http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveMoney/8lotteryWinnersWhoLostTheirMillions.aspx
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't think we should have ever passed the lottery. This article just proves that point.

I know it's for education but it seems that we're robbing Peter to pay Paul on this. We're fixing the problem of school funding by creating a brand new problem.

I know people will say "did you want all that money going to Texas and surrounding states for their lotteries" but I think the actual amount that Oklahomans spent on other states' lotteries was negligible. Now Oklahomans are spending a ton of money on their own lottery and alot of them can't really afford to throw that money away on a lotter but they do anyway because they think it's their ticket out of the poorhouse and it's actually the thing that's helping to keep them there.

And as far as the money going to a lock box for schools, well, that's a totally different issue. I still don't believe that none of it will get siphoned off for other pet projects. I will believe it when I see it.

Again, just read the article, I think it's eye opening.

but I think the actual amount that Oklahomans spent on other states' lotteries was negligible.

That's incorrect. Tons of moeny left the state borders on lottery tickets.

And, the lottery is a choice. People don't have to buy lottery tickets.

I am an avid player of the Oklahoma Lottery. I have yet to see anyone walk in and ask for more than a few dollars worth of tickets.

Most of people play for fun. They use the money they would be blowing on something else that most would consider useless. I think Blockbuster Video is a waste of money. Do I criticise people for that? No I don't. I spend money on $10 dollar car washes every week and I spend more than most people do on take out.

We all have our own methods of wasting money. I think spending money on frivalous items is good for everyone. It make you feel good and it makes going to work worth while. The only people who bash lotteries are banks and churches because they want your money for their needs. A "business trip" for the bank president and his mistress, a new cadillac for the preacher, a new wing on a church that is really too big in the first place.

I am an avid player of the Oklahoma Lottery. I have yet to see anyone walk in and ask for more than a few dollars worth of tickets.

Most of people play for fun. They use the money they would be blowing on something else that most would consider useless. I think Blockbuster Video is a waste of money. Do I criticise people for that? No I don't. I spend money on $10 dollar car washes every week and I spend more than most people do on take out.

We all have our own methods of wasting money. I think spending money on frivalous items is good for everyone. It make you feel good and it makes going to work worth while. The only people who bash lotteries are banks and churches because they want your money for their needs. A "business trip" for the bank president and his mistress, a new cadillac for the preacher, a new wing on a church that is really too big in the first place.
C'mon, don't be shy, tell us how you really feel......:fighting2 .

Not sure how this article proves that we shouldn't have passed the lottery? Just because some people can't manage their money doesn't mean everyone can't. That would be like saying we shouldn't drive cars because some people cause car wrecks. This article proves nothing except that some folks don't make very wise choices.

I agree with both of the posts above...no one is forcing anyone to play and most people play responsibly.

The poor spend much more on bingo and casinos than the lottery...If you don't believe it just take a look around the casinos next time...On appearances only it looks as if many in there are playing w/ their rent money

At least the lottery is going towards education...As a product of S.OKC public schools I can confirm any extra money they can get is a good thing :doh:

The article starts by giving a non-representative sample (or at least, it doesn't make the case that we have a representative sample of lottery winners). It then procedes to draw a generalized conclusion from those few examples. I don't find it convincing in the least.

It seems to take a rather paternalistic view of things -- the poor must be a permanent underclass, and we ought to remove any method where by chance they might rise above their current social status. The article tries to put forward the notion that the poor 'just can't handle it.' I find that to be extremely insulting.

If you want to get rid of everything that people could participate in irresonsibly, let's get rid of alcohol, cigarettes, marriages, religion, swimming pools, interstates, automobiles, car audio equipment, the stock market, over-priced homes, credit cards, money, significant others, the opposite sex, fast-food restaurants, junk food, ice cream, lard, milk, cholesterol, fried foods, sugar-filled foods, soft drinks, airplanes, boats, ......must I go on?

People spend their money on lots of things that can get them in trouble.

These sad-but-true tales are not uncommon, say the experts

It's not just a few people in the story that can't handle the money it seems to be a majority. And most people who think if they win the lottery that it won't happen to them, is just next in line to be a statistic.

True, the lottery is a choice, but for the uninformed and undereducated, it may seem to be a choice they just can't pass up as it is their ticket to a better life. It's preying on the ingorance of the poor. And, no, I'm not saying poor people are stupid. By ignorance, I'm saying they have a lack of information. Most people on this board will say that playing the lottery is just done in fun, but the posters on this board are not a representative sample of Oklahoma.

As far as the lottery equaling Blockbuster, someone may see renting movies as a waste of time and money, but when you go into Blockbuster if you pay your money, you get a movie. With the lottery, over 99% of the time when you pay your money you get nothing. You're just paying for a chance and when the numbers are revealed that piece of paper is worth nothing.

I also understand that the poor spend a bunch of money on bingo and casinos and as far as I'm concerned those fall into the same category as lottery as putting your money to chance.

And don't tell me that stocks are just legalized gambling because the statistics don't support that view.

It's not just a few people in the story that can't handle the money it seems to be a majority. And most people who think if they win the lottery that it won't happen to them, is just next in line to be a statistic.

Is that just a superbroad generalization, or do you have something to back that up with other than some story citing a few tidbits of anecdotal evidence?


And don't tell me that stocks are just legalized gambling because the statistics don't support that view.

I think it's funny that you say this. You like to quote statistics (or refer to stats that maybe don't exist?) when they benefit you. When they don't, or you're just making it up as you go along, you'll ignore the stats.

To heck with the facts! If you think lotteries are harmful, then dernit, they must be.

Let's take another look at this though... When Bubba wins the lot'ree, gettin' him his millions, what does he do with that money? He spends it.

So of course, there are a lot of folks who benefit of the rather quick movement of millions of dollars through the economy. He might buy fancy cars for his relatives, thus bestowing a windfall in profits to the car dealership... He might go up to Lucky Star and feed a few thousand into some slot machines, thereby helping the Cheyenne & Arapaho Nations pay for scholarships, cultural programs, infrastructure, etc.

Bubba will go and spend his money, and there will be a lot of people better off for it. Maybe not him, but that's his own damned fault. Do you think he'd have rather not won it in the first place? I just don't buy it. Rather than giving the guy the opportunity to do right, you're assuming he'd do wrong, and you'd just take that opportunity right away from him.

I don't think there are too many folks out there who entertain the notion that they have much chance in hitting the jackpot -- even so, someone always does (won't be me since I personally don't gamble, I prefer a good mutual fund).

At any rate, I countered your hypothetical facts with a hypothetical story to illustrate some fantabulous moralistic conclusions (better than factual conclusions based on no facts since moralistic conclusions generally don't need facts, just an explanation of rhteir philosophical underpinnings). So try harder, post something we can work with here.

State Lottery, Casinos Pump $89-Million Into Public Schools
AP - 9/5/2006 8:41 AM - Updated: 9/5/2006 8:43 AM
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- Gamblers will contribute about $89-million to Oklahoma's public schools during the fiscal year that began July 1st.



Maybe that $89 Mil will go to better educate the poor and uninformed kids so the being poor cycle will stop with the parents

Lottery is a way to make business owners collect revenues for the state. It isn't worth putting up with but everyone participates because competing establishments offer it.

rxis...Looks like businesses aren't just offering it just because their competitors are

Just read an article on Newsok that stated businesses have made over $15 million on commission alone and many are seeing increased sales resulting from the increased foot traffic

Many have stand alone automated lottery machines so they don't even have to deal with it and benefit from people coming in buying a coke etc

So why doesn't the large chain 7-11 get involved?

