EU asking for a lot of money

[JPFisher55]

I just read this article. http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gamblin..._law_46991.html (http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/eu_claims_100_billion_in_online_gambling_monies_lo st_by_us_law_46991.html)

This could really help our cause. EU wants $100bn in trade concessions. No way that would ever fly with Congress. It seems that this little case it a test for the entire WTO process and treaty. Thanks Bush and FOF.
But why does every reporter think that the IGREA would solve the problem and comply with the WTO?

[eddytom]

The IGREA as it is would still not be in compliance with the WTO, however, once the IGREA goes to the House floor it will be debated, then amendments will be put on the bill and the end result would be a new form of the IGREA which would, hypothetically, bring it into compliance with the WTO.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read this article. http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gamblin..._law_46991.html (http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/eu_claims_100_billion_in_online_gambling_monies_lo st_by_us_law_46991.html)

This could really help our cause. EU wants $100bn in trade concessions. No way that would ever fly with Congress. It seems that this little case it a test for the entire WTO process and treaty. Thanks Bush and FOF.
But why does every reporter think that the IGREA would solve the problem and comply with the WTO?

[/ QUOTE ]

safeandsecure had a press release (http://www.safeandsecureig.org/media/wtorelease2.pdf) that may be the source

[Richas]

Does anyone think EU trade lobbyists should not rent Washington offices now? and ask for poker players support?

$100bn, OK round it down to $50bn - it is serious wonga.

[DeadMoneyDad]

Why rent when you can put up a web-site and borrow.........


D$D

[JPFisher55]

The article posted by safeandsecure is a different article that I read today. I think that it is about an estimate of total likely concessions rather than demanded concessions. Again IGREA is cited as conpliant with WTO. Problem is that I don't think that other countries will accept US regulation of an online gambling firm on their soil. Other countries, like UK, only regulate or tax online gaming companies located within their borders and allow foreign online entities to serve their citizens if they are licensed in their home country.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
The article posted by safeandsecure is a different article that I read today.

[/ QUOTE ]

The CGW writing quotes safeandsecure people as its only source. If they had a source that said "EU was asking for" $100 billion instead of a press release just giving an iffy "WTO ruling could require $100 billion", they would have used it.

[eddytom]

Im pretty sure the EU didn't ask for $100 billion today, a few companies (Party Poker, 888, other UK companies) and analysts (lawyers, Safe and Secure) etc. came out today and said they were going to ask for that much, but they did not officially make the request to the WTO as of yet, but when they do it is estimated to be that much.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Im pretty sure the EU didn't ask for $100 billion today, a few companies (Party Poker, 888, other UK companies) and analysts (lawyers, Safe and Secure) etc. came out today and said they were going to ask for that much, but they did not officially make the request to the WTO as of yet, but when they do it is estimated to be that much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well S&S can write a press release but some people can't read.

"“The $3.4 billion claim by Antigua and the much larger claim of potentially over $100 billion by the seven economies seeking compensation are some of the largest penalties in the history of the WTO,” stated Matsukata .

Matsukata is just the "expert" S$S chose to quote. As far as I know the EU hasn't and is unlikely to put an exact $$ figure on their claim. As others have pointed out the EU doesn't care about on-line poker one fig. Bitch slapping the US and getting cover for it's own "protected interests" and possibly getting a little better deal in the future is about all the EU gives an Euro about.

Come on people we can do better than this...........


D$D

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
Bitch slapping the US and getting cover for it's own "protected interests" and possibly getting a little better deal in the future is about all the EU gives an Euro about.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bitch slapping is the fun bit for EU trade negotiators, it is also the bit that gets other industries demanding US concessions on online gambling. They will target the constituencies and supporters of UIGEA directly, they will hit individual legislators hard.

PS they will want a lot better deal, not a little.

[Richas]

stalled compensation talks (http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2177817,00.html)

This link gives a better picture. I love the way the guy interviewed does not want to put a value on the concessions asked for.

In the negotiation phase it is the insurance industry that now needs to start lobbying for poker.

[chopchoi]

What I don't get is how Antigua gets to make up the 3.4 bil by selling pirated intellectual property.

It is the government that passed the law. Why should copyright holders have their property stolen because of a law that they had nothing to do with? The government should have to pay that money, not innocent businessmen.

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
What I don't get is how Antigua gets to make up the 3.4 bil by selling pirated intellectual property.

It is the government that passed the law. Why should copyright holders have their property stolen because of a law that they had nothing to do with? The government should have to pay that money, not innocent businessmen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to WTO sanctions...Please besure to write your Congressmen and tell everybody you know about how unfair it is...

[Richas]

"Unfair?" maybe - the sanctions are worked out to be equivalent in terms of economic damage to that country. Antigua has so little trade with the US because their economy is so small that to get "equivalence" they can target IPR.

