Skip to comments.Reaction To Online Gaming Bill Vehement And Outraged
Posted on 10/02/2006 4:29:47 AM PDT by baystaterebel
Reaction to the online gaming legislation passed in a late night pre-recess session in Congress has been one of outrage as poker lobbying organizations and support groups prepare for the future.
Late Friday evening, Congress was able to link a bill regarding online gaming to the latest bill regarding American port security. This bill, which was enacted to prevent another situation such as the Dubai scenario earlier this year (which would have awarded security rights for several coastal cities to a Muslim country), was virtually guaranteed to pass through the Senate. It was with this bill that Senator Bill Frist, Senator Jon Kyl and others were able to stake their online gaming bandwagon on.
(Excerpt) Read more at pokernews.com ...
A staunch Republican I am but it seems the party is taking a cue from the democrats here. Other then appeasing a few fanatic Bible Thumpers I have no idea what they hope to accomplish.
Freepmail me if you want on the Poker Ping list.
The union thugs would have none of it! Workers with serious criminal records, mob connections, etc. Nope, can't check them out! Just make sure a company like Dubai Ports World who WOULD have demanded port worker background checks doesn't get anywhere near our mob infested longshoreman union workers.
The casino industry probably lobbied for it.
Democrat talking points right there....
Spend and Tax Congress vs. Gambling on the Internet
Which one do you think destroys more families?
Isn't this basically the Status Quo?
A card game needs lobbyists? There is a connection to Port Security? I'm going back to bed, this makes no sense.
Although I am not a huge fan of Internet Gambling...I would have to think that the government can do a lot more damage to many more people than Online Gambling.
This is so blantantly special interest legislation it's disgusting. There is no shame when it comes to pandering.
Look to the World Trade Organization for the reason behind this. The US was allowing domestic Internet gambling but locking out foreign-based games. Many countries cried foul and won their case before the WTO. What was up in the air was sanctions against the US and the leading penalty under consideration was suspending Intellectual Property rights. The choice was open up gambling completely or shut it down completely. Congress chose the latter course of action.
More nanny non-sense.
I wish these a$$holes would do something that made sense, for a change. What a bunch of theiving crooks.
They've certainly robbed many of us of an education.
I agree with your assessment.
Plus, I'm thinking they mught not have been able to tax off shore winnings. I would appreciate someone who KNOWS for SURE whether the U.S. has/had the ability to tax off shore winnings to comment on this.
"What I find amazing is that the casino industry is not fighting this harder."
Are you kidding? It is the casinos who, short-sightedly I'll admit, want this. They think you won't come to the casino if you can play poker at home in your underwear.
There has been no outcry from the actual on-line gamblers, not that I've seen. And hey, I've been one! I'm wondering if this will change now. Of course, I hate calling my reps, since they are all stinking dems. But I must say, it's not the dems driving this legislation, not so far as I am aware.
""Are you kidding? It is the casinos who, short-sightedly I'll admit, want this. They think you won't come to the casino if you can play poker at home in your underwear.""
As a matter of fact thats what I am doing right now lol!
I don't think anything will change. This was all just fluff.
Haven't heard that. Got any links? I think that you have the real reason right there.
I am what you might call a "bible thumper," and my objection to gambling, in general, is the damage that it truly does cause in families and neighborhoods. If it were possible to restrict the damage to individuals, I'd readily fall back on my normal argument "live and let live."
Nonetheless, I do NOT support restrictions on gambling. Because the damage to families and neighborhoods is real and is measurable, I see no reason to assume that governments cannot be involved in this issue and regulate it with legislation.
I allow for gambling for the same reason I allow for alcohol consumption:
1. There is a fallacy in catering to the addict rather than to the majority capable of moderation.
2. There is a fallacy in government attempting to regulate that which is amazingly simple to engage in whether government objects or not. Government couldn't really control Uncle Jake making whiskey in his garage and selling it to his neighbors. Nor can government control those who run numbers and play poker. It's insane to regulate that which you can't control.
1 & 2 above do not mean government has no interest in TRYING to do so, if they so desire.
It has been my understanding that if you are a U.S. citizen, every dollar you acquire, by whatever means, onshore or offshore, is reportable and taxable as income excluding only certain tax-deferred investments and profits from real estate sales up to a cap.
So, it's not illegal to have an offshore accout; it's illegal to have one and fail to report your interest income. If you go to Monaco and win $1M, that's not illegal, but you must report it when you file your taxes. The local government will take their pound of flesh at the point of payment; reporting to the IRS is your job.
Now, you could always return via Grand Cayman, land in the U.S. sans capital, and leave some unnamed bank in Grand Cayman with a hefty new, numbered interest-earning account, but -- technically, at least -- you still have to report everything. Some things are nearly impossible for then to discover if you DON'T report them, BUT, if you don't report them and they DO discover them...you're TOAST.