If I remember correctly they were worried about getting robbed with the increased cash they would have to have on hand

If I remember correctly they were worried about getting robbed with the increased cash they would have to have on hand

That's the most ludicrous statement I've heard all day. Oh, not you being ludicrous, but a ludicrous excuse from 7-11.

I continue to be amazed at the blind spots in logic Oklahomans have concerning our state lottery. I could go for hours, but the most basic point is that any state government has no business explioting it's citizens in such a hideous fashion. All of the advertising playing on the allure of striking it rich, while knowing the published odds reveal a person is 280 times more likely get struck by lightening than win "the big one". The only logic I ever hear is, "well, someone has to win the money." Considering almost 1000 people die in our state every day, out of 3.5M people. That's way better odds than winning the jackpot. Just remember, "someone has to die"
With the odds stacked more in favor of my death than a big lottery win, I think I'll spend my money in a more enjoyable way than hanging out at convenience stores and waiting for ping pong balls to make me rich. It is so absurd!

Steve --

Easy solution: Don't buy a lottery ticket.

-- see how easy that is?

Steve --

Easy solution: Don't buy a lottery ticket.

-- see how easy that is?

I will also add one thing. Those people that you think are wasting their money. If those same people, the very large majority of the voters in Oklahoma, had not passed the loettery, that smae money would be spent out of state. Most of it in that big hickhole armpit called Texas.

What I don't understand is why does someone get so upset over having the lottery when, its completely voluntary? I guess some people have an absurd need to control how others decide where to spend their money.

Exactly. This is essentially a voluntary tax for education.

What I find to be the most humorous about the opposition to the lottery is that it's largely based on lies (as shown above). You constantly hear things like "2/3 of the money goes to the management contracts" when it's easy enough to go to the lottery's website, download their financial disclosure statements and see that this is simply a lie.

So one sin which is actually in the Bible is being committed to protect potential sinners from a sin which is not in the Bible.

I'm assuming the objection is a religious one -- there's no way it could be so poorly thought out.



You're being negative again. Please stop scaring the new posters away.

So the odds are extremely low I will win the $150 million powerball?...Who knew?...Hell I thought it was a one in ten chance of winning........A 150 million freakin dollars!

midtowner, In case you didn't notice, I already opted for your "simple solution" of just not buying a ticket, and clearly stated so. Surely though, you can't be foolish enough to think that it is really that simple. To think because I don't participate in this "volunteer tax" as some like to call it, means it does not affect me is simply ludicris. ALL Oklahomans are affected good or bad by what takes place in our state. I guess you can call it a volunteer tax considering no one is holding a gun to anyone's head to buy a ticket, but it's like dangling a carrot in front of rabbit, or a fifth of jack in front of an alchoholic and promising it'll solve all of his problems, not telling him it's more likely to end in alcohol poisoning or scorisis of the liver. It's just so disengenuinous to our citizens, some of which are desperate for a way out of poverty. As long as people are focusing on the "freakin 150M dollars" like Easy180, they'll forget the facts. Just so you know, I am not oppsed to people PLAYING a lottery or gambling away their fortune, or winning one, I just do not think it is the states place to be the lottery monopoly. Another example of how what illegal for you to do, is not for the state.

ALL Oklahomans are affected good or bad by what takes place in our state.

steveej...You are exactly right...All Oklahomans are affected by the lottery as millions are being funneled into our sorry public school system

Stand outside a convenience store and poll those coming out w/ lottery tix..Not a one will tell you they expect to win with a straight face...Yes even the poor ones...They go to bingo parlors and casinos to try and win their way out of debt not through buying lottery tix

Yes they do, and maybe they'd be further ahead if the used the bingo, casino, and lottery ticket money for dept retirement or groceries instead of buying lottery tickets. Yet they keep buying 50 tickets a week to increase their chances of winning. Odds say at that rate of tickets per week, you'll win the lottery once every 5000 years. Ah, but someone has to win the money, why not me?

steveej,
Your example assumes that the general public is too stupid to know what's best for them or how to best spend their own money. Perhaps with the additional funding from the lottery we'll be able to educate our apparently feeble-minded populous up to the 3rd-grade level where they can understand that a lottery advertisement isn't a guarantee of instant wealth.

Mad Monk - I guess you haven't work much in social services or tried to hire workers for your business lately. The hard reality is that sometimes people ARE stupid. We are ALL sometimes too stupid for our own good. I certainly have made my share of dumb decisions in my life, How about you?
Granted, many people are smart enough to know their odds and if they have enough disposable income to throw away for entertainment, but if current consumer credit card debt, and consumer bankruptcy trends are not enough to demonstrate how stupid people can be with their money, nothing is.

If there are indeed people out there too stupid to realize the odds on winning a lottery...I'm sorry...Nothing we can do to help those people get through life

No need to sacrifice something so beneficial to the VAST majority of Oklahomans for those that thought getting past middle school was overrated

Didn't we just discuss odds of winning? If you are talking about education as the benefactor, where is the guarantee more money alone solves our public education crisis? More money alone doesen't solve anything. Ask the 80% of plus million dollar lottery winners who file bankruptcy within 5 years if money alone solved their problems. I am certainly not opposed to increasing funding for a well-run school system, and paying quality teachers more money for such an important job, but to think because of the extra 80M that Oklahoma schools have recieved that education is markedly improved is absurd. 80M spread out over over 2000 schools is only 40K per school. That's not much considering we spend over 5K per student per year, and with the 80M is goes up 120 bucks a year. Even if ALL 80M went toward teacher salaries, it averages a 2K increase per year per teacher, from low 30K's to low 30k's. I hardly think the lottery money solves our public education problems. Vast Majority? I think not.

or a fifth of jack in front of an alchoholic and promising it'll solve all of his problems, not telling him it's more likely to end in alcohol poisoning or scorisis of the liver. It's just so disengenuinous to our citizens, some of which are desperate for a way out of poverty. As long as people are focusing on the "freakin 150M dollars" like Easy180, they'll forget the facts. Just so you know, I am not oppsed to people PLAYING a lottery or gambling away their fortune, or winning one, I just do not think it is the states place to be the lottery monopoly. Another example of how what illegal for you to do, is not for the state.

It's a game for crying out loud. Get over it. People waste more money betting on the football games on the weekend than they'll ever lose on the lottery. At least we're reaping educational rewards from the lottery since it's regulated.

If we privatize the lottery, then the state doesn't benefit. Instead, private guys get rich.

You're right. It's a state sponsored, state regulated, state run, state encouraged, game. When did our state government's role change from protection, security, benefit, and promotion of the general welfare of the poeple; to the role of a carny at the state fair? Exploiting the myth of money = happiness for a "good cause" is not the state's purpose, even if no one buy's it.

BTW, ConservativeChristian - Can you imagine Jesus saying "come unto me all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you a 1 in 14 million chance for rest (for a small fee.)" Not very compasionate on folks is it?

Wow. Your argument assumes its premises in just about every case which makes for a very dishonest and misleading argument.


Didn't we just discuss odds of winning? If you are talking about education as the benefactor, where is the guarantee more money alone solves our public education crisis? More money alone doesen't solve anything.

Here, you assume that people think that more money alone solves the educational crisis. Please, oh please help me find on lottery proponent who says "We'll be done with fixing the state's education problems if we can just pass this lottery." You could probably start by arguing against actual statements made by actual people rather than making up absurdities and knocking them down.


Ask the 80% of plus million dollar lottery winners who file bankruptcy within 5 years if money alone solved their problems.