The EU has enough trade with the US so they will ask for concessions in other industries first, the US will say no or not agree to enough, and then the sanctions list on real trade will be drawn up. This list will be "unfair" on specific industries but as they will target the constituencies of the anti gambling legislators and their donors it is the sort of unfairness I can live with.

Seriously someone should be telling the donors to anti gambling legislators that their pet politicians are putting them on the sanctions list. (See the steel row, the last time it got that far with the US and EU).

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
What I don't get is how Antigua gets to make up the 3.4 bil by selling pirated intellectual property.

It is the government that passed the law. Why should copyright holders have their property stolen because of a law that they had nothing to do with? The government should have to pay that money, not innocent businessmen.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is NO government money, those are tax dollars!

Every dime the government spends comes from us!

There is no magic pile of govmnt $$ like some wharehouse of govmnt cheese..............


God this idea drives me nuts.

Sorry,

D$D

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I don't get is how Antigua gets to make up the 3.4 bil by selling pirated intellectual property.

It is the government that passed the law. Why should copyright holders have their property stolen because of a law that they had nothing to do with? The government should have to pay that money, not innocent businessmen.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is NO government money, those are tax dollars!

Every dime the government spends comes from us!

There is no magic pile of govmnt $$ like some wharehouse of govmnt cheese..............


God this idea drives me nuts.

Sorry,

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the SOcial Security Trust fund is that. Its simply a pile of checks in a drawer at the Treasury. Its not taxpayer money, its just a figment of our monetary system the gov't could tear up if it wants.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
"Unfair?" maybe - the sanctions are worked out to be equivalent in terms of economic damage to that country. Antigua has so little trade with the US because their economy is so small that to get "equivalence" they can target IPR.

The EU has enough trade with the US so they will ask for concessions in other industries first, the US will say no or not agree to enough, and then the sanctions list on real trade will be drawn up. This list will be "unfair" on specific industries but as they will target the constituencies of the anti gambling legislators and their donors it is the sort of unfairness I can live with.

Seriously someone should be telling the donors to anti gambling legislators that their pet politicians are putting them on the sanctions list. (See the steel row, the last time it got that far with the US and EU).

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what sucks. If the EU went beef, steel, or even textiles and let it be known they would arbitrate for that this could be over tomorrow. The EU is playing this shrewd, and that may hurt us. The EU wants the concessions, not you or me on Party.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I don't get is how Antigua gets to make up the 3.4 bil by selling pirated intellectual property.

It is the government that passed the law. Why should copyright holders have their property stolen because of a law that they had nothing to do with? The government should have to pay that money, not innocent businessmen.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is NO government money, those are tax dollars!

Every dime the government spends comes from us!

There is no magic pile of govmnt $$ like some wharehouse of govmnt cheese..............


God this idea drives me nuts.

Sorry,

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the SOcial Security Trust fund is that. Its simply a pile of checks in a drawer at the Treasury. Its not taxpayer money, its just a figment of our monetary system the gov't could tear up if it wants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah Congress is at the top of the "writing checks with it's mouth it can't cash.........." list.

But if it has to cash any of those check who's a$$ do you think is on the line? Their's or ours?

I give you a hint they set up their own special retirement fund. They know the value of those checks.


D$D

[fnurt]

Uh, the Social Security Trust Fund consists of U.S. Treasury obligations, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. U.S. Treasury debt is still considered one of the very safest investments in the entire world. It would be blatantly unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment for Congress to simply "tear it up."

It's such a myth that the Trust Fund consists of "worthless paper." Let's see, we have a surplus, that we want to use to keep Social Security solvent for as long as possible. Should we invest it in one of the safest investments in the world, namely U.S. Treasury obligations? Or should we just leave it as a pile of cash in a drawer somewhere, earning no interest whatsoever? Which one sounds like a better plan?

[oldbookguy]

This really belongs someplace else, but what the heck.

OK, congress ‘borrows’ from the SS Trust Fund at 2% interest. That INTREST is paid back by, guess what, OUR own tax dollars.

So, that is the same as if you loan your wife $100.00 from your joint savings account and she pays it back from your joint checking account.

The stock market during any given 10-15 year period pays 10% on average, +/- 1-2%.

Where would I prefer MY SS money be held? Certainly not loaning my SS funds to congress to pay interest with my tax dollars. Why not, well, in the future, to pay back the loan and interest, my TAX dollars will simply be paying myself back.

Just another smoke and mirrors trick devised by congress….

obg

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, the Social Security Trust Fund consists of U.S. Treasury obligations, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. U.S. Treasury debt is still considered one of the very safest investments in the entire world. It would be blatantly unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment for Congress to simply "tear it up."

