok....I see it now. Over $500 million in revenue created from taxes paid by minimum wage jobs in 12 casinos. Don't get me wrong, everybody should have the opportunity for employment. However, in order for this plan to work Kentuckians would need to loose how much money? The people in the casinos aren't going to be the ultra-wealthy. They are going to be your average John Q. Public, earning middle-income wages and less.
I guess everyone forgets the 'crisis' that we faced in the Patton adminstration. Remember the hundreds of low risk offenders that he paroled? What about all the cost saving initiatives that he implemented? All the surplus sales and freezing of overtime? Anybody? What he didn't do was suggest a hugh pet project that ultimately benefited wealthy political donors and Frankfort politicians. Neither did Fletcher. They found other ways, and the Commonwealth survived. I seem to remember Fletcher warning Frankfort Democrats about over spending a few years ago. I guess his warning were correct.Its going to be the same ones that go to the boats and spend their cash,this way it stays in the blue grass.I remember the Patton adminstration,worked under it and never had a problem with over time,seen plenty of raises under that adminstration.

[PhilpotHunter]

How exactly do you think that casinos turn a profit. It isn't from selling a product. Their revenue comes from the economic loss of hard working men and women in Kentucky.

Actually, they do sell a product. It is no different than going to the movies or any other entertainment that people do. They sell entertainment. Not what I consider entertainment, but some people do.

But thank God there are people like you around to make the decision for those "hard working men and women of Kentucky" of how they spend there money. I mean, who needs free will right? By what you are saying, the "hard working, etc." obviously can't make the decision for themselves (wonder why? are they uneducated, ignorant, not Christian enough???) so you will make it for them. Shew, thanks for taking that off our shoulders.

I personally don't think casino's are the fix all for the budget crisis, but I would be willing to consider them. As of right now though, I would NOT vote for them. I don't use them, and I don't think government will do with the money what they say they will (anyone remember lottery ticket revenue promises?), but, and its a big one, I WANT THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON IT.

But that is ludicrous right? I mean, I'm a tax paying citizen of the commonwealth, why would I need to vote on something, why would I have the RIGHT to vote on something, as long as people like you are around to make those decisions for me:rolleyes:

Thank God you are as qualified as you are to make my decisions:rolleyes:

[mgpatty]

Its going to be the same ones that go to the boats and spend their cash,this way it stays in the blue grass.I remember the Patton adminstration,worked under it and never had a problem with over time,seen plenty of raises under that adminstration.


Right....Those few from Kentucky who frequent the boats on the rivers are going to contribute $500 million a years. :rolleyes: I suppose that folks from all parts of Kentucky travel to Louisville on a daily basis. Although your argument sounds good on paper, the facts don't back it up.

Here a few interesting artilces about the Patton admin and the way he handled his 'crisis'..

http://www.osbd.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D4F56988-9E37-4588-BCEB-D4153AED74AA/0/0204Exec_BdgtAdd.pdf
http://www.kctcs.edu/todaysnews/2003/20030130.html
http://cpe.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/29FD5E26-92CB-41AB-9A5A-52BAD492FF17/0/AgendaItem1_20000203.pdf

I'll give Patton credit for thing....He didn't try to push a 'pet project' down our throats that would negatively affect many generations of Kentuckians and provide nothing positive in return. One could argue that a 'tax' in another form would be better. At least a legitimate tax could be lower later on. We will be stuck with Casinos for a lifetime......

[mgpatty]

Actually, they do sell a product. It is no different than going to the movies or any other entertainment that people do. They sell entertainment. Not what I consider entertainment, but some people do.

But thank God there are people like you around to make the decision for those "hard working men and women of Kentucky" of how they spend there money. I mean, who needs free will right? By what you are saying, the "hard working, etc." obviously can't make the decision for themselves (wonder why? are they uneducated, ignorant, not Christian enough???) so you will make it for them. Shew, thanks for taking that off our shoulders.