Here, you make the 'false analogy' argument. You're saying that individuals who win million dollar lottery awards are somehow similar to school systems. How exactly do you make that connection? Even if you could come up with a few similarities, any I can conceive of are more coincidental than actual.


I am certainly not opposed to increasing funding for a well-run school system, and paying quality teachers more money for such an important job, but to think because of the extra 80M that Oklahoma schools have recieved that education is markedly improved is absurd.

So you're assuming that lottery money is the only source of money going to schools? I'm not quite following your argument. Is more money a really bad thing?

No one is saying since we have the lottery, we can just forget about any other methods to help our schools. This is just one way.


80M spread out over over 2000 schools is only 40K per school.

Assuming (which would be a bad assumption since there is a huge difference between a school in Jenks and a school in Idabel) that all schools were the same, 40K per school is a new employee. 40K in a school in just one year could fully equip a computer lab with brand new computers. 40K would be enough to buy new instruments for a band, re-equip a football team, or any number of projects which a school may not have had money for.

Of course, that's not how the money is distributed, and you should know this. Here's the relevant part of the statute. Please tell me which parts of the statute are bad.


C. Monies in the Oklahoma Education Lottery Trust Fund shall only be appropriated as follows:

1. Forty-five percent (45%) for the following:

a. kindergarten through twelfth grade public education, including but not limited to compensation and benefits for public school teachers and support employees, and

b. early childhood development programs, which shall include but not be limited to costs associated with prekindergarten and full-day kindergarten programs;

2. Forty-five percent (45%) for the following:

a. tuition grants, loans and scholarships to citizens of this state to enable such citizens to attend colleges and universities located within this state, regardless of whether such colleges and universities are owned or operated by the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, or to attend institutions operated under the authority of the Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education, including but not limited to such programs as the Oklahoma Higher Learning Access Program; provided such tuition grants, loans and scholarships shall not be made to a citizen of this state to attend a college or university which is not accredited by the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education,

b. construction of educational facilities for elementary school districts, independent school districts, the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education, and career and technology education,

c. capital outlay projects for elementary school districts, independent school districts, the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education, and career and technology education,

d. technology for public elementary school district, independent school district, state higher education, and career and technology education facilities, which shall include but not be limited to costs of providing to teachers at accredited public institutions who teach levels kindergarten through twelfth grade, personnel at technology centers under the authority of the Oklahoma State Department of Career and Technology Education, and professors and instructors within the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education, the necessary training in the use and application of computers and advanced electronic instructional technology to implement interactive learning environments in the classroom and to access the state-wide distance learning network and costs associated with repairing and maintaining advanced electronic instructional technology,

e. endowed chairs for professors at institutions of higher education operated by the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education, and

f. programs and personnel of the Oklahoma School for the Deaf and the Oklahoma School for the Blind;

3. Five percent (5%) to the School Consolidation and Assistance Fund; and

4. Five percent (5%) to the Teachers’ Retirement System Dedicated Revenue Revolving Fund.



I'd also point out that 5% of the money (see bolded text) goes to school consolidation -- this will go a long way to helping us close unneeded facilities and possibly consolidate some of our 541 school districts.



That's not much considering we spend over 5K per student per year, and with the 80M is goes up 120 bucks a year. Even if ALL 80M went toward teacher salaries, it averages a 2K increase per year per teacher, from low 30K's to low 30k's.

^ The immediate above quoted text doesn't matter because it is so factually off (see the statute) that it can't even be argued with. It would be wasting my time to address your objection to the lottery which is entirely hypothetical and has absolutely no factual basis. If you want to argue the weaknesses of giving more money to the causes in the statute, address those. Don't just make things up though.


I hardly think the lottery money solves our public education problems. Vast Majority? I think not.

Again, no one says this will fix everything. It just helps.

Mad Monk - I guess you haven't work much in social services or tried to hire workers for your business lately. The hard reality is that sometimes people ARE stupid.
True, true and true, but we shouldn't dumb down the world for a minority of idiots. (as I type this I notice the "HOT!" warning label on my coffee cup and shake my head) ;)



We are ALL sometimes too stupid for our own good. I certainly have made my share of dumb decisions in my life, How about you?
Yes, and I'm glad I had the opportunity to make my mistakes and learn from them rather than have a nanny-state limit me in the interest of protecting me from myself.



Granted, many people are smart enough to know their odds and if they have enough disposable income to throw away for entertainment, but if current consumer credit card debt, and consumer bankruptcy trends are not enough to demonstrate how stupid people can be with their money, nothing is.
I would say most people can handle themselves and their money just fine - meaning within reason. Sure, there are a some that can't, but who's fault is that? If you go on a credit card spending spree and have to file bankruptcy, who's fault is it? Not the credit card company (though they'll be happy to take your money.) Caveat emptor. Being responsible for ones actions is part of being an adult. The rest of us shouldn't be penalized by taking away an avenue for harmless entertainment due to the incompetence of a few.

BTW, ConservativeChristian - Can you imagine Jesus saying "come unto me all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you a 1 in 14 million chance for rest (for a small fee.)" Not very compasionate on folks is it?
Maybe not, but churchs sure seem to be fond of Bingo. But that's different, right?

Wow. Your argument assumes its premises in just about every case which makes for a very dishonest and misleading argument. Here, you assume that people think that more money alone solves the educational crisis. Please, oh please help me find on lottery proponent who says "We'll be done with fixing the state's education problems if we can just pass this lottery." You could probably start by arguing against actual statements made by actual people rather than making up absurdities and knocking them down..

OK, Midtowner, I'll concede that no one here has made an unequivical assertion that money alone solves education. My response was sparked by the notion that the lottery benefits a VAST majority of Oklahomans. One can only assume this refers to the education system since after all it is an "education lottery" The point is, the lottery not only does NOT benefit the vast majority of Oklahomans, it does not make a vast differnce in our education system overall.


Here, you make the 'false analogy' argument. You're saying that individuals who win million dollar lottery awards are somehow similar to school systems. How exactly do you make that connection? Even if you could come up with a few similarities, any I can conceive of are more coincidental than actual.

How is this a false analogy when the point of the analogy (money alone solving problems) is the same as well as the property of the analogy (money)?


So you're assuming that lottery money is the only source of money going to schools? I'm not quite following your argument. Is more money a really bad thing?

Of course more money for education is not a bad thing. Let's start selling Oklahomans crack for their entertainment and raise more money for our schools. After all, it would be totally voluntary. No one would be forcing anyone to become a crack addict, and the money would be a good thing for our kids.


It would be wasting my time to address your objection to the lottery which is entirely hypothetical and has absolutely no factual basis. If you want to argue the weaknesses of giving more money to the causes in the statute, address those. Don't just make things up though.

Hypothetical? Not factual? When did math change? Lottery revenue for education (80M) divided by the number of students in our schools (700K) equals the increase in average expenditure per student per year funded by the lottery. It can't be more simple. $80,000,000 / 700,000 equals $114+ dollars of increased average expenditure per student per year everytime it is calculated. I know not all the money goes to teachers salaries, which is why I stated, "Even IF all 80M went to teacher salaries..."
The reality is, there are 700,000 students, and 40,000 teachers not counting higher education. That means, the numbers get worse condsidering K-12 allotment is only 45% of 80M. Average student spending in K-12 only goes up by $51 per year. As for teachers salaries, the amount of increase would be well below the 2K I stated previously.

