is barney frank jeopardizing his own online gambling bill?

[fizresh]

he's added a completely unrelated item - $1 billion for low-income housing. isn't that basically the same stunt the republicans pulled - port security + UIGEA?

"Hearings on the proposed legislation are scheduled to begin on July 12 with many Republicans in Congress stating that they will vote down the proposal. Although Democrats now outnumber Republicans in the lawmaking body, a situation that was not the case when UIGEA was passed, this additional legislation has angered many in Frank’s own party and made the prospect of the Bill passing increasingly doubtful."

http://www.igamingbusiness.com/article-detail.php?articleID=14030

[fizresh]

edit - ugh. sorry, but now i'm confused. i re-read the first paragraph of this linked article and i can't tell if the bill is in danger of passing or failing. i should have slept in.

"A proposed Congressional Bill designed to reform online gambling in the United States could be in danger of becoming reality due to supplementary legislation that promises a billion-dollar bonus for affordable housing."

[PokeReader]

Yup, that's a killer amendment. Will have to do some research to find out why.

[Grasshopp3r]

Maybe the bill is more palatable for the dems that way. The republicans are in the minority. He does not need much of their support, if any.

[Lostit]

This could be some back room dealing that Frank is using to gain support. Riders are rarely for the person who actually attaches their name to them. Frank, as a representative for Provincetown in Massachusetts, is probably not too concerned about affordable housing since its a relatively affluent area. On the other hand, he could be putting this rider in as a favor for someone else in return for a favor that he has requested, which we do not know about at this time.

This is a relatively common practice in DC. One congressman asks another to attach a rider that relates to an issue which may be very sensitive in their area, but not that sensitive an issue in the area of the person that actually puts their name on the rider. In return, the first congressman repays the favor in some other way.

We'll never know the answer on this one for sure, but I'd be willing to bet this is some kind of favor in return for helping build support for the bill.

It could also be a way for him to say to any opponents who vote against this: "You don't support affordable housing for America's families?"

****I'm sure FoF would love that last line.

[PokeReader]

A billion is too much though. With the new pay-as-you-go budget rules this is a sure death move.

[jackaaron]

He will tell the others, "So, you're going to vote against the poor Americans who need help with low income housing? How can you do such a thing?"

[frommagio]

[ QUOTE ]
he's added a completely unrelated item - $1 billion for low-income housing. isn't that basically the same stunt the republicans pulled - port security + UIGEA?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this is the Barney Frank I've always known. Recall also that he's already loaded the bill with taxing opportunities.

[PokeReader]

O.K., what I have found is that this was originally a totally separate bill. It looked liked it was going nowhere because it was not a high priority and pay-as-u-go. Franks is Chair of Housing, and it is his pet issue. So he attached it to the gambling bill so it would have a revenue fund. People are unhappy. Leadership was not consulted about the gaming bill in the first place, but were going to go along, mostly because they need the money for pay-as-u-go, so they will have some budget flexibility. Then, suddenly a chunk is eaten up with his pet project, they foresee more people's added on before it's over, and leadership is losing the whole reason they are willing to go for it to begin with. Anybody who can call him needs to and ask to re-separate the bills.

[oldbookguy]

Interesting. Though many gaming commentators seem to think it is a bad move, I have faith in an experienced lawmaker like Frank.

Gonna be tough for someone to vote against providing affordable housing for the poor who really need help.

Then again......

obg

[PokeReader]

Are you joking? There will not be a vote if leadership is pissed enough, it will just not come up for a vote this year.

[Legislurker]

Do we really care about a floor vote or not? No way it goes through the Senate. Maybe the press will run with, FoF et al will step up the rhetoric, calls and donations. I think we are better served waiting for it to get tacked on in committee than scaring FoF and the horsefuckers to fight more actively.

[PokeReader]

I actually think there is more chance for this then you think, because of budget problems. It would help solve AMT. However, the Senate is the problem.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually think there is more chance for this then you think, because of budget problems. It would help solve AMT. However, the Senate is the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pay-go in general can help us, I think. In fact, I always figured that was our ace in the hole, in that someone would eventually need the tax revenue that can be generated by Internet gaming.

