1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice
  3. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Barney's Anti-UIGEA bill defeated

Discussion in 'Casino Industry Discussion' started by Mousey, Jun 26, 2008.

    Jun 26, 2008
  1. Mousey

    Mousey Ueber Meister Mouse CAG

    Occupation:
    Pencil Pusher
    Location:
    Up$hitCreek
    There are probably more indepth articles out there, but I just don't have the heart to search any further right now.

    You must register/login in order to see the link.
    25 June 2008

    By Vin Narayanan


    The House Financial Services Committee rejected a bill Wednesday that would have prohibited the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve from proposing and implementing regulations to enforce the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

    In its mark-up session, the Committee adopted an amendment proposed by Rep. Peter King (R-NY) that would not only stop the implementation of any UIGEA regulations, but would also force the Treasury Department, the Justice Department and the Federal Reserve to sit down and define unlawful Internet gambling. King said that this "was a banking issue, not a gambling issue" and that the banking industry shouldn't be in the position of determining what is legal and illegal.

    The King amendment was defeated by the full committee with a vote of 32 for and 32 against. The original bill proposed by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) was defeated in a voice vote.

    The defeat is a blow to both the online gambling industry,
    ...
     
    5 people like this.
  2. Jun 26, 2008
  3. kcjoe8900

    kcjoe8900 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Sales/Student
    Location:
    Kansas City MO
    So sad that our government can't see the benefits of making online gambling legal.
     
  4. Jun 27, 2008
  5. MJackson

    MJackson Moderated User - posts must be approved

    Occupation:
    No comment
    Location:
    Miami, I, I mean Montreal
    The Saved be Damned!

    Let's face it. The reason this bill got defeated is olde time rational argument.


    Keep in mind that these folks know what's right for everyone, God told them.

    If you could knock someone in the forehead on television and cure their cancer, or convince a homosexual that they made the wrong lifestyle choice, or prove that Darwin was a deeply religious hoaxster who all these crazy scientists now take seriously or steer huricanes away from call centers or talk with someone who's been dead for 2000 years...or know for a fact that Carbon 14 dating is a complete carnival scam then you might just be humble enough to speak the truth and let everyone else have the freedom to know what is right for them.

    I hope they implement the UIGEA in all it's glory and it brings about the total collapse of the US financial system, that'll teach em...uh, maybe it'll teach them, uh, something?

    "Monkeys are having babies all the time, why don't they have another human today?" -Kent Hovind, leading intellectual of the christian right

    Actually scratch that thought.
     
  6. Jun 27, 2008
  7. Mousey

    Mousey Ueber Meister Mouse CAG

    Occupation:
    Pencil Pusher
    Location:
    Up$hitCreek
    You must register/login in order to see the link.
    By ERICA WERNER 1 day ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) Lawmakers failed Wednesday to agree on setting a clear definition of illegal Internet gambling to go along with a ban on online betting passed in 2006.

    The Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department have been unable to finalize rules to implement the ban because Congress didn't clearly define online gambling when it passed legislation less than two years ago.

    The House Financial Services Committee voted Wednesday on legislation to require federal regulators to write a uniform definition of which types of gambling should and should not be allowed on the Internet, followed by new rules implementing the ban. The tie vote, 32-32, meant the legislation failed under committee rules.

    Senate Republicans, pushed by then-Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, had attached the online gambling ban to an unrelated port security bill in a rush of year-end legislation in 2006.

    Banks and other financial institutions have complained that they are being forced into a law enforcement role because the Internet gambling ban prohibits them from accepting payments to settle online wagers without giving them a clear set of rules.

    "The financial institutions are in the position of being told not process bets, but it's not clear what is legal and what is illegal," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the committee's chairman. He said financial institutions had been given "a job that is undoable."

    The committee's top Republican, Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, argued ....
     
  8. Jun 27, 2008
  9. MJackson

    MJackson Moderated User - posts must be approved

    Occupation:
    No comment
    Location:
    Miami, I, I mean Montreal
    Children-based bullsh*t arguments

    Really? The fastest growing addiction, huh? In real numbers or percentage points? If last year 2 people were addicted to Skittles and this year 10 people are then I could plausibly argue that it is the fastest growing addiction.

    Spencer Bachus from Alabama, a republican. Let's keep in mind again this is coming from the same camp who has 2000 year old dinasaur bones and who think the Old Testament is a good moral guide.

    Spencer Bachus is a funny guy who has great comedic value. Problem is, all these republican pigs don't see the punch line.

    Oh The Children!