The main point I meant to make when I entered this discussion, is that it is not any government's role in society to exploit it's population for any reason, no matter how noble the reasons are. It's not so much an issue of the end justifying the means, or even the morality of gambling. It is just a hard cold fact that gambling by it's very nature exploits many for the benefit of a few, which is something government was never intended to do. A state encouraging financial responsibility among it's citizens as opposed to exploiting many of it's citizen's financial irrerpsonsibility is quite frankly, irresponsible.

BTW, ConservativeChristian - Can you imagine Jesus saying "come unto me all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you a 1 in 14 million chance for rest (for a small fee.)" Not very compasionate on folks is it? That's just it. You don't get it. The lottery has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It's not a religious issue.

Let's see how can I make $80 million seem like chump change...I know I will divide it by the 700,000 students...Sorry doesn't work for me

It's a voluntary game played by those with an extra $5 in their pocket when they stop off to get gas...That's it...Not a grand scheme by the man to bring us down

Sorry ChristianConservative... I wasn't making this a religous issue. I thought I was making an analogy you could understand. Your handle IS conservative christian in case you didn't notice...

Easy180... Since when did math not work for you? The state publishes the statistics of how much money is spent on education each year, along with the number of students in our educational system. This equates to a number of dollars spent per year per student as a means to gauge our much it costs us to educate each student. This is all very public information. Taking the increase in education revenue provided for by the lottery, and dividing it over the number of students in our K-12 educational system, is simple division mathmatics. Can you really say that does not work for you?
Who is talking about a "grand scheme" by "the man"? I say it's desperation by the state, and ingnorance by the people.

What I'm saying is with your math example you try and make $80 million seem insignificant by dividing it by 700,000 students...That means nothing to me

My simple math would be:

Existing funds for education + $80,000,000 = Better schools and education for OK students

Exactly... $51 dollars per student per year better. hardly an education windfall.

The main point I meant to make when I entered this discussion, is that it is not any government's role in society to exploit it's population for any reason, no matter how noble the reasons are. It's not so much an issue of the end justifying the means, or even the morality of gambling. It is just a hard cold fact that gambling by it's very nature exploits many for the benefit of a few, which is something government was never intended to do. A state encouraging financial responsibility among it's citizens as opposed to exploiting many of it's citizen's financial irrerpsonsibility is quite frankly, irresponsible.

Funny thing: Oklahoma VOTERS decided on the lottery. Surely you can't be telling the majority of Oklahomans that they're wrong and too irresponsible?

Surely I HAVE and AM saying exactly that! Here, let me be more direct. In my estimation of the facts regarding state lotteries, the majority of Oklahomans were wrong and irresponsible in voting for a state lottery. Is that easier to understand?

OK, Midtowner, I'll concede that no one here has made an unequivical assertion that money alone solves education. My response was sparked by the notion that the lottery benefits a VAST majority of Oklahomans. One can only assume this refers to the education system since after all it is an "education lottery" The point is, the lottery not only does NOT benefit the vast majority of Oklahomans, it does not make a vast differnce in our education system overall.

You concede the above, yet you continue to beat this poor, defenseless dead horse....


How is this a false analogy when the point of the analogy (money alone solving problems) is the same as well as the property of the analogy (money)?

Well, for starters, you admit the premise of your argument is simply made up (by you or anti-lottery types). Secondly, comparing the Oklahoma Department of Education to an individual who wins the lottery, then wondering how those two entities are dissimilar either puts you into a position of being a liar or being intellectually dishonest.

The school system is constrained in many ways -- first off, let's be clear that we're not even talking about the Oklahoma Dept. of Education. We are talking about the Lottery Trust fund -- a fund which by definition can never spend more than it makes (unlike Joe Blow, in fact, just assume that after ever sentence, because it's true -- in absolutely no way is this process anything like an individual who wins the lottery). The lottery trust fund then has very clear directives for how it is supposed to spend the money -- a decent portion of which (5%) goes to consolidate schools (providing a long-term benefit by decreasing overhead).

Also, unlike a lottery winner, the money coming into the trust fund will keep coming next year, the year after, ad infinitum (at least until some morons manage to undermine it).

Look at the statute and tell me ONE WAY that the Lottery Trust receiving this money is like Joe Blow winning the lottery.


Of course more money for education is not a bad thing. Let's start selling Oklahomans crack for their entertainment and raise more money for our schools. After all, it would be totally voluntary. No one would be forcing anyone to become a crack addict, and the money would be a good thing for our kids.

Lottery tickets are like crack, eh?

Are they chemically addictive? Nope.
Do users have to go to rehab to get off of them? Nope.
Could one lottery ticket kill you? Nope.
If you don't get your fix are you going to suffer physcial consequences? Nope.
Are lottery tickets the basis for organized crime? Nope.
Do children throw away their educations and their lives so that they can buy lottery tickets? Nope.
Have you met a bum on the street who told you that lottery tickets ruined his life? Nope.

The fact is that crack and lottery tickets are in almost no way alike except that they used to both be illegal... other than that, I can't point to a lot.

If your objection is gambling, and I think that's where you're headed here, consider this: A gambling addict is going to gamble. I don't care what you say or think, it's simply going to happen. Whether it's on sports games, on lottery tickets, poker, whatever, it's going to happen. In fact, my money [hehe] would be on the fact that the compulsive gambler has a little bit of an idea as to where his odds are the best. He will probably understand that statistically, there's very little difference between buying 1 lottery ticket and 100 lottery tickets. Statistically, he knows he has a better chance of scoring at your local racino. Whether we as a state want it or not, houses of gambling are up and running within about 45 minutes of anyone in the state. At those places you have MUCH better odds, free drinks, cheap food and entertainment. Guess where the compulsive gambler is going to go?


Hypothetical? Not factual? When did math change? Lottery revenue for education (80M) divided by the number of students in our schools (700K) equals the increase in average expenditure per student per year funded by the lottery. It can't be more simple. $80,000,000 / 700,000 equals $114+ dollars of increased average expenditure per student per year everytime it is calculated. I know not all the money goes to teachers salaries, which is why I stated, "Even IF all 80M went to teacher salaries..."

The reality is, there are 700,000 students, and 40,000 teachers not counting higher education. That means, the numbers get worse condsidering K-12 allotment is only 45% of 80M. Average student spending in K-12 only goes up by $51 per year. As for teachers salaries, the amount of increase would be well below the 2K I stated previously.

Not factual at all. Go read the statute again. I posted it. What you have here is just a stunningly misinformed argument that assumes things which are knowingly false. You'll have to do better.


The main point I meant to make when I entered this discussion, is that it is not any government's role in society to exploit it's population for any reason, no matter how noble the reasons are. It's not so much an issue of the end justifying the means, or even the morality of gambling. It is just a hard cold fact that gambling by it's very nature exploits many for the benefit of a few, which is something government was never intended to do. A state encouraging financial responsibility among it's citizens as opposed to exploiting many of it's citizen's financial irrerpsonsibility is quite frankly, irresponsible.

The government does all kinds of things which could be considered "exploitive." We have a cigarette tax -- that exploits peoples' addictions to smoking. We tax alcohol, that taxes people who drink socially or addictively. We charge sales tax on essentials such as food -- omigosh, the government is exploiting our need for food!

No one is being exploited if they walk up to the counter of a convenience store to ask the clerk for a pick 6 (or whatever) ticket. It's recreation. Is it gambling? Sure. I'll bet your church has a raffle at some point during the year. Repent ye sinners... But seriously, it's about the least possibly harmful form of gambling I can think of.

-- and it puts money in the pockets of our school system, and that counts for a lot.

Surely I HAVE and AM saying exactly that! Here, let me be more direct. In my estimation of the facts regarding state lotteries, the majority of Oklahomans were wrong and irresponsible in voting for a state lottery. Is that easier to understand?