As for how Rep. Frank handled it, it sounds like that may be a problem. I guess we'll see. At least he successfully made it a pro-family bill of sorts. I look forward to seeing how it works out.

[oldbookguy]

Ok, think of this as well.

Does anyone really think any one of the 3 bills / 1 study bill can actually pass as a stand alone bill?

Did not think so.

Is this an ideal bill? Maybe not. However, a last minute pre-election MUST pass bill only comes along at a minimum every 2 years.

Is this a good bill? Well, for the liberals it may be, afterall, it helps the poor with better, more afforable housing and can create jobs in the weak housing market.

Lets give it a chance, perhaps we can spend some energy SUPPORTINg this Frank bill as well, show congress we are not single minded.

obg

[Jerry D]

It is a VERY good move to add in funding for low income housing. People who don't give a flying fishstick about poker will vote for a housing bill giving poor people a chance to put a roof over their heads. This is VERY, VERY good news folks and will make it MUCH easier to pass.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, think of this as well.

Does anyone really think any one of the 3 bills / 1 study bill can actually pass as a stand alone bill?

Did not think so.

Is this an ideal bill? Maybe not. However, a last minute pre-election MUST pass bill only comes along at a minimum every 2 years.

Is this a good bill? Well, for the liberals it may be, afterall, it helps the poor with better, more afforable housing and can create jobs in the weak housing market.

Lets give it a chance, perhaps we can spend some energy SUPPORTINg this Frank bill as well, show congress we are not single minded.

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

I was fairly certain this bill would be attached to something, then pushed through under a pay-go rationale. The question here is if Frank alienated the House leadership in the process. Perhaps they're mad because they wanted to bury it and this is pushing the bill to the forefront. I don't know, but I guess we'll find out soon if it's really coming up for a committee vote on the 12th.

As for us, I don't know why any of us would stop supporting the bill over this. Although I could personally think of better places for the money, this move makes me MORE in favor of it, as it seems to have improved its chances of passing.

[oldbookguy]

No, no, you misunderstood, or it may have been me not being clear.

I mean support the housing bill as well.

Will post a draft letter later.

Show our reps we really are interested in the goings on in congress!

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
A billion is too much though. With the new pay-as-you-go budget rules this is a sure death move.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If online gaming generates $1B per year in tax revenue, how does eliminating this revenue source help pay-go? If anything, it seems this (in and of itself) would enhance the bill.

As for the article, it's confusing in that it claims there is $1B, then digresses into discussion about how only some of this is from Internet gaming, then further fails to make clear if this is one bill or two, so I checked.

Barney Frank announced (http://www.house.gov/frank/housing0607.html) legislation (H.R. 2895 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110sHaMIy:e1423:)) creating the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund on June 28th. It allocates between $800 M and $1B per year to the trust fund. Funding:

[ QUOTE ]
The National Affordable Housing Trust Fund will be funded from amounts provided in the recently passed Government Sponsored Enterprises’ (GSE) Affordable Housing Fund (H.R. 1427), from savings from Federal Housing Administration reforms contained in H.R. 1852, the Expanding Americans Home Ownership Act, and from any other funding sources that may be subsequently identified.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, maybe SOME Internet poker revenue goes there. It seems what's annoying leadership is H.R. 2895. H.R. 2895 is online (linked above); it contains no gaming revenue verbiage yet. Perhaps a change is forthcoming. Rep. Frank did promise to honor pay-go:

[ QUOTE ]
The new bill, H.R. 2895, will initially allocate between $800 million and $1 billion annually to states and local communities, without increasing government spending or the federal deficit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess someone will have to call him and ask.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

No, no, you misunderstood, or it may have been me not being clear.

I mean support the housing bill as well.

Will post a draft letter later.

Show our reps we really are interested in the goings on in congress!

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

Affordable housing is a pet project of Frank's anyway. I wouldn't take that article at face value just yet, but I suppose we'll want to get behind whatever we have to to push the legislation forward.

