Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

Papa Bush, during his presidency, raided the social sercurity surplus in order to keep the deficits down. Democrats complained about this, but nobody seemed to care. Senator Moynihan (D) proposed legislation that would legislate the use of the SS surplus the way Bush was already quietly doing. Of course, to a democrat social security is a sacred cow, so this proposal got a lot of media attention. Moynihan wasn't serious about using the social sercurity surplus this way, he just wanted Bush's actions to be noted by the public. And on that he was successsful. Moynihan and his proposal got a lot of media attention.

What if Barney Frank, at some point, tried the same kind of ploy with UIGEA. Suppose he said one day that maybe he was wrong about online gaming, that it is a bad idea and should be stopped. Suppose further he called on Kyl and the other architects of UIGEA to join with him on finishing what they had started: Specifically, new legislation that would include all online gaming under the umbrella of UIGEA.

The hypocracy and true intentions of these folk would be revealed to the general public, not just us. They would have to hem haw(sp?) around about how some online gaming is evil, but others are OK. In short, they would have to explain their ridiculous position in a more obvious setting. I know none of this would likely, in the end, change the current situation, but at the very least it would help to knock these hypocrits off their moral high horses, and put them on the defensive. And in politics, the best thing you can do is put your opponents on the defensive.

So what do you think?

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

[ QUOTE ]
What if Barney Frank, at some point, tried the same kind of ploy with UIGEA. Suppose he said one day that maybe he was wrong about online gaming, that it is a bad idea and should be stopped. Suppose further he called on Kyl and the other architects of UIGEA to join with him on finishing what they had started: Specifically, new legislation that would include all online gaming under the umbrella of UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose I decide that I will fly one day?

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

I think that you are smoking some good [censored]. We've already seen enough polictical game-playing and trickery during this whole mess. Let's not engage in it ourselves.

From what I have read about Barney Frank, he doesn't seem the type to say anything different that what he actually thinks or feels.

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

Rather try to get it through that UIGEA and other existing laws already make it illegal to use credit card or draw cash from bank to play in brick and mortar casinos. And that all kind of slot machines are illegal since they use electronic devices for gambling.

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What if Barney Frank, at some point, tried the same kind of ploy with UIGEA. Suppose he said one day that maybe he was wrong about online gaming, that it is a bad idea and should be stopped. Suppose further he called on Kyl and the other architects of UIGEA to join with him on finishing what they had started: Specifically, new legislation that would include all online gaming under the umbrella of UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose I decide that I will fly one day?

[/ QUOTE ]

dude i wanna fly! thatd be sooo tight!

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

LMAO....I needed a good laugh before bed....thanks!

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

I wrote the opening post hurriedly before work last night. While at work, I regretted that I didn't use some word like "imagings" in the title to suggest a "this would never happen, but wouldn't it be cool if it did" type of thought.

However, it's not as crazy as it seems. Just now I searched Time magazine's archives to try to find an article that spoke about the first time this kind of thing was used. One article I found is called "Dirty Little Secrets" http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,969418,00.html (don't know how to get the whole thing to turn blue, dang it) which I think fits the situation with UIGEA today, as the dirty little secret that people like Kyl have is that they are actually pro internet gambling, supporting businesses that generate millions of dollars from people gambling on the internet. Indeed the only time these politicians oppose online gaming is when they have a chance to remove these companies' competition.

Here is an excerpt from the poorly-linked article:

Now that the "evil empire" has become the beleaguered empire, nothing scares Washington more than the specter of a battle over Social Security. Even the subtlest effort to tinker with this most sacrosanct of federal benefit programs ignites the rage of senior citizens, whose lobbying groups are among the most feared in the nation. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan's proposal to cut the Social Security payroll tax and stop using the enormous funds it generates to disguise the size of the federal budget deficit is anything but subtle. It is so explosive that Republicans and Democrats alike are running from the idea with their heads down and their hands clamped over their ears.

Unfortunately for the politicians, getting away from the issue is not that simple. Though no one expects any drastic change in the program, Moynihan's proposal has focused attention on one of Washington's dirty little secrets. Rather than dealing honestly with the budgetary gap, the Government is once again borrowing against the future. When the baby-boom generation begins to retire about 20 years from now, the IOUs will have to be paid back through sharply higher taxes or still more borrowing.

Igniting a fire storm is precisely what Moynihan had in mind last December when he suggested rolling back the most recent hike in Social Security taxes. On Jan. 1 the rate climbed to 7.65% on the first $51,300 of a worker's income, a sum that employers must match. Moynihan would lower it to 7.51% this year and to 6.55% in 1991.