That is your opinion. The voters knew EXACTLY what they were doing. If someone wants to buy a lottery ticket, that is their right. Just look at it this way. If you go to a movie, most people pay around $10.00 to for a ticket. Personally, I think that is a waste of money since there are matinees and second run theaters. However, that is the persons right. You nor I have the right to tell them the lottery is wrong and irresponsible. Same for that movie, for that matter.

If you must preach, then do it from the pulpit and not here.

Surely I HAVE and AM saying exactly that! Here, let me be more direct. In my estimation of the facts regarding state lotteries, the majority of Oklahomans were wrong and irresponsible in voting for a state lottery. Is that easier to understand?

Gay folks think that the majority voting for an amendment stating that marriage shall be limited to a union between a man and a woman is also wrong.

That stinkin' majority... :(

I applaud you for feeling as you do, but really, just don't buy a lottery ticket and this doesn't affect you.

-- oh, and don't accept any state scholarship money either. You wouldn't want to actually benefit from this evil, evil thing.

Of course midtowner addressed your points much better than I can, but what exactly are the facts?...The only ones I see you bringing up is the presence of poor and stupid people in Oklahoma


See several assumptions about increasing debt and bankruptcies, but nothing linking them directly to lottery play

Surely I HAVE and AM saying exactly that! Here, let me be more direct. In my estimation of the facts regarding state lotteries, the majority of Oklahomans were wrong and irresponsible in voting for a state lottery. Is that easier to understand?

Sure...I understand that you're wrong.

OK, I never intended to release the pent up anger I sense from many who obviously have a differing opinion than I, but before I address those issues, I must respond to my friend Midtowner...

To state that my position is a "defenseless dead horse", is a simply a statement of your opinion and not fact. For someone seemingly so intent on sticking to the facts, you are not very adept at following your own advice. How facts seem to elude you is also demonstrated in how you have twisted my statements.


comparing the Oklahoma Department of Education to an individual who wins the lottery, then wondering how those two entities are dissimilar either puts you into a position of being a liar or being intellectually dishonest.... ... Look at the statute and tell me ONE WAY that the Lottery Trust receiving this money is like Joe Blow winning the lottery.

What? Did you really believe from my original statement that I was attempting to make a detailed comparision or even a hard analogy between the Lottery Trust Fund, and Joe Blow?

My orignal statement was "...where is the guarantee more money alone solves our public education crisis? More money alone doesen't solve anything. Ask the 80% of plus million dollar lottery winners who file bankruptcy within 5 years if money alone solved their problems."

Let me detract from your eloquent comparision between the Lottery Trust Fund and Joe Blow, and simplify the obvious point made. MONEY ALONE DOES NOT SOLVE ANYTHING. Whether it is a state's education crisis OR an individual's personal finances. Any further comparisons or analogies are yours, and do nothing but keep distracting you from the FACTS. Damn those FACTS!

This is not the only case where you take a simple statment and turn it into some analagous dialog that slowly meanders away from the original point.


Lottery tickets are like crack, eh?

Your assumption that the point of my statement was to make a comparison between crack and the lottery is misguided. I could have just as easily used rat poison, or mud in my statement. The point was and is, just because some "thing" raises money for our schools, does not necessarily mean that "thing" is a good "thing". To simplify again, the end does not automatically justify the means.

Your assumptions do not stop...


If your objection is gambling, and I think that's where you're headed here,

You think. Maybe you need to think less and listen more. I have clearly stated, to those willing to read, my objection to the STATE running, encouarging, and monopolizing gambling. Despite your willingness to participate in gambling and your constitutional "right" to pursue your personal happiness in this this way, the state does not have that same "right" Our state government is a legal entity which was established for a specific purpose. A states "rights" differ from an individual's "rights".

For example, (be aware this is a simple statement with a comparision to make a point and there is no need to make a detailed comparative analysis of this statement) an individual may have the "right" to choose to participate and/or believe in a particular religion, as their "personal" religion. However, the state does not have the "right" to establish a particular religion as a "state" religion. (OK, the point of the statement is, states rights are different from individuals rights.)

So I ask, who is the liar? Who is intellectually dishonest? Or who just likes to argue points that have never been made?

Besides, many of your points defy sound reason.


A gambling addict is going to gamble. I don't care what you say or think, it's simply going to happen.

Are you really saying that states should legalize and monopolize whatever a portion of the poulation is engaged in, just because you can't stop them from doing it? That reasoning is so absurd I can't honestly believe anyone actaully still makes statments like that. If we applied that logic indescriminately, ANYTHING and EVERYTHING would be legal including murder.

I apologize but I must make an attempt at math class one more time... I WILL try to do better at it.

$80,000,000 (Lottery Education Revenue) x .45 (45% allotted to K-12 per the statute you were so kind to recite) = $36,000,000 (generated for K-12 schools) With me so far? 36M to K-12 institutions, right?

$36,000,000 divided by 700,000 (the total number of students in our K-12 system) = $51.43. This means the education revenues generated by the lottery will increase the amount of money we spend on each K-12 student by $51.43. Our current spending per student per year is over $5,000. The lottery will increase it by around 1%.

Let's look at teacher's salaries. Only a portion of the 36M that goes to K-12 would be for teacher's salaries according to the statue. (thanks again for the copy!) Let's be generous and say 80% of that goes toward increase salaries.

(Math alert!) 36m X .8 = $28,800,000. 28.8M divided by 40,000 (the number of faculty in our K-12 schools) = $720.00 The lottery will increase salaries on average by $720 per year per teacher.(MATH OVER)

The point? The lottery will not make the "major" economic impact on our schools has some would have you believe.

At the risk of sounding like you, I have to ask, How does a cigarette and other taxes compare to state run gambling?

Does the cigarette tax encourage non-smokers to take up smoking? Nope.
Does the achohol tax engourage teetotalers to take up drinking? Nope.
Does the sales tax on food encourage more food consumption? Nope.

May I remind you, taxes are provided for in every constitution in our land. State run gambling is NOT!

And what is with the gay marraige camparison? You have that completely backwards. Are you saying the state should endorse and encourage gay marraiges like it has the lottery, or are you admitting the majority of Oklahomans can make an irresonsible decision? You can't argue two sides.


I'll bet your church has a raffle at some point during the year. Repent ye sinners...

I don't go to church so I have no clue what churches have raffles and which ones have bingo nights. Besides, they have there own organizational constitutions that would govern what they do and don't do, so you'll have to save your condemnation for someone else.

To think that gambling is benign, and has no victims is ignorant, misinformed, and insulting to those who have been left in it's wake. It's something you may choose, but the state shouldn't encourage it even if it actually did rake in millions for education. To look at the "other side" of gambling go here, NCALG Home Page (http://www.ncalg.org/)

BTW, Just because I choose not to participate in the lottery doesn't grant me immunity from it's affects.

Sweetdaisy... I can't help escape the irony of you quoting George Bernard Shaw, "The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them but to be indifferent to them: that’s the essence of inhumanity."

There is no escaping the indifference of gambling to the poor. Shaw also said "Gambling promises the poor what property performs for the rich--something for nothing."

You understand nothing.

Every person in this world has choices to make. They can choose to gamble or they can choose not to gamble. This is not indifference, but is encouraging and accepting one's free will.

You single out the poor as if they are some group of victims. They are able to make choices. Are you proposing we limit availblility of options to poor people?

Apparently, I understand more than you do.

sweetdaisy... understanding and accepting each individual's free will choices is not what is in view here. It is the role of state to encourage and promote individual's to choose to engage in an activity that it knows will be destructive on some people.