[TheEngineer]

Some good news. H.R. 2895 is a biaprtisan bill being cosponsored by many anti-gambling politicians, including Maxine Waters (D-CA), Christopher Shays (R-CT), John M. McHugh (R-NY), Jim Ramstad (R-MN), Phil English (R-PA), Al Green (D-TX), Charles W. Dent (R-PA), Rick Renzi (R-AZ), and Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA). Maybe that's part of the deal to get their buy-in for IGREA.

[Legislurker]

Has any progress been made on getting rid of state opt-outs?

[TheJared]

Frank isn't an idiot, obviously a ploy to get some people who wouldn't vote for the bill to vote for the bill. I think its clear he didn't have the votes to force the bill through on its own. That simple.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Has any progress been made on getting rid of state opt-outs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone's trying. That would be a poison pill for sure.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Frank isn't an idiot, obviously a ploy to get some people who wouldn't vote for the bill to vote for the bill. I think its clear he didn't have the votes to force the bill through on its own. That simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty much why I posted that info.

Hopefully we'll see some confirmation of how all this is going down.

[Legislurker]

I think he is smoking some of that libertarian herb if he thinks he can get $1bn a year with 40 or so states opting out.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he is smoking some of that libertarian herb if he thinks he can get $1bn a year with 40 or so states opting out.

[/ QUOTE ]

The $1B is from multiple sources. Nevada is in, as are almost all the Indian tribes. We'll have to work to get other states in.

As states that don't opt out will be able to offer Internet gaming internationally, they're will be decent revenue coming in. If we do pass it, hopefully states will choose to join in for revenue and for the opportunity to host sites with international access.

[TheJared]

In terms of difficulty changing the federal law is 1000x more difficult then convincing the states to make internet gambling legal to get tax revenue. But I live in Florida so we are whores for this stuff.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of difficulty changing the federal law is 1000x more difficult then convincing the states to make internet gambling legal to get tax revenue. But I live in Florida so we are whores for this stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. If the feds will hand states money on a silver platter, we'll stand a good chance. States that opt-out will always be under pressure to opt back in. Regardless, we can't get around permitting an opt-out; states have always controlled gambling within their borders.

[Legislurker]

I see the state position thus. You are asking us to cannibalize our 'gambling' monopoly tax revenue to let people gamble for a federal one. I don't think governor's are going to see this as a budget positive and vote positive. Maybe if Frank asserted some other kind of power of the purse arm twisting. This is so easy to establish the commerce clause with. I can see it passing and still having to play at FT or Stars.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I see the state position thus. You are asking us to cannibalize our 'gambling' monopoly tax revenue to let people gamble for a federal one. I don't think governors are going to see this as a budget positive and vote positive. Maybe if Frank asserted some other kind of power of the purse arm twisting. This is so easy to establish the commerce clause with. I can see it passing and still having to play at FT or Stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll have a lot of work to do at the state level. That work will be much easier with IGREA or some other legislation in place than it will be without. There is a carrot in that states with gambling have the infrastructure to offer Internet gaming internationally fairly quickly.

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a VERY good move to add in funding for low income housing. People who don't give a flying fishstick about poker will vote for a housing bill giving poor people a chance to put a roof over their heads. This is VERY, VERY good news folks and will make it MUCH easier to pass.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is exactly the opinion that needs to parroted......loudly.....over and over again.

Good post.

[PokeReader]

Wait and see folks. People don't care about poker, they care about the revenue stream. People do not care about low income housing, otherwise we would have European low-income housing. This is the House. Most House districts don't need low income housing. More to the point, this again was without the permission of leadership, who can kill the bill.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait and see folks. People don't care about poker, they care about the revenue stream. People do not care about low income housing, otherwise we would have European low-income housing. This is the House. Most House districts don't need low income housing. More to the point, this again was without the permission of leadership, who can kill the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess with pay-go, these big spending politicians will need revenue sources. IGREA provides this on a silver platter. Leadership may encourage Rep. Frank to make some changes, but will they throw out the revenue altogether over this? I don't know; I agree that we'll have to wait and see. Hopefully the fact that that bill will inevitably create some tax revenue will help it along.

[Archon_Wing]

Ah, I don't know. But it does sound more threatening to some.

If you oppose online poker, you are a heartless bastard that wants the poor to sleep under bridges. Then the first part gets forgotten about
/images/graemlins/smile.gif

/images/graemlins/heart.gif politics, let's hope UIEGA will be swept out just like how it got swept in.