It's such a myth that the Trust Fund consists of "worthless paper." Let's see, we have a surplus, that we want to use to keep Social Security solvent for as long as possible. Should we invest it in one of the safest investments in the world, namely U.S. Treasury obligations? Or should we just leave it as a pile of cash in a drawer somewhere, earning no interest whatsoever? Which one sounds like a better plan?

[/ QUOTE ]

[JPFisher55]

At least there is one US citizen who realizes that the social security system has been turned into the "Mother of all Ponzi Schemes."
I'm 52 and I do not expect to receive 50% of what my planned benefits are from Social Security.

[Uglyowl]

Like I said in another thread that it makes me mad that the social security system is a ponzi scheme, but it makes me livid that government officials know it and are not paying into it themselves.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, the Social Security Trust Fund consists of U.S. Treasury obligations, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. U.S. Treasury debt is still considered one of the very safest investments in the entire world. It would be blatantly unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment for Congress to simply "tear it up."

It's such a myth that the Trust Fund consists of "worthless paper." Let's see, we have a surplus, that we want to use to keep Social Security solvent for as long as possible. Should we invest it in one of the safest investments in the world, namely U.S. Treasury obligations? Or should we just leave it as a pile of cash in a drawer somewhere, earning no interest whatsoever? Which one sounds like a better plan?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm the SS Trust fund really is a bunch of checks in a vault. Whether or not cash will exist that means anything when they are cashed is up in the air.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Uh, the Social Security Trust Fund consists of U.S. Treasury obligations, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. U.S. Treasury debt is still considered one of the very safest investments in the entire world. It would be blatantly unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment for Congress to simply "tear it up."

It's such a myth that the Trust Fund consists of "worthless paper." Let's see, we have a surplus, that we want to use to keep Social Security solvent for as long as possible. Should we invest it in one of the safest investments in the world, namely U.S. Treasury obligations? Or should we just leave it as a pile of cash in a drawer somewhere, earning no interest whatsoever? Which one sounds like a better plan?

[/ QUOTE ]

Acting like the "securities" are actually markible is insane. You try to flood the market with that amount of paper and even the Chineese will start a run on us.

That full faith and credit mean you and me bub!

All the full faith and credit means is the Governments ability to raise taxes to collect anything it needs to pay it's bills.

Well unless we want to start sell off unpopular States, or National Parks? Hey since the Enviros don't want us to drill in ANWAR perhaps we should sell it to the Japonieese they need a nice cheap source of oil and would ultimately buy most the North Slope oil. Russia sure as hell can't afford it.

We have borrowed to the extent the full faith and credit of the US is getting to be near meaningless as realistically at some point the government will be unable to borrw any more. SS is just the most visible ticking time bomb.

But don't listen to me I'm mostly invested in gold and related industries and have been for quite awhile now, well since the US markets stopped working for me in 2000, but they did have a nice 10 year run. But as advice I think most of the move in gold is in the market. But I often get out before a top.

D$D

[JPFisher55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Uh, the Social Security Trust Fund consists of U.S. Treasury obligations, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. U.S. Treasury debt is still considered one of the very safest investments in the entire world. It would be blatantly unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment for Congress to simply "tear it up."

It's such a myth that the Trust Fund consists of "worthless paper." Let's see, we have a surplus, that we want to use to keep Social Security solvent for as long as possible. Should we invest it in one of the safest investments in the world, namely U.S. Treasury obligations? Or should we just leave it as a pile of cash in a drawer somewhere, earning no interest whatsoever? Which one sounds like a better plan?

[/ QUOTE ]

Acting like the "securities" are actually markible is insane. You try to flood the market with that amount of paper and even the Chineese will start a run on us.

That full faith and credit mean you and me bub!

All the full faith and credit means is the Governments ability to raise taxes to collect anything it needs to pay it's bills.

Well unless we want to start sell off unpopular States, or National Parks? Hey since the Enviros don't want us to drill in ANWAR perhaps we should sell it to the Japonieese they need a nice cheap source of oil and would ultimately buy most the North Slope oil. Russia sure as hell can't afford it.

We have borrowed to the extent the full faith and credit of the US is getting to be near meaningless as realistically at some point the government will be unable to borrw any more. SS is just the most visible ticking time bomb.

But don't listen to me I'm mostly invested in gold and related industries and have been for quite awhile now, well since the US markets stopped working for me in 2000, but they did have a nice 10 year run. But as advice I think most of the move in gold is in the market. But I often get out before a top.

D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen. The last time I went to Canada, the Canadian dollar was worth $.97. For most of the intervening time, it was worth much less. Now it equals or exceeds $1.00. The federal government is heading for a fiscal train wreck.
But we don't have to lose our freedoms because the federal government goes broke. That is why the fight for our right to play online poker is so important. So is the right to gamble online in your own home.