National statistics show that almost 2.5 million Amercians are "pathological gamblers". Not to mention, 1.5% of our 16-17 year olds are also.

Several studies have shown that pathological gambling is associated with alcohol and drug use, low grades, truancy, and illegal activities to finance gambling. I guess we can say they would gamble anyway without the state encouraging and promoting it.

Although the poor have the same rights to become pathological gamblers as you and I do, the state has no business facilitating it.

Regardless of what some have argued, you may have a right to gamble yourself, but it's ludicris to think any citizen has the "right" for it's state to be the one to run the gambling instutution so they can excercise that right. Those are the same folks who say I have a "right" to a good job, or a "right" to nice car, or a "right" to have the state to pay their bills. Those are not rights, they're priviledges and opportunities created by a productive and benevolent society. You have the right to live, to be free of government opression, and to pursue what you think will make you happy. Where in that are we forced to pick up the tab for each other's pursuit of happiness? I think I'll lobby for the state to start a cannoli factory. Because after all, cannoli makes me happy, and I have a right to it, and I have to fly to St. Louis to get decent a cannoli, so therefore the state must build a cannoli factory so I can excercise my pursuit of happiness, right?

sweetdaisy... understanding and accepting each individual's free will choices is not what is in view here. It is the role of state to encourage and promote individual's to choose to engage in an activity that it knows will be destructive on some people.

National statistics show that almost 2.5 million Amercians are "pathological gamblers". Not to mention, 1.5% of our 16-17 year olds are also.

Several studies have shown that pathological gambling is associated with alcohol and drug use, low grades, truancy, and illegal activities to finance gambling. I guess we can say they would gamble anyway without the state encouraging and promoting it.

Although the poor have the same rights to become pathological gamblers as you and I do, the state has no business facilitating it.

Regardless of what some have argued, you may have a right to gamble yourself, but it's ludicris to think any citizen has the "right" for it's state to be the one to run the gambling instutution so they can excercise that right. Those are the same folks who say I have a "right" to a good job, or a "right" to nice car, or a "right" to have the state to pay their bills. Those are not rights, they're priviledges and opportunities created by a productive and benevolent society. You have the right to live, to be free of government opression, and to pursue what you think will make you happy. Where in that are we forced to pick up the tab for each other's pursuit of happiness? I think I'll lobby for the state to start a cannoli factory. Because after all, cannoli makes me happy, and I have a right to it, and I have to fly to St. Louis to get decent a cannoli, so therefore the state must build a cannoli factory so I can excercise my pursuit of happiness, right?

2.5 million? Prove it.

To state that my position is a "defenseless dead horse", is a simply a statement of your opinion and not fact. For someone seemingly so intent on sticking to the facts, you are not very adept at following your own advice. How facts seem to elude you is also demonstrated in how you have twisted my statements.

^-- There's the statement where you say you don't think it's a dead horse.

Below is the statement where you admit (again) the point and try to continue to harp on the question as to whether anyone ever said this would solve "anything."


Let me detract from your eloquent comparision between the Lottery Trust Fund and Joe Blow, and simplify the obvious point made. MONEY ALONE DOES NOT SOLVE ANYTHING.

No one suggested money alone. One of the great things about the Trust is that it spends the money on targetted areas where we might actually notice a difference. No one said it was the cure for everything. That's your dead horse. Is it the cure for some things? Sure. If it sends 100 people per year to college who would otherwise not go, (I estimate the actual number is substantially higher) the lottery solves their financial problems. If the lottery builds a dangerous out of code elementary school a new facility, their problems are solved. If it adds 5% of its annual income to the teachers' retirement fund, it helps to solve their problem.

Look at the statute in regards to the Lottery trust fund. Try and understand that the money is not divied up equally (thus negating the value of your "simple math" statement) the money is targetted at certain key problem areas which in the past were not adequately funded due to needs elsewhere.


My orignal statement was "...where is the guarantee more money alone solves our public education crisis? More money alone doesen't solve anything. Ask the 80% of plus million dollar lottery winners who file bankruptcy within 5 years if money alone solved their problems."

Your comparison was those 80% of lottery winners who file bankruptcy's problems (the Joe Blows of the world) to the "public education crisis." Again, you pummelled that poor, defenseless horse carcass as you invoked the "money doesn't solve everything" mantra yet again (which in your previous post you conceded no one had ever made such a claim). Keep in mind no one is talking about that. I again invite you to go and read the statute which I have provided and see which problems the lottery money helps to solve or completely solves.


Whether it is a state's education crisis OR an individual's personal finances. Any further comparisons or analogies are yours, and do nothing but keep distracting you from the FACTS. Damn those FACTS!

What facts?

1) Your made up belief for your opposition that we think money solves everything?

2) Your multiplication/division money per student, money per teacher, money per school argument which is also demonstrably false if you just look at the statute?

3) Some irrelevant statistic on bankruptcy rates as to morons who can't manage their assets?

-- please explain.


Your assumption that the point of my statement was to make a comparison between crack and the lottery is misguided. I could have just as easily used rat poison, or mud in my statement.

Selling rat poison has is taking advantage of people's need for rat poison so that they can kill rats. The government already taxes rat poison. There's a state sales tax and a municipal sales tax. The same would apply to mud. If used properly (as with lottery tickets) both of your products are harmless.


The point was and is, just because some "thing" raises money for our schools, does not necessarily mean that "thing" is a good "thing". To simplify again, the end does not automatically justify the means.

And that's a woefully subjective statement. At this point, all I really need to do is point out that I respect your opinion. You, however, should recognize that you are only joined by a very small majority of Oklahomans in your belief. We had the opportunity to weigh the viability of that subjective belief when the lottery was first proposed. As you'll recall, in a landslide, your side lost despite its extremely persuasive church mouse commercials.


You think. Maybe you need to think less and listen more. I have clearly stated, to those willing to read, my objection to the STATE running, encouarging, and monopolizing gambling.

The people of a state government have the right (according to the state constitution) to amend the law and give the state new duties. This is not something the state arbitrarily decided to do. This is a function that the voters popularly demanded the state to take up.

And monopolizing???

Please make your case. The way I see it, there are a lot of options for gambling. I think I've mentioned several. The local raceino would beg to differ with you.


Despite your willingness to participate in gambling and your constitutional "right" to pursue your personal happiness in this this way, the state does not have that same "right" Our state government is a legal entity which was established for a specific purpose. A states "rights" differ from an individual's "rights".

Gee.. I could have sword we voted to amend the constitution and the state statutes. What was I thinking?


For example, (be aware this is a simple statement with a comparision to make a point and there is no need to make a detailed comparative analysis of this statement) an individual may have the "right" to choose to participate and/or believe in a particular religion, as their "personal" religion. However, the state does not have the "right" to establish a particular religion as a "state" religion. (OK, the point of the statement is, states rights are different from individuals rights.)

And the individauls in the state have the right to amend the state's rights -- and they did. You're arguing from a philosophical point.

If you want to work with the religion thing, fine.

The U.S. Consitution has its provisions for amendment. If those provisions could be met by enough votes, we could amend the Constitution to say that Rastafarianism is the new national religion.


So I ask, who is the liar? Who is intellectually dishonest? Or who just likes to argue points that have never been made?

You were the one arguing that the lottery is supposed to solve everything (our dead horse).


Are you really saying that states should legalize and monopolize whatever a portion of the poulation is engaged in, just because you can't stop them from doing it? That reasoning is so absurd I can't honestly believe anyone actaully still makes statments like that. If we applied that logic indescriminately, ANYTHING and EVERYTHING would be legal including murder.