[PokeReader]

That is my point, the revenue is the whole and only reason leadership was OK with the bill, although they were unhappy he hadn't talked to them first. Then he put this on it, and spent a big chunk of the intial revunue. They want to use if for the AMT, now they think it is just going to get loaded with pork, and they won't actually get much out of it. Leadership is certainly not onboard with the housing bill. That is why he took what was an independent bill, and combined it. They had said, no way, not a priority, and no money. So he stuck it on. That's why they're so mad, they had said defintely not this year, and he's trying to go around, I predict it will be killed out of spite if he doesn't pull the housing.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Lesson #1: Don't trust politicians.

Downside of UIGEA - harder to get money into your account, fewer US fish(i don't think this is as significant as some think, but that's a discussion for another day)

Upside of UIGEA (yes, there is one): Politicians may think they've accomplished their goal, pat themselves on the back, and move on to screwing us other ways.

Upside of the Frank bill: Easier access to accounts, more US fish.

Downide of Frank bill. Direct IRS access to your accounts.

IMO, that last point is the worst aspect of this entire discussion.

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
Lesson #1: Don't trust politicians.

Downside of UIGEA - harder to get money into your account, fewer US fish(i don't think this is as significant as some think, but that's a discussion for another day)

Upside of UIGEA (yes, there is one): Politicians may think they've accomplished their goal, pat themselves on the back, and move on to screwing us other ways.

Upside of the Frank bill: Easier access to accounts, more US fish.

Downide of Frank bill. Direct IRS access to your accounts.

IMO, that last point is the worst aspect of this entire discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Pay your taxes. All is well.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Downide of Frank bill. Direct IRS access to your accounts.

IMO, that last point is the worst aspect of this entire discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is not being able to cheat on your taxes so horrible?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lesson #1: Don't trust politicians.

Downside of UIGEA - harder to get money into your account, fewer US fish(i don't think this is as significant as some think, but that's a discussion for another day)

Upside of UIGEA (yes, there is one): Politicians may think they've accomplished their goal, pat themselves on the back, and move on to screwing us other ways.

Upside of the Frank bill: Easier access to accounts, more US fish.

Downide of Frank bill. Direct IRS access to your accounts.

IMO, that last point is the worst aspect of this entire discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Pay your taxes. All is well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naive reply. You miss the point.

Ask any waiter or bartender how they'd feel if the govt came up with a way for the IRS to track 100% of their tip income rather than using 8.5% of gross sales. Ask any of them if they report 100% of their tips. Anyone who says they do is either lying or an idiot.

2nd point. Look at how the IRS treats gambling income and ask if it isn't punitive? If you don't own property and thus do not itemize deductions, you end up over-reporting your profit by at least $6,500.

Do some research and see how, while taxpayers with W-2 income can use Schedule C to report profit and losses from any little home business , but if you try to do that with gambling income the IRS denies you that option.

Google "Alternative Minimum Tax" and get a grasp on the potential impact this has on the part-time player.

The tax implications alone of legalized, regulated online gambling will drive way more casual players out of the game than the little speed-bump that is the UIGEA.

Most casual players don't understand that they can't just subtract wins from losses and report that figure. Many losing players (primarily young people, college students, etc.) will end up owing some hefty tax bills despite the fact that they might be break-even or losing players.

[Guthrie]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a VERY good move to add in funding for low income housing. People who don't give a flying fishstick about poker will vote for a housing bill giving poor people a chance to put a roof over their heads. This is VERY, VERY good news folks and will make it MUCH easier to pass.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I can legally play poker at a U.S. site, funded through my U.S. bank, I will gladly volunteer to put roofs over people's heads. Nail guns and power saws are great tilt relievers.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a VERY good move to add in funding for low income housing. People who don't give a flying fishstick about poker will vote for a housing bill giving poor people a chance to put a roof over their heads. This is VERY, VERY good news folks and will make it MUCH easier to pass.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is truly sad is that you don't see that this is just as wrong as sticking the UIGEA into the Safe Ports bill.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
This is so easy to establish the commerce clause with. I can see it passing and still having to play at FT or Stars.