The New York Democrat is a former Harvard professor with a knack for stirring up controversy. As Assistant Secretary in Lyndon Johnson's Labor Department, he kicked up a fuss by issuing a hotly disputed report on female- headed black families. Five years later, as Richard Nixon's adviser on domestic policy, he urged "benign neglect" on racial issues, meaning that the Administration should let racial controversy cool before launching new civil rights initiatives. ."In the case of Social Security, Moynihan admits that he was out to attract notice through the political equivalent of hitting Congress over the head with a two-by-four. Says he: "You have to get their attention
"He succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, in the process flipping ordinary notions of national politics upside down." For once, Democrats were in the position of presenting themselves as tax cutters. But after initially expressing interest in Moynihan's plan, many Democrats by last week were giving it a wary, and sometimes hostile, second look. Speaker of the House Tom Foley expressed "reservations" about the idea. Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, a Chicago Democrat who has felt the wrath of senior-citizens groups over the catastrophic-health-care surtax, dubbed the proposal a "disaster." Democrats feared that the budget squeeze on other domestic programs, already harsh, would be still worse if the Government had to go hunting for billions to replace the lost Social Security revenue.
-------------------------------


One more thing, none of what Moynihan did was taken as trickery or deceit. It came across as an effective and imaginitive way to get an idea noticed.

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

I wanna fly too!

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

Cue bad song:

o/~ Iiiii just wanna fly o/~

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

I will fly one day

Bro, you need to lay off the dope. It's rotting your mind.

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote the opening post hurriedly before work last night. While at work, I regretted that I didn't use some word like "imagings" in the title to suggest a "this would never happen, but wouldn't it be cool if it did" type of thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is so classic. No, adding "imagings" wouldn't have made it any clearer :-) Were you shooting for "Imagine"? John Lennon already beat you to that one.

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

I meant imaginings--typo.

And I did regret not qualifying my first post while at work.

As far as clarity: I didn't think there was a problem here. You are the first poster to admit to having a problem understanding the meaning of the proposal. What specifically are you having a problem understanding? You may not like the idea -fine, but I guess I expected 2+2ers to understand it before coming to that conclusion.

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

[ QUOTE ]
I will fly one day

Bro, you need to lay off the dope. It's rotting your mind.

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote the opening post hurriedly before work last night. While at work, I regretted that I didn't use some word like "imagings" in the title to suggest a "this would never happen, but wouldn't it be cool if it did" type of thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is so classic. No, adding "imagings" wouldn't have made it any clearer :-) Were you shooting for "Imagine"? John Lennon already beat you to that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot to comment on the "dope" reference. The first 150 thousand times I heard an analogy involving drugs, I thought how funny and clever. But once the sum hit 160 thousand + , I started to grow weary and wished that someone could be inventive and think of another way to express the relevant point.

Don't get me wrong, I like cliches. They serve a very useful purpose in our society. Without them many people would scarcely be able to communicate at all.

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

Similar situation happened last congress concerning drafting men into the military for the war. Anti-war democrats floated a bill to reinstitute the draft, then spin it in the media so the proles think that Bush is coming for their sons. Republicans call their bluff and bring it to a vote. Dem's and Rep's all vote no on the bill, even the original sponsors of the bill, because no one wants to be on record as voting for it.

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

[ QUOTE ]

I forgot to comment on the "dope" reference. The first 150 thousand times I heard an analogy involving drugs, I thought how funny and clever. But once the sum hit 160 thousand + , I started to grow weary and wished that someone could be inventive and think of another way to express the relevant point.

Don't get me wrong, I like cliches. They serve a very useful purpose in our society. Without them many people would scarcely be able to communicate at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense dude but you're a little whacky. First off, even though I'm not taking your comment literally but come on. There were 8 posts in this thread when I commented so even if every single one of them made a dope reference it would still be in the funny category. As it turns out, only one other person asked what you were smoking.

And you later left a comment saying "imagings" was a typo and that it should have been "imaginings" which isn't even a word.

And lastly, it's not that I didn't understand it. It's that it's so unlikely that it falls into the realm of mental masturbation. Thus the scarcity of responses that actually take anything you've said seriously and adanthar 's comment comparing your post to saying you want to fly.

