What’s for rebuttal? How about this:
Why do you think it is that he has characterized his gambling as “too much”? Do you think that Bennett considers his gambling the acts of a frugal man, although he gambled too much?
Daniel
Okay, this is weird–my post is listed, but it’s not showing up. Do I post it again?
Daniel
Never mind–there it is. Hi, post!
Daniel
Good Og, Bricker, your lawyeriness is showing. If he was extremely unlucky at slots and video poker and used the stingiest legal machines in Vegas (83% return) to have lost 8 million would have required feeding something like $46 million into the machines over 10 years, even if some of it was earlier winnings. Now to someone making over $50 million a year, that’s not a whole lot of money, but it surely isn’t frugal and takes some serious amount of time sitting on your ass. It’s a wonder he had time left to be such a moralizing scold.
Right.
But I’m pointing out that he didn’t lose $8 million NET. Which is buttressed by your figures above: if he had total income during the period of $58 million, how likely is it that he had $46 million in play during that same time? THAT is a considerable chunk of his income, and very noticeable by family, etc.
He FED $8 million into the slots over 10 years, losing a net of whatever the 83% return figure would be… $1.36 million. Exactly consistent with the MSNBC interview which put his net losses at “over $1 million.”
Depends on the set odds. The average Vegas machine gives a 3% house advantage. You will probably lose $30. It would take a long time to get to $8 million in losses.
I think Bennett found himself beseiged with crap from ignorant assholes, spouting excatly the sort of misinformed arguments that our good posters here are spouting, and decided the wisest course of action was to simply stop the activity. It cost him more from a public relations standpoint than it was worth… not, by the way, the actions of an addict, but a man who enjoyed a reaosnable pursuit until it had negative consequences, and then quit that pursuit.
Right.
See what I’m saying now?
The $8 million wasn’t a NET loss. It was a gross loss, offset by his winnings.
Are you saying that when he said, “I have done too much gambling,” he was not being honest?
Daniel
Did you bother to read the Washington Monthly piece linked to earlier?
"(The Washington Times) reported that Bennett had been spotted at the new Mirage Resorts Bellagio casino in Las Vegas (in 1999), where he was reputed to have won a $200,000 jackpot. Bennett admitted to the Times that he had visited the casino, but denied winning $200,000. Documents show that, in fact, he won a $25,000 jackpot on that visit–but left the casino down $625,000. *
Bennett–who gambled throughout Clinton’s impeachment–has continued this pattern in subsequent years. On July 12 of (2002), for instance, Bennett lost $340,000 at Caesar’s Boardwalk Regency in Atlantic City. And just three weeks ago, on April 5 and 6, he lost more than $500,000 at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. “There’s a term in the trade for this kind of gambler,” says a casino source who has witnessed Bennett at the high-limit slots in the wee hours. “We call them losers.” **
Asked by Newsweek columnist and Washington Monthly contributing editor Jonathan Alter to comment on the reports, Bennett admitted that he gambles but not that he has ended up behind. “I play fairly high stakes. I adhere to the law. I don’t play the ‘milk money.’ I don’t put my family at risk, and I don’t owe anyone anything.” The documents offer no reason to contradict Bennett on these points. Bennett claims he’s beaten the odds: “Over 10 years, I’d say I’ve come out pretty close to even.”… But the documents show only a few occasions when he turns in chips worth $30,000 or $40,000 at the end of an evening. Most of the time, he draws down his line of credit, often substantially. A casino source, hearing of Bennett’s claim to breaking even on slots over 10 years, just laughed."
*And…a hearty round of applause for our big winner, Bill Bennett!!!
**Where’s the documentation of any big wins to go against these staggering losses?
Bennett’s tax returns should be ample evidence to support his claim of coming out “pretty close to even”. Never heard of him releasing them, though.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam. The article doesn’t claim to have laid out each and every visit’s net gain or loss. Bennett’s tax returns wouldn’t show a damn thing. Gambling losses cannot be deducted, except to the extent of gambling winnings.
AGAIN: what is your source for the claim that the $8 million figure refers to a NET loss?