[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please elaborate for me and anyone else that didn't quite follow?

[oldbookguy]

Ok, if Frank is determined (and I can find nothing but speculation) to link the Housing bill HR 2895 and the Poker Bill HR 2046 together, we need to support the housing bill.

My letter to my Rep in support of the bill HR 2895:

Dear Representative Capito,

I am writing you today in support of H.R. 2895, the Bill to help provide affordable housing. It has been speculated that HFSC Chairman Frank intends to have this bill as a supplement to H. R. 2046, the Internet Gambling Enforcement and Regulation Act of 2007.

Being from West Virginia I am sure you have seen the condition of many housing projects / apartments currently occupied by residents of our state that live on very limited incomes (at least I HOPE you have taken the time) who can benefit greatly from H.R. 2895. Although there are several examples of acceptable and relatively nice apartment communities in West Virginia, there are many more that are not.

As an example, in my downtown district there is an apartment complex, actually a rooming complex, where each tenant family has what amounts to one and one half rooms of living space. This consists of a living room / bedroom combination room and a kitchenette. Notice I do not mention a bathroom. Why not? Well, each set of four tenant apartmentettes share a COMMON bathroom. These conditions are deplorable. These units are funded and approved by HUD. Why? Simple. There is no alternative. There are no local funds to build additional housing.

I can think of no better use of the potential income from regulating and taxing the game of poker than providing for the needy in our community.

I urge your support for H. R. 2895 and I urge you to support the idea of making this a supplemental / companion bill of H.R. 2046.

I can think of no better cause or use of a portion of the tax benefits to be derived from H.R. 2046 with the exception of being able to allocate a portion of those funds to children’s education via the No Child left Behind Act, another great program that can benefit from the IGREA of 2007.

Make a REAL difference in West Virginia!

I look forward to hopefully having my faith restored in yourself and my Republican Party!

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXX

[zimmer879]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is a VERY good move to add in funding for low income housing. People who don't give a flying fishstick about poker will vote for a housing bill giving poor people a chance to put a roof over their heads. This is VERY, VERY good news folks and will make it MUCH easier to pass.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is truly sad is that you don't see that this is just as wrong as sticking the UIGEA into the Safe Ports bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop preaching. I think most of us would rather that the bill passes on it's own merit, but unfortunately this likely isn't a plausible scenario in the near term. If the only way to get an unjust law repealed is to use the same political tactics that were used to get it passed, then chalk that up to the sad state of politics.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

No. If you want online poker legalized, support the PPA. If you want to help provide housing for the less fortunate, give money to Habitat for Humanity. They do better work than any govt agency and they don't take one penny of tax money.

The two issues are completely unrelated.

[oldbookguy]

1. I do support and am a paying member of the PPa.
2. There is no way ANY poker bill will pass stand alone, therefore, give the legislators an 'out' for supporting amending the UIGEA.

obg


[ QUOTE ]
No. If you want online poker legalized, support the PPA. If you want to help provide housing for the less fortunate, give money to Habitat for Humanity. They do better work than any govt agency and they don't take one penny of tax money.

The two issues are completely unrelated.

[/ QUOTE ]

[zimmer879]

I don't disagree, but the fact that the law passed is what's important to most of us, how it passed is secondary. Once my livelihood isn't threatened by knucklehead politicians, I'll be more than happy to air my grievances about how laws are passed. In the mean time, whatever it takes.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is so easy to establish the commerce clause with. I can see it passing and still having to play at FT or Stars.



Could you please elaborate for me and anyone else that didn't quite follow?

[/ QUOTE ]

The little grey bar above the display of the posts has little red text options, My Home, Main Index, the next is SEARCH, if you had read most of the posts about proposed legislation we have discussed how easy it is for the feds to assert jurisdiction over remote gaming using Commerce ad nauseam.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Stop preaching.

That's about as likely as pigs flying. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

If the only way to get an unjust law repealed is to use the same political tactics that were used to get it passed, then chalk that up to the sad state of politics.