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I forgot to comment on the "dope" reference. The first 150 thousand times I heard an analogy involving drugs, I thought how funny and clever. But once the sum hit 160 thousand + , I started to grow weary and wished that someone could be inventive and think of another way to express the relevant point.

Don't get me wrong, I like cliches. They serve a very useful purpose in our society. Without them many people would scarcely be able to communicate at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense dude but you're a little whacky. First off, even though I'm not taking your comment literally but come on. There were 8 posts in this thread when I commented so even if every single one of them made a dope reference it would still be in the funny category. As it turns out, only one other person asked what you were smoking.

And you later left a comment saying "imagings" was a typo and that it should have been "imaginings" which isn't even a word.

And lastly, it's not that I didn't understand it. It's that it's so unlikely that it falls into the realm of mental masturbation. Thus the scarcity of responses that actually take anything you've said seriously and adanthar 's comment comparing your post to saying you want to fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

1st paragraph: Are you seriously telling me you have never heard anyone use a "what are you smoking/what kind of drugs are you on?" type reference in everyday life. If so, you lead a very sheltered life. Its a cliche plain and simple.

2nd paragraph: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/imaginings

3rd paragraph: The exact word you used was "clearer". How am I supposed to know that you meant something else? I don't read minds.

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Papa Bush, during his presidency, raided the social sercurity surplus in order to keep the deficits down. Democrats complained about this, but nobody seemed to care. Senator Moynihan (D) proposed legislation that would legislate the use of the SS surplus the way Bush was already quietly doing. Of course, to a democrat social security is a sacred cow, so this proposal got a lot of media attention. Moynihan wasn't serious about using the social sercurity surplus this way, he just wanted Bush's actions to be noted by the public. And on that he was successsful. Moynihan and his proposal got a lot of media attention.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Nit] FYI, this first paragraph isn't accurate.
Social Security Administration web page

[ QUOTE ]

Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.

These financing procedures have not changed in any fundamental way since payroll taxes were first collected in 1937. What has changed, however, is the accounting procedures used in federal budgeting when it comes to the Social Security Trust Funds.
...

From the beginning of the Social Security program its transactions were reported by the administration as a separate function in the budget. This is sometimes described in present usage by saying that the Social Security program was "off-budget." This was the budget representation of the Social Security program from its creation in 1935 until 1968.

...

In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/nit]

more

[ QUOTE ]

So, to sum up:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Strengthening UIGEA (?)
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Papa Bush, during his presidency, raided the social sercurity surplus in order to keep the deficits down. Democrats complained about this, but nobody seemed to care. Senator Moynihan (D) proposed legislation that would legislate the use of the SS surplus the way Bush was already quietly doing. Of course, to a democrat social security is a sacred cow, so this proposal got a lot of media attention. Moynihan wasn't serious about using the social sercurity surplus this way, he just wanted Bush's actions to be noted by the public. And on that he was successsful. Moynihan and his proposal got a lot of media attention.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Nit] FYI, this first paragraph isn't accurate.
Social Security Administration web page

[ QUOTE ]

Since the assets in the Social Security trust funds consists of Treasury securities, this means that the taxes collected under the Social Security payroll tax are in effect being lent to the federal government to be expended for whatever present purposes the government requires. In this indirect sense, one could say that the Social Security trust funds are being spent for non-Social Security purposes. However, all this really means is that the trust funds hold their assets in the form of Treasury securities.

These financing procedures have not changed in any fundamental way since payroll taxes were first collected in 1937. What has changed, however, is the accounting procedures used in federal budgeting when it comes to the Social Security Trust Funds.
...

From the beginning of the Social Security program its transactions were reported by the administration as a separate function in the budget. This is sometimes described in present usage by saying that the Social Security program was "off-budget." This was the budget representation of the Social Security program from its creation in 1935 until 1968.

...

In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/nit]

more

[ QUOTE ]

So, to sum up:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.

Finally, just note once again that the financing procedures involving the Social Security program have not changed in any fundamental way since they were established in the original Social Security Act of 1935 and amended in 1939. These changes in federal budgeting rules govern how the Social Security program is accounted for in the federal budget, not how it is financed.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I thought it was pretty clear from the partial article in my second post that I had misremebered some of the details about the political dynamic that provoked Moynihan's ploy. But the description of the ploy was accurate--that being: the adoption of a contrary legislative initiative in order to make obvious an opponent's political weakness and/or hypocracy.

Thank you for helping to make my misstatement more clear.

And thanks to Emporer for his imput. I learned something I didn't know before.