I personally don't think casino's are the fix all for the budget crisis, but I would be willing to consider them. As of right now though, I would NOT vote for them. I don't use them, and I don't think government will do with the money what they say they will (anyone remember lottery ticket revenue promises?), but, and its a big one, I WANT THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON IT.

But that is ludicrous right? I mean, I'm a tax paying citizen of the commonwealth, why would I need to vote on something, why would I have the RIGHT to vote on something, as long as people like you are around to make those decisions for me:rolleyes:

Thank God you are as qualified as you are to make my decisions:rolleyes:

If only it were so simple as deciding to patronize a casino and purchasing a product or not. You underestimate the powerful addiction that gambling poses. I've never seen someone addicted to movie theatres or any other form of "entertainment".

This isn't a question of being against casino gambling because of religious or moral issues. That's a red herring if I've ever seen one. It's so easy to challenge someone based on those issues when you have no facts to back up your argument.:rolleyes: I guess you've been listening to too many liberal politicians.

Hey, while we're at it why don't we allow the voters of Kentucky to vote on and change our constitution in regards to illegal drug use and sales, prostitution, limits on personal freedoms, restrictions on gun ownership, restrictions on ownership of suppressors and machineguns, restrictions on hunting, or anything else anyone (or any orgainized group) deems to be in need of change. :rolleyes: Heck, there's alot I'd to see put on a ballot for a vote.

You suggest that we have 'free will' and as such should be allowed to vote on changing our constitution. I say that our constitution (both Federal and State)was put into place because of our freewill. It is a means to prevent the voting public to change anything, anytime, when enough citizens decide that it would be in the public's best interest. That is why we are not a true democracy, but instead a Republican Democracy.

I find it so sad that people who would claim to hold our Federal Constitution in such high regard are so willing to let voters alter a constitution on a state level. It is this type of revisionary mindset that has taken us down the road of constitutional decay on the national level. The liberals would now have you believe that our Constitution is a living, breathing document open to interpretation and revision.... but I digress.
Ultimately, it come's down to a question of why would we want to take a chance on irreversibly changing Kentucky's constitution for something so frivolous as 'Casino Gambling'. Never mind the fact that organized gambling interests (thru their political donations) are now given the 'official nod' by Governor Beshear and the Democrats in Frankfort. They have now been given the green light to change constitutional language that was placed in our constitution for the very purpose of preventing those very attempts at influencing state Government. Furthermore, I guess you didn't read the way the proposal was written. It didn't simply say 'are you in favor of casino gambling'.

"Are you in favor of increasing state financial support for elementary and secondary education, expanding health care for senior citizens, children and others, support for local governments, and combating drug and alcohol abuse and other important programs by permitting the General Assembly to authorize up to five casinos subject to approval of the voters in the city or county where the casino is located; and up to seven casinos licenses for existing horse racing associations, all of which will be subject to the approval of a state agency created to oversee casino gaming."

The way it is written, it suggests that a vote no would be a negaitive vote against the Commonwealth...another red herring

Edited to add..Congratulations on becoming a father :>) I myself have two young sons. The more I see them grow, the more concerned I am about the national legacy that we are leaving for future generations.

[hwright]

I feel like the casino's will be like anything else. They will go gangbusters until the shine wears off and then they will lose thier appeal. Then all that will go will be the the people that shouldn't be there in the first place.

In my opionin, people go to border states to gamble because they can't do it here. Plain and simple. If you let them do it here they will quit going because it will seem like no big deal. If you are a gamer and you go once a month because it's a long drive or inconvienant, you are more likely to play with more money. If you have the oppertunity to go everyday you can't play with as much money. What I am trying to say is that people probably spend more money now then they would if they were in thier back yard.

The difference will be who is doing the gambling. Now, its the more affluent people because it is a long drive. If it is here it will be more accesible for the poor who otherwise would not have gone. Once the casino's sink thier hook in those people you will see all kinds of negative impacts on our society. Plus those are the people that can least afford to loose money.