    I'm a big fan of "what about the children" arguments. They seem to work otherwise these flat-liner scum wouldn't keep laying them out time and time again over decades.

    How many children are killed EVERY DAY in accidental gun discharges? We have to stop these horrible tragedies before they happen. We MUST ban gun ownership!

    When young children are exposed to indecent sexual acts they are scarred for life (note no scientific evidence cited). We MUST BAN PORNOGRAPHY!

    If children are not exposed to the word of god from a young age they may grow up to be godless heathens. We MUST HAVE PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS!

    If marijuana was legal, what would stop a 5 year old from walking up to the gas station, buying a pack of joints and overdoseing and dying of ventricular fibrillation. We MUST KEEP MARIJUANA POSSESION CRIMINAL!

    A marriage is between a man and a woman, it's what the Bible says. There have been hundreds of thousands of studies which all agree on one thing; children who are raised by homosexual couples have psychological problems when they grow up. We MUST BAN ADOPTION BY HOMOSEXUALS!

    We need to keep our country secure for our children so that they can grow up having the freedoms and opportunities that we all had. That's why we must MAKE PHONE COMPANIES IMMUNE FROM PROSECUTION IN CASES OF WONTON PRIVACY VIOLATION, TORTURE FOREIGN CITIZENS, COMMIT WAR CRIMES INCLUDING AGGRESSION AGAINST SOVEIRGN CONTRIES, VETO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS BY THE HUNDREDS,...

    These pieces of rat sh*t read 1984 and apparently got some good ideas.

    F*ck these swine.

    Maybe instead of gambling for a living we can all do something constructive like getting together and chanting mindless recitations out of some hokey 2000 year old fairy tale. We can burn Jazz cd's and biology books and Einsteins photograph then maybe even throw a witch or two into the flames. Then let's eat some doughnuts and go shoot an abortion doctor. I'm talking about keeping our morals straight, u know?
     
  10. Jun 28, 2008
  11. MJackson

    MJackson Moderated User - posts must be approved

    Occupation:
    No comment
    Location:
    Miami, I, I mean Montreal
    Good Reasoning for Social Policy

    Spencer Bachus says:

    No footnotes, no studies, no expert testimony, no evidence.

    Implicit in the argument is that the testimony of some stupid reverend who testified before congress about the weak will of his poker addict son proves that the ultimate consequence of gambling online is financial strife and eventually, suicide.

    In what percent of cases does this occur? We don't know. No evidence was cited and apparently none is needed.

    MJackson says:

    My argument is more logical because far more old people by percent die, are financially harmed and suffer grave consequences from medical treatment than do from gambling online.

    I like the Representative's logic though. You can make arguments of the most implausible kind appear legitimate when you pay no attention to evidence and reject any kind of risk-reward analysis.


    Do you want to ban seatbelt use? Just find one case of someone who was ejected from a vehicle before it was consumed by fire.

    Do you want to get rid of nuclear power? Just keep talking about Chernobyl over and over and over.

    Do you want to ban air travel? Look what happened to that Airbus at the Sao Paolo airport.

    Let's ban eating. Someone choked to death yesterday.

    Let's ban sunshine. Look at all the cases of Melanoma

    Etc.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. Jun 28, 2008
  13. MJackson

    MJackson Moderated User - posts must be approved

    Occupation:
    No comment
    Location:
    Miami, I, I mean Montreal
    Actually he did go on later to cite one study that I couldn't find anywhere claiming that a third of teen compulsive gamblers commit suicide and another saying that online gambling among college students had decreased by 75% since the UIGEA (highly doubtful). If you could find these studies you could explain to him that correlation doesn't imply causation but it doesn't do any good if the study doesn't exist.

    That's not to mention the points CM made in another post recently about the benefits of regulation etc.

    Couldn't find it.

    I did find the other one he referred to.

    No word on methodology but this was a survey and the jump from 0 to .8 percent was considered statistically insignificant. Also no word on when this survey was taken and thus how long the poker rooms had time to work out the new payment kinks. Obviously there would have been a precipitous drop in the months immediately following the UIGEA's passage and the Neteller incident.

    That aside, without proving a net adverse effect when comparing regulation with prohibition the point about the 75% decline, even if true, has no merit.
     