Nope -- that's not what I'm saying at all. It was not the state that created the lottery. Sure, it proposed it as a means to raise money for education, but it was voted on by the people.

Then you descend into the absurd because -- clearly if we can legalize the lottery, we can also legalize murder! That's absolutely weetawded (phonetically speaking). I guess we theoretically could legalize murder if everyone got together and passed a constitutional amendment making it so. Even so, murder and the lottery violate different rights. The lottery at its worst is something someone must voluntarily participate in them. The greatest harm that can come of it? Loss of money. Murder? No contest. It's a crime perpetrated by one person on a 2nd person who is an unwilling participant. In that transaction, person #2 forfeits their life. It's true I'm a shades of grey type of person, but there's a big difference between "shades" and just plain grey.


I apologize but I must make an attempt at math class one more time... I WILL try to do better at it.

Still irrelevant -- go read the statute.


Let's look at teacher's salaries. Only a portion of the 36M that goes to K-12 would be for teacher's salaries according to the statue. (thanks again for the copy!) Let's be generous and say 80% of that goes toward increase salaries.

(Math alert!) 36m X .8 = $28,800,000. 28.8M divided by 40,000 (the number of faculty in our K-12 schools) = $720.00 The lottery will increase salaries on average by $720 per year per teacher.(MATH OVER)

$720 is substantially better than 0, don't you think? That'll cover their cell phone bills.


The point? The lottery will not make the "major" economic impact on our schools has some would have you believe.

Depends on who you ask. Teacher salaries? Possibly. Teacher's retirement? 5% per year dumped straight into that. Scholarships? Definitely. New facilities? Absolutely. At any rate, some money is always better than no money.


At the risk of sounding like you, I have to ask, How does a cigarette and other taxes compare to state run gambling?

They're voluntary taxes.


Does the cigarette tax encourage non-smokers to take up smoking? Nope.

You're right. But on the other hand, compared along the lines you were using earlier, the state is capitalizing on a vice.


May I remind you, taxes are provided for in every constitution in our land. State run gambling is NOT!

State run gambling is not provided for in every constitution, but it is in most. 46 states and the District of Columbia currently have state-run lotteries.

US State Lottery Results from All Lotto (http://www.alllotto.com/latest_lottery_results.php)


And what is with the gay marraige camparison? You have that completely backwards. Are you saying the state should endorse and encourage gay marraiges like it has the lottery, or are you admitting the majority of Oklahomans can make an irresonsible decision? You can't argue two sides.

You should look at it in context. It is to show that the majority has the power to legislate things which a minority may not like. That was said without regard to the overall rightness and wrongness -- just the admission that the wrongness seen by people like you is made essentially irrelevant by the fact that the vast majority don't see that wrongness.


To think that gambling is benign, and has no victims is ignorant, misinformed, and insulting to those who have been left in it's wake. It's something you may choose, but the state shouldn't encourage it even if it actually did rake in millions for education. To look at the "other side" of gambling go here, NCALG Home Page (http://www.ncalg.org/)

The NCALG cites a lot of stats that are on their face questionable at best, especially considering the sources. Do I deny that gambling for a small percentage of the population is a problem? Sure. So is alcoholism, but do you want to make that illegal as well?

In fact, nearly all of the things said bad about gambling could also be said about alcoholism.

[quote]BTW, Just because I choose not to participate in the lottery doesn't grant me immunity from it's affects.

Like I said, apply for a scholarship.

2.5 million? Prove it.

According to a study conducted by National Organization for Research at the University of Chicago, 2.5 million adults in this country are pathological gamblers, while some 15 million Americans are identified as "at-risk" gamblers. A Harvard study actually estimated 3.2 million adult pathological gamblers in the US.

Prove to me there isn't 2.5 million...
-

It seems to me proving there are 2.5 million Americans addicted to gambling is a tad bit easier than proving that there ARE about 299,999,975 who aren't.

Let's assume the number's right. We're talking about .83% to 1% of the population according to estimates of anti-gambling groups.

That's about the most insignificant number of people I've ever heard of being used as an excuse to drive public policy.

Besides, you weren't talking about restricting people's ability to gamble -- just the government's ability to have a lottery.

If you think private industry having gambling is okay, and the government holding a lottery is wrong, it seems your only problem is with the government doing something you don't think the government should be doing.

Again, I'd redirect you to the part of the thread where I pointed out that the people direct the government as to what it should be doing -- therefore, we have a lottery.

Midtowner, you have resorted to mere blabber...

Here a "dead horse", there a dead horse, everywhere a dead horse horse.. YOU made the assertion my position was a dead horse, not I. I ask you, why would I still ride a horse that I thought was dead? You're welcome to think my horse is dead, but please your making it hard to see the fcats for all the dead horses. I get it, you disagree with me.

How many times must I admit the point I made that money does not solve everything! There, I admitted it again! As for "harping" on the question of whether anyone said money would solve everything? What are you smoking? I "harped" on no such thing. You keep responding as though I am arguing that someone HAS made this statement. I admitted no one stated this several posts ago, and you admitted I admitted it, yet you continue to argue this non-existent point. My mantra has never been that the money the lottery has brought in can't be used for good things in our schools. Of course it can, but it doesn't justify the state's position.

Midtowner, I was familiar with the statute before you so kindly quoted it, but what, in God's name, do you NOT understand about my math? Do you understand that one of the statistics every state uses to guage the cost of public education is the expenditure per student per year? This gives us an idea of the average cost of educating one student for one year. In Oklahoma that figure is around $5000 per student per year. It does not matter where the 45% allotment stated in the statute is spent, whether in problem areas or all on new football stadiums, it is money that is spent somehow in education for our K-12 and represents an increase in per student spending of 51 bucks. WHAT IS SO HARD?

There are so many things in your post I could argue with, but what would be the point of it? We could argue about the constitutional issues, the social issues, the moral issues, the financial issues, and never stop. I will refrain seeing as I have lost the will to argue points that will never be comprehended.

I must however, address one last thing. Problematic gambling is not a victimless activity no more than alcoholism, addictive smoking or engaging in any other addictive subtance or behavior. It is simply naive to think otherwise. The day the state decides to outlaw the sale of cigarettes, except to purchase them at a state run store, and starts running commercials encouraging people to smoke, you will understand my point.

Have a great life. Hope you win a million dollars!

Midtowner, you have resorted to mere blabber...

Here a "dead horse", there a dead horse, everywhere a dead horse horse.. YOU made the assertion my position was a dead horse, not I. I ask you, why would I still ride a horse that I thought was dead? You're welcome to think my horse is dead, but please your making it hard to see the fcats for all the dead horses. I get it, you disagree with me.

You keep repeating that the lottery will not solve "all" the problems, or "any" problems. I differed with you -- and I think I did so in an effective manner.

You admitted that the position your originally espoused was made up, but then you continued to use it, thus beating the horse.

It's not a mere disagreement, it's a statement of fact. I don't see how 80 million per year, even spread thinly will not solve some people's problems -- especially if the money is targetted (as provided for in the statute) in such a way that meaningful change can be effected.


How many times must I admit the point I made that money does not solve everything! There, I admitted it again! As for "harping" on the question of whether anyone said money would solve everything?

As I said, you shifted from saying I or someone else was suggesting the lottery was the solution for "everything." Then you said (several times) that it wasn't the solution to "anything." What I'm suggesting is that the lottery money will solve something between everything and nothing.