But, then, I think you implied that you're somewhat of a gambler... ;-)
Pretty much what HKMk23 wrote. Your winnings are taxable, but you can write off your losses. IRS has no way of knowing what your losses are. Unless you get audited, you can show what ever losses you need to (I am NOT advocating committing fraud here.) You need to keep records of your losses or the IRS won't accept them under audit.
By the way, all this Bill does is limit the way one funds their account and cashes winnings.
IIRC, that's how the Kenedys and Soros manage to have huge amounts of money available, but don't actually pay taxes on it. Sort of like a consumption tax. They don't pay taxes on it until they actually use it.
I still don't understand FReepers' support of online gambling. If you want to throw your money away, go to a "legal" establishment that's regulated.
I've suspected that online gambling rackets are run by spam gangs and other kinds of gangs, including those who support crime including terrorism. I do not doubt the onlinegambling/terrorism connection one bit. See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1711933/posts?page=34#33 for a discussion of that "connection."
The casinos, the Indians, and the state lotteries all lobbied hard for this, they think it will reign in the competition. I specialize in football and blackjack, make a nice side income there. Main reason there is no outcry of opposition is this law is useless. My sports bets are with a local guy, technically illegal, blackjack in person. If I were interested in the online services, it would take about ten minutes to transfer some money and set up an account this law wouldn't touch.
Actually nobody really thinks this bill will do anything except give some Congresscritters a campaign boost on the "values" right. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) thought he needed it, the RNC thinks they need Leach to win to keep the majority, and they are probably right. All in all, a good move tactically, has no real effect on any gambler with more than three brain cells still rattling around.
If this sounds a bit cynical, well it is, but that is how the "great game" of politics is played. Not really that much different from gambling, online or not.
"I still don't understand FReepers' support of online gambling. If you want to throw your money away, go to a "legal" establishment that's regulated."
If I want to legally bet on a football game, I would have to fly to Vegas or drive 3 hours to Atlantic City. Why can't I go on-line and bet with a LEGAL British Book?
"Actually nobody really thinks this bill will do anything except give some Congresscritters a campaign boost on the "values" right."
"Congress has grappled with this issue for ten years, and during that time we've watched this shadow industry explode," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee). "For me as majority leader, the bottom line is simple: Internet gambling is illegal. Although we can't monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws."
"If I want to legally bet on a football game, I would have to fly to Vegas or drive 3 hours to Atlantic City."
Vegas only, you can't bet on Sports in Atlantic City, only horse racing.
I stand corrected.
It is the logical reason why there would be enough support to pass the measure. I'm puzzled that this doesn't seem to come up in public statements from either side. Do the republicans prefer the bible thumper tag to being painted as caving to the WTO? Are there special interests that will throw their online operations under the bus in order to save their bricks and mortar operations from international electronic competition? Plenty of meat for a real journalist. Too bad they don't make those anymore.
Pubbies just lost the poker vote -- that's millions of voters
I suspect that this is part of the effort to track fund transfers out of the US for terror related purposes.
You cannot be serious. Party Poker is going to ban US players. That is the biggest site down more then 50% on the Londan Exchange. Many of the smaller sites have already begun banning US players.
Between the Democrats in Washington state and the Republicans in D.C.
I choose none of the above.
Great points, and pretty much what I believe also.
I don't gamble (grew up the son of a farmer, a $500 bet is pretty small change compared to that gamble), but I know a quite a few who do as a source of entertainment. Much like I enjoy a good crafted beer or fine whiskey on occasion.
Both have the possibility of abuse to the determent of society, and hence why there is some regulation. But in the end banning either one is a bit of over reaction.
"poker lobbying organizations.."
And then there's this from the item..."poker player's rights organization"
What's that about? I see a new protected class.
Heck, gambling via the 'options' and 'futures' markets has been a given for many, many years. The difference is the govt can monitor that activity much easier and ensure that they 'get their cut'.
It's as much of a potential mechanism for money laundering as onling gambling sites. This his how Hillary laundered the illegal campaign contributions from Tyson, but I don't recall anyone proposing banning commodity futures trading over it.
And you can do that same 'commodities' gambling ONLINE too! The difference is the govt wants to be able to 'get their cut'.
You may be right, but my understanding is that you are still under obligation to report it.
Count me as one of them. Frankly, I've had it with the Republicans at this point.
Thank you. Your explainations/comments seem reasonable. I really appreciate your insite.
That was my initial take on it.
Few credit cards and banks allow their cards to be used for online gaming...so alot of companies have popped up to fill the void...You pay them and they pay the casino. Of course, it costs you more.
BINGO! (opps! that's gambling, too, isn't it?)
I am the 5th generation of my family to farm in this community. Our 3 adult sons are farming with us, and our grandchildren's 4-H projects represent the 7th generation to farm here.
The risks at the poker table at the local casino seem small compared to the risks we've taken in the last 40 years to build this operation.
The politicians have an interest in creating the perception that they can indeed control it. The beltway bureaucrats have an interest in getting the money and authority to pursue the attempt.