Fine, but we lose the right to curse the other side for dirty politics (is there really any other kind)

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Once my livelihood isn't threatened by knucklehead politicians

Exactly HOW does the UIGEA threaten your livelihood? All it does is make it harder to deposit, and if truth be told, 85% of US-issued credit cards wouldn't allow deposits in gambling sites long before the UIGEA.

The DOJ is nowhere near meeting the 270-day deadline, the banking industry is fighting compliance (the same way they fought and killed Know-Your-Customer), and nothing in the bill criminalizes playing nor prevents you from getting your money out.

If you're talking about not having enough casual/weak players, read my post about taxation and understand that legalizing and regulating online gambling will chase more fish away than the UIGEA possibly could.

Now couple the Frank bill with a rider that reforms the tax code with respect to gambling income and you've got a point, but something tells me Barney Frank would run from that like a scared rabbit.

[CountingMyOuts]

I have a small blog and made a post recently about this situation. A responder left this comment:

This is incorrect. There is no correlation between the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, which would regulate Internet gambling, and the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act, which would raise money for an affordable housing trust fund.

The following is a link to the House Committee on Financial Service’s website: http://financialservices.house.gov. Here you will find information on a hearing to discuss the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act, which is scheduled for July 12th. As shown, there is no reference or connection between this bill and efforts to tax and regulate Internet gambling.

The reality is that there is growing support in congress for the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act and the framework proposed by Congressman Frank to regulate Internet gambling.

To voice your support for regulated Internet gambling and the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, please visit www.safeandsecureig.org. (http://www.safeandsecureig.org.)

This sure doesn't jive with what we have been hearing, does it? Thoughts?

[Berge20]

Yeh, I'm not sure where the idea that his housing fund bill would be merged with his IG bill?!?

<---confused

[Legislurker]

Could it possibly be the solid, well-sourced, and conservative
people at gambling911.com posted a story hastily with a scary title before they got all their facts? No way.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
That is my point, the revenue is the whole and only reason leadership was OK with the bill, although they were unhappy he hadn't talked to them first. Then he put this on it, and spent a big chunk of the intial revunue. They want to use if for the AMT, now they think it is just going to get loaded with pork, and they won't actually get much out of it. Leadership is certainly not onboard with the housing bill. That is why he took what was an independent bill, and combined it. They had said, no way, not a priority, and no money. So he stuck it on. That's why they're so mad, they had said defintely not this year, and he's trying to go around, I predict it will be killed out of spite if he doesn't pull the housing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you speculating based on the article, or do you know this from your work?

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly HOW does the UIGEA threaten your livelihood?

[/ QUOTE ]

The games aren't nearly as fishy as they once were, especially $10/$20 - $20/$40 limit hold 'em. The fish that remain won't stay forever, and the "pond" isn't getting replenished very rapidly.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're talking about not having enough casual/weak players, read my post about taxation and understand that legalizing and regulating online gambling will chase more fish away than the UIGEA possibly could.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speculation. On the other hand, there is a strong likelihood that a bunch of commericials will really draw in the fish. There is every possibility that regulated online poker will have reasonable tax reporting requirements (more like B&M casinos), especially once Harrah's and MGM get done lobbying for changes. Also, fish from other nations will be drawn to the safety of a game under U.S. auspices. Finally, the tax laws are what they are. We should work on those, rather than expecting the fish to evade their taxes out of ignorance.

Our main problem is that our opponents aren't done yet. I think we can all agree that the U.S. government won't sit idly by while offshore companies offer poker and U.S. companies don't, especially when the offshore companies don't pay U.S. taxes. They'll either ban all gambling, including poker, or allow U.S. companies access to the market.

The past plan of doing nothing and hoping for the best didn't work for us, and I don't think it's a good approach now. I think we need to stay on offense. If nothing else, it's proven to be a great defense for us so far.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect. There is no correlation between the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, which would regulate Internet gambling, and the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act, which would raise money for an affordable housing trust fund.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read both bills, looked for upcoming changes, and Googled several variants of search parameters.....no dice. Nothing at all except this g911 article. I personally won't worry about this until I see some corroboration.

[Jerry D]

[ QUOTE ]
No. If you want online poker legalized, support the PPA. If you want to help provide housing for the less fortunate, give money to Habitat for Humanity. They do better work than any govt agency and they don't take one penny of tax money.

