|
|
#21
09-30-2006, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
[ QUOTE ]
the whole point is that there is no reason to believe the bolded section will take place. [/ QUOTE ] This is not entirely accurate. While the statute itself says nothing specifically about banks' relationships to Neteller, it is concievable that the regulation will be very strictly worded -- perhaps specifying that banks could face liability under the statute for processing transactions not only directly to gambling sites, but to EFTs that deal almost exclusively in gambling transactions (i.e. potentially Neteller, though I don't know what % of Neteller's business is gambling-related). The whole point is that we don't know until the regs are promulgated. If they are indeed very strict, then practically every US bank may simply refuse transfers to all but a select few EFT-type business that they know don't do gambling transactions (like PayPal). Otherwise, it will be very difficult for them to determine which sites mainly do gambling transactions and which don't. This type of policing problem is the whole reason the banks hated this internet gaming statute in the first place. 
|
|
#22
09-30-2006, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
[ QUOTE ]
However, all we really need is for some Neteller like company that does enough non gaming business not to get classified as a gaming interest. [/ QUOTE ] Most likely, this would have to be something that already exists with a large non-gambling client base. Otherwise, any new EFT system would likely become mainly associated with gambling transactions. Does anyone have any ideas about what is out there that fits this description? I'd imagine that if something is out there, we'll know about it quickly -- when PayPal banned gambling transactions, the names "Neteller" and "Firepay" came out of the woodwork pretty quickly.
|
|
#23
09-30-2006, 02:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
[ QUOTE ]
This type of policing problem is the whole reason the banks hated this internet gaming statute in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] If they hated it, why couldn't they stop it? Banking has a very powerful lobby.
|
|
#24
09-30-2006, 02:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
is their lobby as strong as the christian coalition?
we keep throwing this stuff around like "why didnt PP stop this" "why didnt the banking lobby stop this" "why didnt Mason Malmuth stop this" -- it's not that easy. hell, it might even be the case that a senator or representative with some pull/power just really felt strongly about this legislation and wanted to get it passed, damn the lobbies. but i imagine the fact of the matter is that the christian lobby is about 10x stronger than the mustered will of all the poker/banking/2p2 lobby.
|
|
#25
09-30-2006, 02:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This type of policing problem is the whole reason the banks hated this internet gaming statute in the first place. [/ QUOTE ] If they hated it, why couldn't they stop it? Banking has a very powerful lobby. [/ QUOTE ] They hated it they way you hate jock itch not the way you hate cancer. It's going to be a pain in the ass for them because they are ultimately the ones with the responsibility for enforcing it and that means determining which sites are gambling sites and which aren't.
|
|
#26
09-30-2006, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
[ QUOTE ]
If they hated it, why couldn't they stop it? Banking has a very powerful lobby. [/ QUOTE ] You are correct that the banking industry has a very strong lobby, but that doesn't mean they always get everything they want. This is true with any lobbying group. The Christian groups are a massive part of the modern Republican Party, but even so(some) Republicans got together with Democrats to pass stuff like the stem-cell research bill (which Bush vetoed). The point being that even the strongest lobbies sometimes lose out.
|
|
#27
09-30-2006, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
Banks didnt lobby against it cuz they didnt want to piss off christians and they dont give a [censored] about degenerates.
Very simple!
|
|
#28
09-30-2006, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
i can't wait until some christian, right-wing republican of iowa has a transaction mistakenly blocked by the banks because they think it's gambling-related. something like that is bound to happen if they make an intense effort to crack down on unholy transfers of money. the implications of having banks watch over us like this are pretty serious, and the irony of course is that it's going to be costing them a lot of money--money that we're going to be paying them so they can do a better job of babysitting us.
|
|
#29
09-30-2006, 03:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 270 Days Pretty Solid -- no run on the banks necessary
[ QUOTE ]
[Same caveat as my "Summary post" -- this should not be considered legal advice] [/ QUOTE ] all the same, I'll withdraw my rather substantial (to me) chunk of money and deposit and play relatively small amounts on a 'need to' basis. ---Leavenfish
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
