Gotta laugh about the "No on Issue 3" (Ohio) commercials ...

[zbdent]

"No guarantee to hire Ohioans" ...

Gee ... is there ever a guarantee to hire any specific group? Whenever a business gets all kinds of tax breaks in any area, they always promise "jobs jobs jobs" ... but when their tax breaks are scheduled to run out ... they either beg for more ("we're gonna die if you make us pay taxes!") or they fold up and move to the next sucker, er, town which gives them tax breaks ...

and then, if the issue 3 DID have a requirement to hire Ohioans ... how loudly would you hear them screaming about all the "ridiculous anti-business over-regulation" they have to suffer?

[wreckedparty]

1. Tough question isnt it? lol

Hmm allow adults to spend their money how they want, gotta really think about that one XD. Besides if theres a good chance they will hire Ohioans thats much better than denying that opportunity via a nanny state law.

[OhioBlue]

2. I agree with you on that.

I'm still voting no - not for the reasons they say.. but b/c I don't want it in the Ohio Constitution. I'm sick of all these ballot initiatives that amend the Constitution for things I think should be in ORC.

[cmd]

3. Me too

I have no problem with casinos. I do have a problem with putting a limit of four in the constitution and spelling out who gets to run them.

[realisticphish]

4. right

Legalize gambling? Yeah, sure that's cool. But I don't want a corporate contract written into the constitution.

[semillama]

6. Add me in as well

Don't screw around with the state constitution. Otherwise it'd have my vote.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. I'm on the fence about the issue.

I'll likely vote against it this year. In a better economy with more disposable income, I'd be all for it.
If the casinos weren't being planted into low income areas, I'd be all for it too.
It would be create jobs and tax revenue, but I think it will cost Ohioans alot more.

People traveling to surrounding states can probably afford to gamble and will go out of their way to do so. Surrounding states have casinos, so it's not likely Ohio gambling will draw in significant money from out-of-state. Which means most money comes from in-state gamblers . Which means money is just changing hands and getting taxed.
But stick a casino in the Flats of Cleveland and your really marketing towards more impoverished people. This will be wealth redistribution from the middle/lower class to the rich. Essentially, the state will allow casinos as a tax revenue measure (which is good for the state and schools), but will ultimately be garnering that tax from the middle/lower class moreso than the upper classes. How's the old saying go? "A fool and his money..."

I'm somewhat against it due largely in part to personal opinion... But I agree that most of the "No On 3" argulemts are silly.

[doc03]

7. Local TV did an investigation on who is paying for the

anti-casino commercials. The commercials are paid for by Truth Pac which is actually a casino in neighboring West Virginia called Mountaineer Gaming. They have paid for $5.2 million of the $5.4 million ad campaign. Here is a link, its in the upper right corner Target 9 investigation.
http://www.wtov9.com/index.html

[IrishBuckeye]

8. Guess who paid for last years anti-casino ad?

The company who would win right to build in Ohio if it passes this year paid for negative ads last year because they wouldnt be the ones who built it.

I find the whole this to be garbage hence my vote against it, there should be a bidding process so the state gets the best deal.