Reality of Passing HR 2046

[llayner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reality:

-This bill can and probably even will pass the House at some point. I say that because Barney Frank has enough clout to get this bill ridered onto something or other that's certain to pass, and nobody in the House majority (ie, the Democrats) particularly cares enough to stop him. Moreover, the opt out, licensing and state law exception provisions ensure that most of the usual suspects won't bother lobbying against it as hard as they normally would. It's a bill that's very sound politically.

-The Senate is quite another story and I would say it's very unlikely that it clears this session. Then again, we all thought that about UIGEA Mark I.

-If both houses pass this bill and its reconciled, the chances of Bush using his third ever veto on it (or more likely, an unrelated piece of legislation containing it) are roughly 0.00000000001%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. You dont feel like Bush is going to veto this at all? Wouldnt he not want people saying "Bush supports internet gambling" at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he'll go where the banking lobby goes and take advantage of the tax opportunity. Easy positive spin.

[LotteryOrPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Every business needs to file the proper paperwork.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point being?

[joeker]

Don't forget about the pocket veto:

"A bill can also become law without the President's signature if, after it is presented to him, he simply fails to sign it within the ten days noted. But if there are fewer than ten days left in the session before Congress adjourns, and if Congress does so adjourn before the ten days have expired in which the President might sign the bill, then the bill fails to become law. This procedure, when used as a formal device, is called a pocket veto."

[jafeather]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget about the pocket veto:

"A bill can also become law without the President's signature if, after it is presented to him, he simply fails to sign it within the ten days noted. But if there are fewer than ten days left in the session before Congress adjourns, and if Congress does so adjourn before the ten days have expired in which the President might sign the bill, then the bill fails to become law. This procedure, when used as a formal device, is called a pocket veto."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is less of a threat than a standard veto.

The biggest challenge here is passing both houses. Bush has shown an unwillingness to use a veto except on extremely controversial bills where has a strong, publicly known stance (i.e. iraq.) While this bill might be somewhat controversial, and he might have a moral stance, I don't believe it's a big enough issue to see a veto if it's strong enough to get to his desk.

[Dennisa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget about the pocket veto:

"A bill can also become law without the President's signature if, after it is presented to him, he simply fails to sign it within the ten days noted. But if there are fewer than ten days left in the session before Congress adjourns, and if Congress does so adjourn before the ten days have expired in which the President might sign the bill, then the bill fails to become law. This procedure, when used as a formal device, is called a pocket veto."

[/ QUOTE ]

This is less of a threat than a standard veto.

The biggest challenge here is passing both houses. Bush has shown an unwillingness to use a veto except on extremely controversial bills where has a strong, publicly known stance (i.e. iraq.) While this bill might be somewhat controversial, and he might have a moral stance, I don't believe it's a big enough issue to see a veto if it's strong enough to get to his desk.

[/ QUOTE ]

During Bush's first 6 years, he had Rebpublican majorities. The next 2, is a Democratic majority. He will be using his Veto pen much more often.

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No but I think that's as high as he can count.

[/ QUOTE ]
QFT and LOL factor.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tautomer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every business needs to file the proper paperwork.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point being?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gambling businesses would have their own paperwork to file under this bill. Nothing special.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
Reality:

-This bill can and probably even will pass the House at some point. I say that because Barney Frank has enough clout to get this bill ridered onto something or other that's certain to pass, and nobody in the House majority (ie, the Democrats) particularly cares enough to stop him. Moreover, the opt out, licensing and state law exception provisions ensure that most of the usual suspects won't bother lobbying against it as hard as they normally would. It's a bill that's very sound politically.

-The Senate is quite another story and I would say it's very unlikely that it clears this session. Then again, we all thought that about UIGEA Mark I.

-If both houses pass this bill and its reconciled, the chances of Bush using his third ever veto on it (or more likely, an unrelated piece of legislation containing it) are roughly 0.00000000001%.

[/ QUOTE ]

adanthar,

Don't forget that Bush was pushing for HR4411 last year , which was tougher than the UIGEA.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that Bush was pushing for HR4411 last year, which was tougher than the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

In political time, last year was decades away. Back then, the Republican Party thought they could maintain their majorities by appealing only to social conservatives. That strategy was blown out of the water in November! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I'm not suggesting he's going to suddenly support us, but he may be less willing to spend what political capital he has on this than he was in the past.

As an aside, imagine of someone tried to reintroduce HR 4411 today? The political landscape sure has changed.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that Bush was pushing for HR4411 last year, which was tougher than the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

In political time, last year was decades away. Back then, the Republican Party thought they could maintain their majorities by appealing only to social conservatives. That strategy was blown out of the water in November! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I'm not suggesting he's going to suddenly support us, but he may be less willing to spend what political capital he has on this than he was in the past.

As an aside, imagine of someone tried to reintroduce HR 4411 today? The political landscape sure has changed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eng, is this just optimism?

How sure are you that the "landscape" has changed... certainly we will find out... but have you reviewed the numbers? HR4411 had a pretty strong majority.

Just to be clear... I have not yet reviewed the numbers... and my question is... has anyone else reviewed the numbers of who is still around from that last vote?