The two issues are completely unrelated.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the govt. does a much better job with low income housing than the few houses that habitat for humanity puts up.

[Jerry D]

[ QUOTE ]
Lesson #1: Don't trust politicians.

Downside of UIGEA - harder to get money into your account, fewer US fish(i don't think this is as significant as some think, but that's a discussion for another day)

Upside of UIGEA (yes, there is one): Politicians may think they've accomplished their goal, pat themselves on the back, and move on to screwing us other ways.

Upside of the Frank bill: Easier access to accounts, more US fish.

Downide of Frank bill. Direct IRS access to your accounts.

IMO, that last point is the worst aspect of this entire discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quit cheating on your taxes.

[TheEngineer]

Good news. I was able to confirm with someone who knows someone on Frank's staff that this is story is completely false. HR 2046 is free-standing...the story is nothing but bad reporting (using that term loosely in this case).

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
Good news. I was able to confirm with someone who knows someone on Frank's staff that this is story is completely false. HR 2046 is free-standing...the story is nothing but bad reporting (using that term loosely in this case).

[/ QUOTE ]


I have to admit I was confused (wouldn't be the 1st time) by the G911 article, but after reading the thread here, I assumed what everyone else did and that these bills were being merged.

Oh well, nm. Lol.

[fizresh]

[ QUOTE ]
Good news. I was able to confirm with someone who knows someone on Frank's staff that this is story is completely false. HR 2046 is free-standing...the story is nothing but bad reporting (using that term loosely in this case).

[/ QUOTE ]

good work. thanks for getting to the bottom of this. sorry my link caused this ruckus. it's weird how that story is just totally bogus. next time i'll make sure there are other sources before linking to a gambling911 story. my bad.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is a VERY good move to add in funding for low income housing. People who don't give a flying fishstick about poker will vote for a housing bill giving poor people a chance to put a roof over their heads. This is VERY, VERY good news folks and will make it MUCH easier to pass.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is truly sad is that you don't see that this is just as wrong as sticking the UIGEA into the Safe Ports bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

You go ahead and object based on "wrongness" grounds. This is politics. The whole game is "wrong," and to come out at least even, you need to be prepared to make "wrong" compromises.

In any event, this seems like an insane move if leadership has been alienated. However, if that alienation has been overstated, then this could be the move that gets it done.
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I can't see him deliberately pissing off leadership, and I don't see how packaging a bill that provides for the funding of a traditional democratic pork topic could piss off the current leadership. He's been around the block a few times and besides, there's no one else to hitch our wagon to.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Good news. I was able to confirm with someone who knows someone on Frank's staff that this is story is completely false. HR 2046 is free-standing...the story is nothing but bad reporting (using that term loosely in this case).

[/ QUOTE ]

How does one confuse that? Oh well, Que sera, sera.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good news. I was able to confirm with someone who knows someone on Frank's staff that this is story is completely false. HR 2046 is free-standing...the story is nothing but bad reporting (using that term loosely in this case).

[/ QUOTE ]

good work. thanks for getting to the bottom of this. sorry my link caused this ruckus. it's weird how that story is just totally bogus. next time i'll make sure there are other sources before linking to a gambling911 story. my bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not your fault. We've all been sucked in by a g911 story before.

[oldbookguy]

Actually I think G911 got the story from I Gaming News who reported it on July 3.

http://www.igamingbusiness.com/article-detail.php?articleID=14030

obg

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually I think G911 got the story from I Gaming News who reported it on July 3.

http://www.igamingbusiness.com/article-detail.php?articleID=14030

obg

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an odd article. There is one bill that provides for a housing trust. It's a pet project of Rep. Frank. And, of course, there's a separate bill for us. It's hard to see how the article author merged the two. After all, the housing trust is clear in that it's primarily funded by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC) and the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA). It's right there in the legislation.

Anyway, it's a bogus story, so we won't have to worry about it. He's been very careful with this bill, so I'd have been surprised if he did anything boneheaded with it. Pay-go does offer us a good chance to get it through. I guess we'll see where it goes at the upcoming hearing.

[Berge20]

Going to lock this to help avoid further confusion