Barney Frank.....

Let me put it this way. If I suddenly became doused in gasoline and needed somebody to help me before I combusted, I'd choose the freeking Marlboro man over Barney Frank if they were the only two available.

LoL at putting any faith at all in this creep. If this is what it's come down to, it's over.

Just saw a report on CNN headlined "Legalize online gambling?" about the new Frank bill. They read a few comments posted and will be reading more later. Get heard!

http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/

Bill O'Reilly?

Basic rational logic will lead you to see that this is a good step in the right direction.

A lot of the negative posts in this thread can be traced to a general fear of change. It is quite common for may people to resist change of any kind regardless of their situation due to a fear that a change may worsen their current environment.

you really think that if Stars pulled out now the US wouldn't 'go after them' for their previous 'transgressions'? How exactly is the US going to 'go after them' anyway?

I would recommend reading up on the $105 Million PartyPoker paid to the US government.

I would recommend you explain why, when the government needs money, they haven't just pwoned Stars and FT, billion dollar companies? I mean they pwoned party, its easy right?

haha, ok big guy. I guess since the government hasn't taken action on the other gaming companies means they never will. Tell the PPA to call off the lobbing effort, we're good to go as is.

Or, maybe its because at the time the Department of Justice decided to take action against gaming companies it believed where breaking US law PartyPoker had 40% of the market share and was the industry leader. Therefore, making PartyPoker an obvious target.

Since then, many developments have come about including WTO involvement and a poker lobby pushing legislation and court decisions on the legality of online poker.

Change will not always hurt you. It's ok. No need to Fear it.

cause the partypoker dude was dumb enough to come to the US and get caught, then they requested to make up a settlement. Also if you actually make money from poker most of us actually pay taxes on it so the worry of paying tax isnt that big of a deal

I'm afraid it might go states rights path. Then I live in a ****ty state of Alabama where if you watch poker on tv you are on the short track to hell.

The only state that has tried to ban online poker or has made it illegal that does not have legal cardrooms is KY. They also happen to be the biggest state in the horse racing industry...

states arent going to ban it for moral issues, they ban it b/c it competes with in state legal taxed gambling

Don't forget MN

It will be interesting to see how states adopt it if this law passes, and it passing is a big IF.

There are only 7 states without lotteries, one of them being NV. So really only 6. I would bet that online poker will not get a 100% state adoption rate. However, considering that it is the internet the difficulty in banning and policing use may help.

Obama...
Has just forcibly nationalized the US banking system...
Forcibly nationalized the Auto Industry...
And handed it to his patrons, the UAW...
Has just totally put the screws to Wall Street...
Views and demonizes "hedge fund managers" as crooks...

But he's gonna play nice with CASINOS ???

This is not about "personal freedom" in any way...
It's about CONTROL and a tax grab...
That will probably keep competitive poker sites offshore.

If you were a Full Tilt owner...
Would you go anywhere near Obama?

Wow LeapFrog is killing this entire thread lol. Really can't be bad to reintroduce online poker into america...

if this bill goes thru , maybe I will vote for Gay Marriage

wat

Interesting use of the word "forcibly". I normally see it used in the context were a person is actually forced into something in contrast to a situation where they may request or even lobby for something.

Cross-posted from the legislation forum for you NVG'ers who would never be seen dead there:

Time for a little clarity.

1) As written, its still an open question whether this bill applies to poker-only sites. What poker sites accept "bets or wagers?" Remember, this is Frank's "Online Gambling" bill, not an "online poker" bill. There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss the unique nature of poker as this bill moves along the legislative process.

2) This bill does NOTHING with respect to taxes. It creates no new tax, nor does it require any new tax with-holding. The provision talking about collecting appropriate taxes at the time of payment of proceeds assumes there is a tax on proceeds. At present there is not. At present, the only tax provision arguably applicable here are the IRS provisions requiring reporting of tournament wins over $5,000 (and with-holding if no SS or Tax ID number is given). The main point of this provision is to allow for withholding if that becomes part of a different bill or the tax code in the future. Admittedly, I dont like the words "at the time of payment of proceeds" either, but it does not simply mean your INCOME taxes will be collected at that time (how would they even know at that time if you owed income taxes, much less your tax bracket?).

3) Nobody on our side WANTS state opt-outs, but they may be politically necessary. The provision authorizing state opt outs has some qualifications however, and I am not sure just a governor requesting it is sufficient - it would appear the governor also has to justify the opt out as required by state law. If true, that leaves lots of room for litigation. There really is very little that can be done currently, other than Commerce Clause challenges, in states that specifically make it a crime for their residents to play online poker, and at least 2 states already have. I need to study the bill more to see just how difficult it is for states to opt out. One reading possible is that an opt out is only viable where there is a specific law like Washington's.

Cliff notes: 1) stop the fear mongering on taxes - this bill creates no new taxes or withholdings 2) state opt outs are bad for those who live in non friendly states, but it may not be as bad as you think, and may be the only way to move forward.

And so folks can see the other side, there are good things in this bill:

1) Any site can get a license, not just US based sites.
2) The UIGEA specifically would not apply to any licensed site.
3) There are no NEW tax requirements in this bill, either for sites or players.
4) Cheaters, scammers and payout disputes (whether they involve players, sites, or a combination of both) can be prosecuted and/or sued in US courts.


Skallagrim

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank

So wait... the PPA is supporting a bill that may not apply to poker only sites? I need some clarity.

No, what you need is to tone down the alarmism and take a look at the bill rationally.

It is far from a perfect bill, especially as it relates to poker. But you have to remember Barney Frank saying he was "not interested" in proposing a bill solely related to poker. The differences between how poker sites operate and how casino sites operate is not fully recognized in this bill, which is obviously written more towards casino sites than poker sites.

My point, basically, is that the distinction will have to be explored, or down the road this bill may have NO relevance to poker sites at all. And that means there will be plenty of opportunity for amendments that are needed to reflect the unique nature of online poker.

Skallagrim

Id add NH if their tax law passes as is. An example of unintended consequences and killing the game through excessive taxation.

Alarmism? Like TE banding about the specter of UIGEA II?

Sorry, I am alarmed. I think the state opt outs could be a pretty huge problem. Sorry I won't just fall into line and support this bill hoping it gets changed. If another draft comes out I will take a look at that.

i would also think if this bill passes that scamming, hacking and fake cc depositing would be more of a reconised crime and that would be a good thing.