Quote:
Originally Posted by Roush97
Since you obviously haven't read anything about the intra vs interstate topics that have been discussed here I will give you a brief explanation.
Thanks, I needed a good chuckle.
Quote:
More states would go with the federal root since it would be easier for them to do so.
I don't know if the fed "root" would be easier; I do know the Barton bill would cost the states revenue. This revenue loss would mean less hope of us getting a piece back from the states.
Quote:
Also many states could not support online poker by themselves and would need to make pacts with other states anyways to share player pools.
And a no cost fed enabling bill is the most the states would need to do that.
Quote:
With the fed plan all that states would have the option to opt out but would automatically be opted in.
And if the states keep their current stance of no online poker sites, they will opt out of a fed scheme...meaning it will be harder to get them to change their mind in the future.
Quote:
Also if states want to do their own thing they would need to spend the time and money with coming up with their own gaming board to regulate it. Overall it is much easier for states just to be part of a federal plan and get a smaller piece from a larger pie then try and do it on their own.
It may be easier, hard to make that blanket statement...but the states do know they don't need to send revenue to the feds forever just because they want to legalize sites. Save trouble now...lose money forever---hard decision.
EDIT-almost forgot; about those 30+ states that want to legalize sites...what is the delay??
Last edited by permafrost; 01-11-2012 at 03:28 PM.
Reason: forgetful