No. He was being accurate. He had done too much gambling… so much that the idots eager to scream “Hypocrite!” had ammunition to use, inaccurate as it was.
And his followup, “and this is not an example I wish to set” was likewise directed at not wanting to set an example of giving ammunition to hypocrites?
Bricker, you said earlier that you might be letting your own enjoyment of gambling color your views, and I think it’s becoming increasingly apparent that that’s what’s happening. I have no objection to gambling, and I don’t think that being unfrugal is automatically unvirtuous; but I think it takes a tortured reading of Bennett’s own words to interpret them as you’re interpreting them.
Occam’s razor suggests a simpler explanation: he thought he was setting a poor example by gambling too much, not by giving ammunition to idiots. Gambling too much is problematic because it’s not frugal or industrious (one common objection to gambling is that it’s “something for nothing,” which flies in the face of the idea of gaining rewards through hard work). He was not living by the words that he preached.
To believe otherwise requires a strained reading of many of Bennett’s own words, I think.
Daniel
Argumentum fecum dilatum (you’re full of it). Gambling winnings must be reported on your federal return. From irs.gov:
“Gambling winnings are fully taxable and must be reported on your tax return…You may deduct gambling losses only if you itemize deductions. Claim your gambling losses as a miscellaneous deduction on Form 1040, Schedule A (PDF), line 27. However, the amount of losses you deduct may not be more than the amount of gambling income you have reported on your return.”
So all of Bennett’s winnings would legally have to be on his returns. He could avoid paying tax on them by listing losses as noted above, if those losses were at least as much as his winnings. If he’s been close to breaking even as he claims, there should be hefty winnings on his returns to go along with the documented huge losses.
Washington Monthly’s article cites documents and information from sources (including those connected to casinos) that Bennett blew enormous sums of money gambling, but could find only very limited evidence that he had any significant winnings to speak of (a classic example of which was his winning a 25K jackpot at one casino while going into the red overall by $625,000.
Giant losses weighed against comparatively puny gains - what on earth makes you believe Bennett’s claim of being near to breaking even, apart from persistent self-delusion?
I haven’t endorsed Benntt’s claim of being “close to breaking even”. I think that’s unlikely, unless he was playing blackjack and counting… or even playing blackjack with basic strategy. Playing video poker, over the long run, should subject him to about a 3-5% loss.
What I reject is the idea that his net losses were $8 million.
While the 1040 itself would only show a net of zero, the Schedule A would have to lay out the individual winnings and losses. However, there would be no motive to show all the wins and losses – just enough of the losses to offset all winnings. So even if he did release his returns (which would also expose other aspects of his financial life to the world; aspects which he may reasonably wish to keep private) you could still argue that he had more losses that he wasn’t reporting.
Right?
In any event, the burden is STILL ON YOU to show that the $8 million represents a net loss for him. This is the third post pointing out that you haven’t done so.
Apparently you’re not quite bright enough to understand the logical fallacy of “argument from ignorance”. It means that you cannot say, “Well, since Bennett hasn’t released his tax returns, they must show huge losses on them.”
AGAIN: where is your cite that the $8 million is a NET loss?
The boy stood on the burning deck
Whence all but he had fled.
For what it’s worth, I think you’re right about the $8 million, Bricker: I don’t see strong evidence that it’s a net loss.
However, given Bennett’s own statement that he gambled too much, I think the $8 million’s status as gross or net is irrelevant. Only by reading his words in a tortured fashion, or by ascribing disingenuity to him, can we end up not reading that as saying that he gambled too much; and gambling too much is not something a frugal person does.
Daniel
It’s very hard to handle two fronts, Daniel. Can we table your very valid disussion until your less savvy comrades have conceded the net loss issue?
Sure–but I’m getting ready to leave for three days of ubergeekeriffic Dungeons and Dragons joy, so I won’t be able to pick it back up until Monday. Have a great weekend, and enjoy the Bennett Debate!
Daniel
As far as I can tell, you’re the only one saying that the distinction between net and gross makes any difference to the frugality of gambling $4 million a year.