View New Posts
  1. #1

    Default US Online Gambling Ban Could be Lifted in 2008

    All this article is is wishful thinking is all.

    US Online Gambling Ban Could be Lifted in 2008

    Submitted by Julie on September 5, 2007 - 10:37pm.

    The ridiculous "poker prohibition" that is currently preventing US citizens from easily participating in online gambling sites might soon be coming to an end. While nothing has yet been decided, it seems as though the tides may be changing.

    US Representatives Steve Israel (Democrat) and Pete King (Republican) of New Jersey recently published a compelling editorial in the New York Post which outlines why they are staunch supporters of efforts to regulate and tax online gambling, instead of prohibiting it. The article, entitled "Web Gambling: Tax, Don't Ban", explains their reasonings for supporting such measures.

    One of the most logical arguements that they present is that the Treasury Department simply has bigger fish to fry. The Treasury is charged with more than a few crucial jobs, including investigating counterfeit money, tracking terrorist financing, and even protecting the President. With the ban on online gambling in place, they've been forced to take on the additional burden of handling something much more trivial - people who play card games online for money at home.

    Other issues to consider are that by banning online gambling, people really aren't going to just stop gambling. They'll do it, albeit not as easily as before, but now they'll be doing it without legal protections that could potentially protect them against fraud and ensure age-verification. What its really doing is pushing the business off-shores, into the hands of less than savory businesses with shady practices, using the money for who-knows-what.

    What Israel and King argue is that the ban should be lifted, but they aren't asking for things to return to what they were pre-ban. Instead, they're arguing for a set of framework to be created under a bill they're co-sponsoring, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, that would regulate and tax the industry and make sure that it is a safe entertainment outlet for American citizens.

    Lastly, they point out that the Treasury's Secret Service agents were once used to help President Harry Truman organize poker games in the White House. But if he were to do that in these days, he could very well be arrested!

    With both a Democrat and a Republican co-sponsoring the bill, it really has a chance of getting pushed through - especially if votes are on the line, as they will be in 2008. Come next year, we could really see the state of US online gambling make a huge shift.

    SBR Founder Join Date: 8/10/2005


  2. #2

    Default

    Submitted by Julie on September 5, 2007 - 10:37pm.

    US Representatives Steve Israel (Democrat) and Pete King (Republican) of New Jersey recently published a compelling editorial in the New York Post which outlines why they are staunch supporters of efforts to regulate and tax online gambling, instead of prohibiting it. The article, entitled "Web Gambling: Tax, Don't Ban", explains their reasonings for supporting such measures.

    What Israel and King argue is that the ban should be lifted, but they aren't asking for things to return to what they were pre-ban. Instead, they're arguing for a set of framework to be created under a bill they're co-sponsoring, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, that would regulate and tax the industry and make sure that it is a safe entertainment outlet for American citizens.

    With both a Democrat and a Republican co-sponsoring the bill, it really has a chance of getting pushed through - especially if votes are on the line, as they will be in 2008. Come next year, we could really see the state of US online gambling make a huge shift.

    This isn't really surprising but why does it say that it has a chance to get pushed through more because votes are on the line..? It would make more sense the other way around...

    Excuse me for sounding repetative but regulating and taxing was what this was all about in the first place... This was their orignial plan...


  3. #3

    Default

    This thread/article title is such a tease. I do actually agree with the sentiment and the logic outlined, but in no way do I agree with it happening in 2008. But hey, I'd really like to be wrong here, so who knows.

  4. #4

    Default

    If the US legalize Internet gambling, it can be brought to the US where there are laws. The FutureBets of the world would be out of business.

    I'd rather play in a US run site where I know I'll get my money. By the way, I'm having withdrawal issues with the "old" G2G, USDbet, Poker_Eon and maybe TheNutz and Oddsmaker.

  5. #5

    Default

    Taxes would be cheaper than the costs of sites that just keep your money.

  6. #6

    Default

    Live poker get worst hit with tax next year. Casino will start hold back 25% of any tourney poker win over 5K.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bigboydan View Post
    All this article is is wishful thinking is all.
    Using "is" 3 times in one sentence. Impressive.
    400pts

    SBR POKER TOURNEY1st Place 5/17/2012

    175 pts

    3-QUESTION
    SBR TRIVIA WINNER 05/24/2012

    175 pts

    3-QUESTION
    SBR TRIVIA WINNER 05/28/2012

    275pts

    SBR POKER TOURNEY3rd Place 5/28/2012

    50pts

    SBR POKER TOURNEY14th Place 5/25/2012

    175 pts

    3-QUESTION
    SBR TRIVIA WINNER 05/17/2012

    iPad
    WINNER
    SBR Store 05/05/2012

    200pts

    SBR POKER TOURNEY5th Place 5/29/2012

    200pts

    SBR POKER TOURNEY5th Place 5/22/2012


  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rjt721 View Post
    Using "is" 3 times in one sentence. Impressive.
    "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is." - Bill Clinton

Top