In my head I should be all for casino gambling. It will be another tax for the poor. But in my heart I know it will cause way more problems then it will ever fix. I am all for taxing the poor, but thats why we have the lottery. When was the last time you saw a guy in a suit buy a lottery ticket? It doesn't happen.

This is just a small part of the ramblings that go through my head on any givin day....:confused::confused: HEATH

[turkeytalker]

Are the casinos gonna take food stamps?:confused:

[deadaim]

I seen first hand what gambling can do to a person. I watched a family fall apart because the mother got hooked on the gambling boat/casino routine. Tha marriage fell apart they lost all there money the mother is in jail for check fraud and the state has the kids. This was a good christian family...............it just like a drug to some people once they start they cant stop.

[PhilpotHunter]

I've never seen someone addicted to movie theatres or any other form of "entertainment".

Well, lets see. I'm addicted to hunting and the outdoors, and I spend WAY to much cash on it to be good for my family....:D

Seriously, porn addiction, alcohol addiction, sex addiction, etc. These are all LEGAL forms of entertainment that ruin family units.



Hey, while we're at it why don't we allow the voters of Kentucky to vote on and change our constitution in regards to illegal drug use and sales, prostitution, limits on personal freedoms, restrictions on gun ownership, restrictions on ownership of suppressors and machineguns, restrictions on hunting, or anything else anyone (or any orgainized group) deems to be in need of change. :rolleyes: Heck, there's alot I'd to see put on a ballot for a vote.

That can go both ways. Following your lead, we need to outlaw fast food, soft drinks, cigarettes, alcohol consumption. These are all things that are not good for the citizens of the commonwealth right?



It is a means to prevent the voting public to change anything, anytime, when enough citizens decide that it would be in the public's best interest.

I'm just curious here. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not accusing you of anything. Just curious as to how you voted on the banning of same sex marriage in Kentucky? Did you take a stand? I voted against allowing it. I'll tell everyone I see that I think it is wrong. Was it wrong of me to participate since it changed the wording of the Constitution?


Edited to add..Congratulations on becoming a father :>) I myself have two young sons. The more I see them grow, the more concerned I am about the national legacy that we are leaving for future generations.

Congrats to you! I have quickly discovered that there isn't anything more rewarding than being a parent. I'm also worried about the legacy we leave behind for our children. Thank God there are people who actually care enough about the future to stand up and express there concerns and opinions like you and me.

[mgpatty]

PhilPotHunter, I am not suggesting that anything needs to be outlawed or taken away because it is somehow inheritanly bad for Kentucky citizens. My point was that there are many things that many citizens would be in favor of allowing or disallowing depending on their position. Do we need to change the constitution of Kentucky everytime a portion of the public feels the need? That portion of the constitution was specfically written to prevent organized gambling outfits from trying to influence our elected officials. Now, many years later we have organized gambling trying to influence state government thru the form of political donations. Look to see who is supporting the push for casinos. It isn't grassroot political activists. It is the organized gaming industry.
As far as the same sex marriage amendment is concerned, I do not like the ideal of changing it for any reason. Having said that, that amendment was a clarification to the ideal of marriage. The ideal that two people of the same sex might want to be married wasn't even a consideration when our constitution was written. Kentucky's constitution didn't specify if same sex marriages were legal. Those who were in favor of same sex marriages took advantage of that ambiguity. Having said that, I can live with more readily with clarifying the intent of a ideal (still dosen't make changing the constitution right) than a amendment to eleminate a specfic portion of the constitution simply because a portion of the public wants it changed. There isn't any ambiguity in the law or the constitution in regards to Casino gambling. It is specfically forbidden. That is the whole point in this debate from my point of view. The constitution must be rewritten, portions of it eliminated (not clarified) , in order to allow for the wishes of the people. Allowing a vote in which the majority can decide the intent of the constitution by eliminating a portion of it is wrong.