Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Legislation for Poker & Income Taxes for Poker Players Discussions of various poker-related laws and steps players can take to push for better laws.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-28-2010, 05:08 PM   #601
Sub-Zer0118
old hand
 
Sub-Zer0118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,223
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggger5x View Post
The top half is democrats, the bottom is republican.
Ashamed to be an elephant right now
Sub-Zer0118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:08 PM   #602
sluggger5x
John Connor of poker
 
sluggger5x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fight for Poker Rights Action Thred
Posts: 5,592
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

I do have a general question now. We want to keep the ball rolling on this. Who are lawmakers that have a hand in getting the full house hearing asap?? Is there certain members who have this clout that we should be contacting???
sluggger5x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:08 PM   #603
Kevmath
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: @Kevmath
Posts: 28,213
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Scott won his primary election last week with over 75% of the Democratic primary vote.

At least he has an opponent, unlike many House races:

http://www.mycountypaper.com/henryne.../98899859.html
Kevmath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:09 PM   #604
rocketragz
old hand
 
rocketragz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Land of the restricted.
Posts: 1,297
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

In regards to progress, congrats to PPA and every single one of us who have taken part in the fight.
rocketragz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:09 PM   #605
nuts busted
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 349
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMickHead View Post
Anti-competition is inherently bad in this situation IMO. The US tends to pay employees quite well vs other countries. Having a 100% US based operation could easily raise rake.

It also seems to be against international trade agreements as far as I understand them (I'm a complete layman on that topic). Can you imagine us saying that all US sold cars must be designed, marketed and constructed by 100% US employees? At the same time trying to sell US cars in other countries. It would be a joke. It sounds good from a very narrow view of jobs, but overall I think it's a protectionist amendment that should not have been added into the bill.

Your example of customer service is one I would disagree with. It's not skilled labor and we should allow the sites to choose the level of customer service employees they want to use. Besides if we get the bottom of the barrel US employees I think they're actually worse than some competent international labor. I don't need a high school drop out to read from a list of issues. I can get that kind of customer service from an online FAQ.

That's why I think it's a bad amendment at least. It's an opinion and your opinion is valid too.
Hard to argue with that logic.
nuts busted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:09 PM   #606
DrewOnTilt
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DrewOnTilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 106 miles to Chicago
Posts: 7,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by YoureToast View Post
Holy ****!
My rep, David Scott (D-GA), voted against it. How do I find out when he's up for reelection?
Try wikipedia or house.gov
DrewOnTilt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:14 PM   #607
Mordan
grinder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 625
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

where can you find out how your rep voted?

nvrmnd figured it out.....Walter Jones voted nay.....he has no reasoning either as I have emailed him about it....pathetic, really pathetic
Mordan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:14 PM   #608
danxxx1
journeyman
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: 2006 WSOP Final Table
Posts: 395
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevmath View Post
He voted Yea to HR 2267

I assume the 22 who voted in the minority on the Baca and Bachus amendments, along with HR 2267 were the same.

Hey Kev,

Do you what the time line is on getting this to the house? does automatically come up for vote or do they need to set a date and yada yada yada
danxxx1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:14 PM   #609
GloupnaktouK
adept
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 749
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMickHead View Post
Anti-competition is inherently bad in this situation IMO. The US tends to pay employees quite well vs other countries. Having a 100% US based operation could easily raise rake.

It also seems to be against international trade agreements as far as I understand them (I'm a complete layman on that topic). Can you imagine us saying that all US sold cars must be designed, marketed and constructed by 100% US employees? At the same time trying to sell US cars in other countries. It would be a joke. It sounds good from a very narrow view of jobs, but overall I think it's a protectionist amendment that should not have been added into the bill.

Your example of customer service is one I would disagree with. It's not skilled labor and we should allow the sites to choose the level of customer service employees they want to use. Besides if we get the bottom of the barrel US employees I think they're actually worse than some competent international labor. I don't need a high school drop out to read from a list of issues. I can get that kind of customer service from an online FAQ.

That's why I think it's a bad amendment at least. It's an opinion and your opinion is valid too.
Exactly.
GloupnaktouK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:16 PM   #610
Rusemandingo
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Rusemandingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Playas de Rosarito
Posts: 14,055
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

So didnt the ammendment saying that sites had to have the majority of their employees in the US pass? Doesnt that basically exclude foreign sites and/or make them become US sites?