What are you smoking? I "harped" on no such thing. You keep responding as though I am arguing that someone HAS made this statement. I admitted no one stated this several posts ago, and you admitted I admitted it, yet you continue to argue this non-existent point. My mantra has never been that the money the lottery has brought in can't be used for good things in our schools. Of course it can, but it doesn't justify the state's position.

You are mistaken as to whose position it is -- not only is the lottery a state position, but a popular position as well. As to it being justified, that's a subjective question which can really only be answered in a meaningful manner by a popular vote. The vote happened, question answered, game, set, match.


Midtowner, I was familiar with the statute before you so kindly quoted it, but what, in God's name, do you NOT understand about my math? Do you understand that one of the statistics every state uses to guage the cost of public education is the expenditure per student per year?

Sure -- it's a meaningless statistic used to show how underfunded our schools are as compared to states with higher costs of living, energy costs, etc.


This gives us an idea of the average cost of educating one student for one year. In Oklahoma that figure is around $5000 per student per year. It does not matter where the 45% allotment stated in the statute is spent, whether in problem areas or all on new football stadiums, it is money that is spent somehow in education for our K-12 and represents an increase in per student spending of 51 bucks. WHAT IS SO HARD?

How is your statistic meaningful though? What I am saying is that the cost per student stat is basically meaningless. It is a composite of all kinds of things. We have fixed costs such as administrators, and we have other per-student costs such as meals, teachers, books, desks, etc. The effectiveness of $51 per student per school in addition to what is already being paid can be very meaninful. Your average 6A school with 2000 or so kids will be seeing a $100,000 budget increase from the lottery without having to do anything. This is without taking on any new costs such as students, teachers, administrators, etc. $100,000 in free money is a pretty good deal (if you want to pretend that statistic is meaningful).


There are so many things in your post I could argue with, but what would be the point of it? We could argue about the constitutional issues, the social issues, the moral issues, the financial issues, and never stop. I will refrain seeing as I have lost the will to argue points that will never be comprehended.

And they're all philosophical arguments except for the consitutional ones. The people gave the government a mandate. The government is only doing as instructed.


I must however, address one last thing. Problematic gambling is not a victimless activity no more than alcoholism, addictive smoking or engaging in any other addictive subtance or behavior. It is simply naive to think otherwise. The day the state decides to outlaw the sale of cigarettes, except to purchase them at a state run store, and starts running commercials encouraging people to smoke, you will understand my point.

The next time someone kills one of my friends 'driving while gambling,' I'll get mad.


Have a great life. Hope you win a million dollars!

I don't gamble -- not with the lottery anyway. I have mutaul funds.

You keep repeating that the lottery will not solve "all" the problems, or "any" problems. I differed with you -- and I think I did so in an effective manner. You admitted that the position your originally espoused was made up, but then you continued to use it, thus beating the horse.

Midtowner, I do not think you are stupid so I will assume you are just extremely stubborn.

I made a Statement that Money ALONE does not solve anything. You accused me of attributing that statement to someone, which I did not. To remove confusion about this point, I stated as an "admission" that no one had made this statement. Why do you insist that means the point I am making is a dead horse?
Are you insisting that when one discusses a subject, and has a point to make that may have bearing or be applicable to the subject being dicussed, that he can not make this point until someone makes the point in antithesis? How rediculous!
Do you mean, I can't make the statement that "gas prices are too high", unless someone first makes the statement that "gas prices are too low"? Does that render the statement "gas prices are too high", a dead horse? Nonsense!
If I make a statement of fact OR opinion, you are free to concurr or disagree, but please sir, do not try to tell me that I must wait for the disagreement before I make my point. If this were the case, no points would ever be made. Someone starts a discussion with a statement and poeple react to it.

Your pre-occupation with dead horses is morbid, and the only dead horse in the dicussion, is your calling my point a dead horse, and YOU are the one with the stick!

As for the "position" or "view" that Money alone does not solve anything. I did not make it up (as you say) so I must not take credit for it. Surely you aren't saying you have never heard this tidbit of wisdom before?

Here's a few more nuggets of wisdom regarding money...

"He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money." Ben Franklin

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery. Charles Dickens


I don't see how 80 million per year, even spread thinly will not solve some people's problems -- What I'm suggesting is that the lottery money will solve something between everything and nothing.

I am certain that either of us would have a difficult time factually disproving each other's position, so to save a few rabbits, let me make this point. My position is that money ALONE, does not SOLVE anything. Yes, this is a very broad statement, but endulge me yet again.

In the context of our public schools, what problems will the lottery money SOLVE by itself? Will it SOLVE the teacher's salary problem? NO. It may help, but it will not solve it. If we are lucky we may move up a couple of spots nationally in regards to teachers salries, but we will still be in the bottom 10%. Will the lottery money alone solve the problem of school consolidation? NO. This has more to do with community issues than a lack of state funds. Will the lottery money alone solve our low test scores? NO. This has to do with teacher's salaries, qualifications, re-testing and many other complicated issues. The lottery money ALONE will not only not solve "every" problem in our education system, it won't SOLVE "any" problem in our education system. It has to be spent wisely and be coupled with major changes in policy, administration, etc.

Your insistence that no one has said or thinks that the lottery money will solve "everything" is not acurate. Millions of Oklahomans looked at the lottery as "the fix" for our eduction system. It was the "windfall" that would turn around Oklahoma Education. I know many who weren't necessarily crazy about bringing a lottery and all of it's associated problems to Oklahoma who voted for the lottery believing it would worth it since it was going to "turn around" Oklahoma Schools. This is simply NOT the case and it never will be.



Sure -- it's a meaningless statistic used to show how underfunded our schools are as compared to states with higher costs of living, energy costs, etc. What I am saying is that the cost per student stat is basically meaningless.

I do not see how "meaningless" any statistic is, that helps us gauge ourselves to other states. Regardless, I was not using that statistic to compare us to another state. I was using it to guage how much of an increase in per student per year spending, the lottery revenue would provide. IT's a away to put dollar amounts into perspective.
If we were spending 100 bucks a year to educate our kids and the lottery increased that by $51 per year, it would be more like a windfall. However, $51 can not be considered even significant when compared to 5000 plus dollars. 1% increase can only be considered marginal at best. If your mutual funds earned 1% per year, would you consider it significant or marginal, or a dismal investment failure?


Your average 6A school with 2000 or so kids will be seeing a $100,000 budget increase from the lottery without having to do anything. This is without taking on any new costs such as students, teachers, administrators, etc. $100,000 in free money is a pretty good deal (if you want to pretend that statistic is meaningful).

Here again, you focus on what seems like a significant amount of money (100K) infused into the school. But consider a 6A school has about a 10,000,000.00 budget per year and then it comes into perspective again, 1% increase. And, please tell me you didn't actually call the lottery revenues "free money". From the American Bar Association, "The 1999 National Gambling Impact Study indicated that problem gamblers cost society approximately $5 billion per year and an additional $40 billion in lifetime costs for productivity reductions, social services, and creditor losses." Did you really say free money?

I really am trying hard to refrain from a discussion about the role of state and the constitutional conflict created by a state lottery. Most Oklahomans didn't understand it before and they won't understand it now. Many just saw a chance to be a millionaire, or bought into the notion that it would significantly affect our schools financially, and couldn't take an open minded look at the evidence or be confused with the facts. As an native Oklahoman, and lifetime resident, the day we passed the lottery, was not our brightest.


[/I]The next time someone kills one of my friends 'driving while gambling,' I'll get mad.

You may not have to wait long... Cell phone gambling introduced last year may be the ticket. I can see the headlines now, "Man broadsides pick-up while trying to pick 3 on his cell phone." It's not out of the question.