  14. Jun 28, 2008
  15. footdr

    footdr Banned User: PITA violations of the Forum Rules

    Occupation:
    management
    Location:
    cyberspace
    BULL ABOUT TEENS

    UIGEA made it easier for me to use Credit Card so I think the statement regarding teens is bull
     
  16. Jun 28, 2008
  17. maxd

    maxd Complaints (PAB) Manager Staff Member

    Occupation:
    The PAB Guy
    Location:
    Saltirelandia
    Don't know if you guys saw this but the vote was apparently a tie, but under 'the rules' that means it failed. Interesting that it ended up in the tie situation, gives you some idea how many people actually oppose the religious and moral rhetoric used by people like the FoF to fob off their fear-mongering.
     
    4 people like this.
  18. Jun 28, 2008
  19. jetset

    jetset Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    Location:
    Earth
    A point well worth noting, Max.

    Bachus even used that now weary cliche: "You click the mouse and lose your house," in his address to the committee.

    Typical generalisation and emotive Republican rhetoric that ignores both the facts and the impracticality of the UIGEA.

    And it was trotted out yet again despite the renewed concern by the banks about the lack of precision in the regulations, and Rep. King's explanation that the intent was to halt implementation of the regulations because noone in government has actually defined what the banks should define 'illegal transactions.' This is something government has deliberately avoided doing because it raises the inequities and grey areas in US gambling policy.

    The PPA chairman best summed up the opposition view when he said:

    ""It was clear today that those who oppose this bill chose to focus on emotional and non-germane issues, such as the harmful impact of gambling on children, instead of on the merits of the bill itself," he said, commenting that as it presently stands the UIGEA is "a completely unworkable and unenforceable bill that would do little to address the main concerns of its sponsors – namely, protecting underage and compulsive gamblers as well as cracking down on money laundering."

    “Unfortunately, debate over the morality of gambling trumped debate on the fact that UIGEA is completely ineffective and unenforceable."

    The other quote I felt hit the UIGEA nail on the head was that from Congressman Melvin Watt, who said: "We [Congress] kicked the ball over to the regulators. They don't know how to figure this out so they kicked it over to the banks. That is not responsible legislating on our part."
     
    3 people like this.
  20. Jun 28, 2008
  21. Simmo!

    Simmo! Moderator Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Web Dev.
    Location:
    England
    The problem here, like many political hot topics I guess, is that how many of the 64, on either side, knew what the people they represent actually wanted and how many voted based on their own opinions of right and wrong?

    Politicians in any democratic/republican country shouldn't legislate on moral values, they should legislate to allow people to make their own decisions but to make sure that a) there is sufficient knowledge available for those decisions to be made and b) that the legal boundaries between right and wrong are clearly marked.

    Moral legislation marks the border between a true democracy and a fascist, dictatorial or communist regime.

    That said, politicians aren't unintelligent - they are hiding the real issue of $ behind a moral argument to protect their open trade obligations and to help "sell" the idea into society. If any truly believe they are voting on moral grounds, which I actually doubt, then they are not serving their electorate as they should.
     
    4 people like this.
  22. Jun 28, 2008
  23. jetset

    jetset Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    Location:
    Earth
    Another very good point.

    Unfortunately I think too many politicians around the planet are (a) not trained for the job they ought to be doing (ie representing the people who elected them) and (b) operate in a system where big money and party politics can be brought to bear to influence events.... and not always in the real interests or for the benefit of the electorate.
     
    2 people like this.
  24. Jun 28, 2008
  25. Simmo!

    Simmo! Moderator Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Web Dev.
    Location:
    England
    Also very true.

    Easy to forget that the original perpetrator of the bill received campaign funding from Harrahs among others. The system in the UK and USA where companies with vested interests can donate to politicians campaigns clearly acts against the interests of the eloctorate.
     
    1 person likes this.
  26. Jun 28, 2008
  27. lots0

    lots0 Banned User - troll posts - flaming PABnonaccred

    Occupation:
    I do nothing productive
    Location:
    Hell on Earth
    The problem with politicians is that people elect them... And people (as a group) are not that smart and are easily manipulated... For example the 2000 and 2004 US general elections...

    In the last two general elections we ended up with a president that did NOT win the most votes, we did nothing to stop or remove the usurper and look where we are at now.

    The entire US Government system is now so corrupt that the government is protecting it's own corruption by creating a police state. The only way, in my opinion, to fix this mess is to tear it all down and start over.

    Thomas Jefferson was right... "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Our Tree of Liberty is dying... It needs to be refreshed...
     
  28. Jun 28, 2008
  29. jod5413

    jod5413 Is That Better?

    Occupation:
    having a good time doing anything
    Location:
    somewhere on the planet
    Lotso,

    I respect and value your posts here at Casinomeister. And in theory, you echo the thoughts of many.

    In reality, your opinion of the only solution is simplistic, not realistic in today's world.

    It is perfectly possible to change things for the better in small increments, taking "baby steps", to right the wrongs, to change things that have gone awry. To make many things better.

    It just requires the masses to be willing to be more involved and educated, so that things do not just get taken over by more of the same type of people that keep creating the unhappiness of the populace.



    Who decides which people are going to tear down and rebuild this current government and the way it is run? I know I couldn't, I know who I think maybe could help but that could very well be someone you do not think is capable.

    I get pessimistic and angered at a lot of things in our country, but I also enjoy and am grateful for many, many things that we should be thankful, grateful and blessed for having. And, I do believe that I am an optimist, as to the future of this country, generally speaking.

    For the record, I hate this gambling BS though!! :p I miss my casino entertainment!!! :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2008
  30. Jun 28, 2008
  31. USA2112

    USA2112 Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Rehab old dwellings and playing music/guitar/etc..
    Location:
    USA
    The problem with the financial part of the UIGEA is the people have no voice in the matter, if we did U.S. citizens would have the right "As we should" to spend our money where ever we like in the states or not, without the government interfering with the finiancial institutions we use to spend our money and force regulations on the banking instituions to control the money spent with online gambling by U.S. citizens, not possible, and it's a ridiculous assumption it could possibly work.

    And statements like this: "You click the mouse and lose your house," What idiots do our represenatives have sitting around thinking up these stupid quotes.

    If our represenatives want to focus on something useful, why not focus on all the over spending in this country by U.S. citizens with credit card institutions that's causing many people to go into bankruptcy, "And lose their house" but do they, no! the reason why? simply put, they get their share.

    This is a political agenda at best, trying to guarantee who gets what at the in of the day. "Control of the money" and not the poor person who gambles to much or religious beliefs, it's about the money! as soon as they figure out who gets what there will be no more problems.

    We do have a voice in America by who we vote into office, but until all our represenatives are forced to listen after we do, there will always be these type of political agendas going on in Washington D.C.

    For now, they can send me the bill on what I owe and it will get paid, but, there's no reason to visit their not welcome. The past eight years with the Bush administration has gotten totally out of control.
     
  32. Jun 28, 2008
  33. lots0

    lots0 Banned User - troll posts - flaming PABnonaccred

    Occupation:
    I do nothing productive
    Location:
    Hell on Earth
    You must be young... I'm old, I don't have time to take baby steps.
     
  34. Jun 29, 2008
  35. jod5413

    jod5413 Is That Better?

    Occupation:
    having a good time doing anything
    Location:
    somewhere on the planet
    :lolup:

    Nope! I am 57 and proud of it!! I did however quit looking in mirrors other when I absolutely have to! :p
     
  36. Jun 30, 2008
  37. dhayman

    dhayman Dormant account

    Occupation:
    Computer guy
    Location:
    USA
    Hey guys,

    I'm going to put a positive spin on this:

    Nothing has been done to date as far as the UIGEA is concerned. It has
    definitely had an impact in regard to scaring operators away from the US,
    and probably in scaring some potential players away. However, the
    banking system is in a total state of decline and turmoil due to economics,
    and there is NO way anyone is going to spend any time on implementing
    or reinforcing the implementation of UIGEA on the banking system at
    this time - Especially with an election just 5 months away, and with the
    guard imminently to be changed (seriously, can you even conceive of
    Obama losing ???).

    Hence, we're looking at status quo through January, and with a
    Democratic President in the White House along with a Democratic
    Congress, the chances of a Barney-like bill being resurrected and
    seriously entertained, increases dramatically. However, it will take
    YEARS before this comes to fruition and gets implemented.

    Hence, we are looking at the status quo for many years to come.
    Although we lost what we had just a few short years ago (and we will
    never see again), the defeat of this bill in Committee, just means that
    the status quo lives on for at least a couple of more years. I can
    certainly live with that..............
     
  38. Jun 30, 2008
  39. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    Here's a bit more from Rep. Barney Frank:

    In essense:

    I regret the fact that this became partisan. I was hoping that it wouldn't be, and I have been working closely with some of those most dedicated to economic deregulation of the appropriate sort.

    But it became partisan because the religious/social extreme conservatives continue to be in control of the Republican Party on a whole range of issues, and they demonstrated once again that it is they and not those dedicated to what they believe are free market principles who have the upper hand in internal Republican Party disputes.


    You must register/login in order to see the link.
     
    2 people like this.

Share This Page