Also, lets say Stars and FT are kept out. Wouldnt they be able to keep on going like they are now, or would the DOJ and treasury passing their names around to banks make it so ehcecks and prepaid cards wouldnt work for deposits and cahsouts would become next to impossible?
Rusemandingo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:21 PM   #611
ktulu22
veteran
 
ktulu22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Respect My Steez
Posts: 2,561
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
The casinogambling article is the misleading one. It fails to understand or address the details of the bill. Foreign sites are not excluded. Nor is any particular site excluded.

The amendment made it so that any operator that has violated Federal law (under certain circumstances which we will know for certain tomorrow) is barred from getting a license.

PokerStars and FTP have always maintained that they are not in violation of any Federal Law (and I agree FWIW). The amendment gives them, at the very least, the right to argue that claim and get a license if they win.

Skallagrim
The amendment also says they are unable to get a license if they violated any state law. Some states have laws specifically banning online poker and PS & FTP still accepted those customers. Don't see how FTP & PS is going to get around this with such a defined amendment - you can bet anything that there is going to be a lot of opposition to them getting a license.
ktulu22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:23 PM   #612
Lottery Larry
Home Poker Pimp
 
Lottery Larry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: HP in da HOOWWSSS! (NW of Philly)
Posts: 19,603
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by dougmanct View Post
This is a fantastic, amazing, great victory. No doubt.

However..IMHO...

The LAST thing we can afford to do at this point is kick back and celebrate.

I believe this is the time..right NOW, for the PPA and EVERY member of this forum who has ever and/or would ever participate in the process of calling/writing/emailing your representatives to do so IMMEDIATELY,
Gerlach (PA) voted Aye, so that was good.... and, SubZero, he's a pachyderm, if that helps :P

I just got off the phone with his office, after the interesting PPA phone push connected me.

Funny thing was, I actually interrupted the PPA rep, checking to make sure it wasn't a recording (like the Fossilman one from last week).
Lottery Larry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:24 PM   #613
renodoc
Casino Olympics Champion
 
renodoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: The old guy always has it.
Posts: 8,357
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

No Nevadans on that committee.
renodoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:24 PM   #614
DrewOnTilt
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DrewOnTilt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 106 miles to Chicago
Posts: 7,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktulu22 View Post
The amendment also says they are unable to get a license if they violated any state law. Some states have laws specifically banning online poker and PS & FTP still accepted those customers. Don't see how FTP & PS is going to get around this with such a defined amendment - you can bet anything that there is going to be a lot of opposition to them getting a license.
And they are going to fight that opposition. This mudfight is far from over.
DrewOnTilt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:26 PM   #615
ktulu22
veteran
 
ktulu22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Respect My Steez
Posts: 2,561
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sub-Zer0118 View Post
Ashamed to be an elephant right now
Funny how people say it's not a rep/dem issue when time and time again most of out supporters are dems and most of our opponents are reps. I'm neither, by the way. Just telling it like it is.

Dems: 34 ayes, 4 nays
Reps: 7 ayes, 18 nays
ktulu22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:27 PM   #616
Rich Muny
Former PPA President
 
Rich Muny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 27,752
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
If PPA supports a bill with opt-in clause, I don't support PPA.
You're in luck. There is no opt-in clause.

Quote:
We DO NOT want an okay bill. Status quo is substantially better than an okay bill, as well as being on the improving trend. If the bill isn't obviously a fist pump, and PPA doesn't abandon it, we have serious problems
In my first year as a full-time online pro, I'm doing well under the status quo. I wish it could last. Unfortunately, it can't.

Did you see a lot of support for the status quo at today's hearing? I sure didn't.
Rich Muny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:28 PM   #617
Skallagrim
PPA Board Member/LSN Dir
 
Skallagrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: It's a PPA post only if so stated
Posts: 6,713
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by ktulu22 View Post
The amendment also says they are unable to get a license if they violated any state law. Some states have laws specifically banning online poker and PS & FTP still accepted those customers. Don't see how FTP & PS is going to get around this with such a defined amendment - you can bet anything that there is going to be a lot of opposition to them getting a license.
Just let the lawyers have fun with this OK?

An ironic fact is that Bachman's and Bachus' total inability to understand how poker actually works has done us a favor here. From my first read of the amendment the exclusion only applies to sites that have "accepted a bet or wager" in violation of state or federal law....

Whens the last time you made a bet with or played against Stars or FTP ? Now certainly those sites have accepted your deposits, but when you play poker the folks "accepting your bets and wagers" are the other players, not the sites.

