The worst part of the US poker ban

[FreakDaddy]

You will be paying taxes on their "new mechanism for enforcing gambling laws" - Sec 802.4.7

God I love Republicans.

I mean, the funniest part about the bill is all the work that went into the port security and then a little section at the end about banning online gambling. I think we the voters need to rally and create legislation that prevents parties from putting anythign into a bill that is not related to the department or the bill itself.

And of course they shove it in on the weekend too... classic Republican strategy.

[RollinHand]

Yes seriously, that is just so very wrong and it really baffles me how you could get away with something like that.
But no one seems to care?

[bearly]

you folks must be pretty young. the dems' held the speakership for years. all those beautiful highways that lead nowhere and dead-end a few miles past the speaker's mansion have been the stuff of jokes for years. they were all riders that were last minute attachments to major legislation.................you want it to stop? elect honest politicians. join watchdog groups and howl at the first smell that something is amiss.............b

[Copernicus]

"You will be paying taxes on their "new mechanism for enforcing gambling laws" - Sec 802.4.7"

huh?

[MicroBob]

electing honest politicians would indeed be the best way.

But many Americans are too stupid and continue to re-elect the incumbents whom they are familiar with.

Then they complain that the career-politicians are there too long and they want term-limits.

Then they go right back and re-elect the same people over and over.

It's truly bizarre to me that so many Americans are in favor of term-limits yet continually vote for incumbents.


end of political rant.

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
electing honest politicians would indeed be the best way.

[/ QUOTE ]

there ARE honest politicians??

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]


there ARE honest politicians??


[/ QUOTE ]

No, these two words contradict each other

[AustinDoug]

I don't read anything in the new bill banning online poker.

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
"You will be paying taxes on their "new mechanism for enforcing gambling laws" - Sec 802.4.7"

huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you had a question?

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't read anything in the new bill banning online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try reading it upside down, maybe it will make more sense. I think it's pretty clear that any bet or wager that is based on some percentage of chance is illegal. I think that includes poker. Would you like a section number?

[Kevmath]

[ QUOTE ]
"You will be paying taxes on their "new mechanism for enforcing gambling laws" - Sec 802.4.7"

huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

From the Congressional Budget Office:

Cost to enforce HR 4411 (http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=7230&sequence=0)

This is assuming everything in the bill passed Friday is the same as that piece of legislation.

[chicagoY]

Make it official: Government combined can confiscate and spend no more than 15 percent of the people's GDP each year. Do that and we'll still have what we need but they'll be no time or money for this kind of chicanery.

[FreakDaddy]

Thanks, so we'll assume that it will be about 4 times what their estimate is, if we follow the typical US tax estimates on new programs? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

A penny going from my pocket in order to prevent me from doing something that isn't killing someone and restricts my personal freedoms makes me ill. Oh, you can't gamble on the internet, but would you like to by a lottery ticket sir?

Pigs.

[mother_brain]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't read anything in the new bill banning online poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try reading it upside down, maybe it will make more sense. I think it's pretty clear that any bet or wager that is based on some percentage of chance is illegal. I think that includes poker. Would you like a section number?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a little known loophole that allows online poker if you shove a powerball ticket up your ass.

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
you can't gamble on the internet, but would you like to by a lottery ticket sir?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take a raincheck on the lottery ticket this week, I've just put my entire weeks housekeeping budget on a hot tip I got for the 2:30 at Chepstow.

Yeah the horse is called "President Frist" and a friend of a friend who works at a bar every third wednesday where some of the jockeys drink overheard them saying that Frist always gets the job done, they were very excited about it apparently. Yes it's at 77-1 and from what I'm told it can't lose.

No you don't want to go to the bookies, just open up an internet account and use your plastic - it's simple. You even get a bonus wager you can add to you bet as well - it's almost like prnting your own money!

No it's perfectly legal, the site is in the US, I rang them and they said that because it's horseracing it's all good.

I mean after all it's the sport of Kings innit.

...

the worst part of this bill *if* it has it's intended effect of stopping people playing online poker easily from the US, is that the "degenerate poor impoverished gamblers" that this is supposed to protect will simply start gambling on horses and will lose their money that way.

/images/graemlins/mad.gif

i.e. it does sweet FA to protect the people it was "meant" to while [censored] over people who learn and study and get good at beating a very complex game of skill.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
If the regulations apply only to those transactions, based on information from industry and government sources, CBO expects that the cost of the mandates would fall below UMRA's annual threshold. However, if the regulations also include the requirement for banks to identify and block checks or other bank instruments used in a restricted transaction, the direct cost to comply with the mandates could increase significantly and CBO has no basis to estimate whether those costs would be above or below the annual threshold.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($128 million in 2006, adjusted annually for inflation).


[/ QUOTE ]


Does this mean that Uncle Sam can't force the banks to pay more than 128 million combined for all it's mandates or 128 million a year for each mandate?

What I got out of that little summary was that there are restrictions to how diligent the Gov't can force banks to be in blocking these transactions. And it sounds like blocking checks from internationl banks or non gaming principled transfer systems (unlike Neteller but like European pay pal for example) may be to costly to mandate. Who knows? Maybe even blocking checks from any transfer system will prove too costly.

I'm sure that the banks aren't done with this. They will be involved in writing the regulations.

Also, I would like to add while I'm posting something that setting up a foreign bank account or offshore account is not that difficult. I may be talking out of hand since I've never gone through it myself, but I was under the impression that it involves some fax/scans and that's about it. The average player would jump through those hoops.

[Shake_N_Bake]

This was added to the Port Security bill using a very old trick that has been used by both parties for years. In the early 90's Clinton tried to get something passed called the line item veto. It was designed for exactly this type of case. Using this example, if the Port Security bill was passed by both houses of congress in the form it is today the President could sign the Port Security bill and veto the IG bill. This would end this backdoor tactic of getting unpopular bills passed on the coattails of a necessary bill. But the Republicans controlled Congress at the time and did not like the idea. This is why we are where we are today.

[mosta]

[ QUOTE ]
This was added to the Port Security bill using a very old trick that has been used by both parties for years. In the early 90's Clinton tried to get something passed called the line item veto. It was designed for exactly this type of case. Using this example, if the Port Security bill was passed by both houses of congress in the form it is today the President could sign the Port Security bill and veto the IG bill. This would end this backdoor tactic of getting unpopular bills passed on the coattails of a necessary bill. But the Republicans controlled Congress at the time and did not like the idea. This is why we are where we are today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree the line item sounds like a nice idea. but thinking about, I have come to accept that you can't let the president fix disingenuous/ dishonest legislation by taking the legislating power away from congress--which is what the veto would do--all the president to rewrite bills. that's the checks and balances. if congress is going to do scummy things, the only thing to do is for the voters to hold congress accountable. okay, I'm waiting now.

[yoursmine]

[ QUOTE ]
This was added to the Port Security bill using a very old trick that has been used by both parties for years. In the early 90's Clinton tried to get something passed called the line item veto. It was designed for exactly this type of case. Using this example, if the Port Security bill was passed by both houses of congress in the form it is today the President could sign the Port Security bill and veto the IG bill. This would end this backdoor tactic of getting unpopular bills passed on the coattails of a necessary bill. But the Republicans controlled Congress at the time and did not like the idea. This is why we are where we are today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clinton is not the first. Many presidents have wanted the Line Item Veto and many different Congresses have kept it from happening. I am really sick of your government.

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
electing honest politicians would indeed be the best way.

But many Americans are too stupid and continue to re-elect the incumbents whom they are familiar with.

Then they complain that the career-politicians are there too long and they want term-limits.

Then they go right back and re-elect the same people over and over.

It's truly bizarre to me that so many Americans are in favor of term-limits yet continually vote for incumbents.


end of political rant.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have not found an abundance of "honest" people willing to expend their efforts in politics.

USA Citizens are in favor of term limits to throw out the other person's political powerhouse. The constituants of the Speaker of the House never want to talk term limits, but just about every other congress person's constituants do.

[kevin017]

Shakenbake wrote "But the Republicans controlled Congress at the time and did not like the idea"

Clinton GOT the line item veto in 1996. it was gotten rid of when the supreme court determined it was unconstitutional. take your dislike of republicans elsewhere. not that i'm all on their nuts right now, but i'm not ready to just give it up cold-turkey, i need a little time.

[niquewon]

The line item veto was passed by Congress in the mid 1990s and was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS shorty thereafter.

[graarrg]

Forget the line item veto or electing "honest politicians"- how about not give the federal government power to regulate "interstate commerce" which is probably going to be the justification for this, should it reach the supreme court? OH WAIT ITS IN OUR HOLY CONSTITUTION. What a royal screwup on part of the Founding Fathers.

Seriously, Americans are retarded. They just watched as the Federal government radically expanded in power from the 30s on and were convinced that they needed it. Total bullcrap. Not only do we have to deal with government mandated "family values," but we have to deal with these backwards principles interfering with our livelihoods.

[NoahSD]

For professional online poker players, i think the worst part of the ban is the fact that people in the US will have a much harder time playing poker online now.

[advilandy]

[ QUOTE ]
Clinton GOT the line item veto in 1996. it was gotten rid of when the supreme court determined it was unconstitutional. take your dislike of republicans elsewhere. not that i'm all on their nuts right now, but i'm not ready to just give it up cold-turkey, i need a little time.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about 5 years? oh wait...