Skallagrim
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:29 PM   #618
NoahSD
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,865
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by ktulu22 View Post
Funny how people say it's not a rep/dem issue when time and time again most of out supporters are dems and most of our opponents are reps. I'm neither, by the way. Just telling it like it is.

Dems: 34 ayes, 4 nays
Reps: 7 ayes, 18 nays
This is at least partially because the republicans are in "no to everything" mode. It's also true that the republican ranking member Bacchus has taken this up as a bit of a pet project. This has pissed off a lot of republicans, but it's also of course lead a lot of them to vote no.

7 out of 25 republicans really ain't bad at all in the current climate.
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:31 PM   #619
NoahSD
Is Right
 
NoahSD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18,865
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by sluggger5x View Post
I do have a general question now. We want to keep the ball rolling on this. Who are lawmakers that have a hand in getting the full house hearing asap?? Is there certain members who have this clout that we should be contacting???
+1,000,000

What's the next step for people waiting on the sidelines?
NoahSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:33 PM   #620
GloupnaktouK
adept
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 749
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
Just let the lawyers have fun with this OK?

An ironic fact is that Bachman's and Bachus' total inability to understand how poker actually works has done us a favor here. From my first read of the amendment the exclusion only applies to sites that have "accepted a bet or wager" in violation of state or federal law....

Whens the last time you made a bet with or played against Stars or FTP ? Now certainly those sites have accepted your deposits, but when you play poker the folks "accepting your bets and wagers" are the other players, not the sites.

Skallagrim
Brilliant!
GloupnaktouK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:33 PM   #621
RiverAnAce
old hand
 
RiverAnAce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Poker rights daily action thread
Posts: 1,227
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

I am Glad that it passed. Thanks PPA and all the rest of you here on 2+2 that made it possible.

And to Spencer Bachus
RiverAnAce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:37 PM   #622
LeapFrog
Pooh-Bah
 
LeapFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Rosetta Stoned
Posts: 5,538
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by ktulu22 View Post
The amendment also says they are unable to get a license if they violated any state law. Some states have laws specifically banning online poker and PS & FTP still accepted those customers. Don't see how FTP & PS is going to get around this with such a defined amendment - you can bet anything that there is going to be a lot of opposition to them getting a license.
I find it strange that Skallagrim mentioned Federal law but not state when discussing the amendment.
LeapFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:37 PM   #623
ktulu22
veteran
 
ktulu22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Respect My Steez
Posts: 2,561
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahSD View Post

7 out of 25 republicans really ain't bad at all in the current climate.
Not arguing that at all. Surprising, actually
ktulu22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:38 PM   #624
Skallagrim
PPA Board Member/LSN Dir
 
Skallagrim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: It's a PPA post only if so stated
Posts: 6,713
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahSD View Post
+1,000,000

What's the next step for people waiting on the sidelines?
I think the folks directly involved maybe deserve a day or two for celebration, don't you? Anyone who sees John Pappas, Drew Losefski, Randy Lau or Bryan Spadaro in DC over the next few days be sure and buy them a drink. You can send the tab to me if you like.

The next step will be to move HR 2268 through the House Ways and Means Committee. If your Representative sits on that Committee, you can wait the few days for the PPA to provide you form letters and links or you can start making contact now on your own.

Work in the Senate is ongoing and all off-the-record. If you haven't written your Senators in a while, now is a good time to do that too.

Skallagrim

Last edited by Skallagrim; 07-28-2010 at 05:44 PM.
Skallagrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2010, 05:41 PM   #625
ktulu22
veteran
 
ktulu22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Respect My Steez
Posts: 2,561
Re: HR 2267 Markup, Wed. 7/28 10:00am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim View Post
Just let the lawyers have fun with this OK?

An ironic fact is that Bachman's and Bachus' total inability to understand how poker actually works has done us a favor here. From my first read of the amendment the exclusion only applies to sites that have "accepted a bet or wager" in violation of state or federal law....

Whens the last time you made a bet with or played against Stars or FTP ? Now certainly those sites have accepted your deposits, but when you play poker the folks "accepting your bets and wagers" are the other players, not the sites.

Skallagrim
Spoken like a lawyer

Another part of the amendment says sites will be excluded if they "paid out winnings to an individual in the US" after the UIGEA was passed, which PS and FTP did. PS and FTP will probably only get licensed after paying a billion dollars in fees and penalties.
ktulu22 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive