backtop

Print 61 comment(s) - last by Integral9.. on May 14 at 10:23 AM
Senate to take another look at Internet gambling ban

Congress is now considering new legislation aimed at legalizing online gambling for internet users inside the United States.  The ban was originally put into effect into three years ago, and has been met with resistance from gambling companies and a number of American gamblers.  

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass), current Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, hopes his Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection & Enforcement Act of 2009 will finally allow companies that are licensed to offer gambling services to Americans.

"My fundamental reasons for doing this are that the government should not interfere with people's liberty unless there is a good reason," Frank said during a press conference.  "I don't understand why this principle that an individual should be free to make their own choices does not apply to individual adults to gable with their own money."

The Senate hasn't seen a similar bill yet, and since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) said he's in favor of the online gambling ban, it's unlikely Frank's bill will receive much support.

If signed into law, the Department of Treasury would be responsible for regulating and licensing companies to provide gambling web sites.

Online gambling has been a popular political issue as there is a growing concern related to gambling addiction -- and some critics say the ability to gamble online from home would only add fuel to the fire.  Furthermore, there also is concern regarding minors illegally gambling, though each gambling company would be responsible for creating safe guards against minors.  

After the ban was signed into law, many Americans tried to cleverly gamble on websites based in Europe and Asia -- a tactic that worked until credit card companies were ordered to stop approving transaction to foreign online gambling sites, which caused gambling firms billions of euros lost revenue.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
It is written
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/7/2009 1:24:01 PM , Rating: 5
Chapter 23, verse 5 of my book:
'He that gambles his money away is a fool, but he who believes in me will go to spend eternity in space with other afluent, well-to-do people.'




RE: It is written
By MozeeToby on 5/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: It is written
By General Disturbance on 5/7/2009 1:49:45 PM , Rating: 4
You're kidding me, did that just happen?


RE: It is written
By jadeskye on 5/8/2009 12:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
amazingly, it did. the internet continues to be a combination of idiots and porn :p


RE: It is written
By callmeroy on 5/8/2009 3:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I am Christian and I have zero problem speaking out against things I find offensive to my beliefs.....AND.....I found the OP's comment pretty funny actually.....


RE: It is written
By acer905 on 5/7/2009 1:51:18 PM , Rating: 5
... do you know how much of an idiot you just made yourself look like... I'm no biblical scholor... but as far as i know, and the website http://www.biblegateway.com backs me up, that is not from the bible. So ha-ha to you


RE: It is written
By meepstone on 5/7/2009 4:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
Too many chapter 23's in the bible! how will i ever find the quote!


RE: It is written
By acer905 on 5/7/2009 6:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
I tried.... you won't...


RE: It is written
By Bainne on 5/7/2009 1:52:15 PM , Rating: 3
Epic!


RE: It is written
By glitchc on 5/7/2009 3:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
FAIL!

There, finished your thought for you.


RE: It is written
By dragonbif on 5/7/2009 1:52:44 PM , Rating: 3
It has to do with one more way the gov is looking to get more tax money from the people. It does not matter if it is right or wrong or whatever. If it is on the boarder and they can get money from it that is all that matters these days.


RE: It is written
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/7/2009 3:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
Geez, does nobody know what this is from? It sure as hell isn't from the Bible. Pastor Richards would be furious!


RE: It is written
By mikeyD95125 on 5/8/2009 1:21:45 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like straight up scientology to me.


RE: It is written
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/8/2009 9:35:29 AM , Rating: 3
RE: It is written
By Kefner on 5/7/2009 3:44:53 PM , Rating: 2
I usually refrain from name calling, but what a Moron. Did you even read what he wrote, or just glance and assume it was a biblical reference???? At least read and fully understand what you are bitching about!


RE: It is written
By xti on 5/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: It is written
By mindless1 on 5/10/2009 2:52:41 AM , Rating: 2
Quite wrong, religion is the primary reason some suppose others should be prevented from being able to gamble. Otherwise, it's their money, what is it someone else's call what they do with it?

We could say, if they gamble they are broke and cost the rest of us, but again it's religion that causes many to then say we are cost precious money supporting them. (Which BTW, is irony at it's finest, when religious people cite reasons of greed for their supposed ideals).

I am not against religion, rather those that twist every possible topic into a discussion about whether it is religiously oriented or not, that includes both of you.


RE: It is written
By GodisanAtheist on 5/7/2009 2:03:14 PM , Rating: 1
You're clearly drawing from the LRonaldHubbs Bible, which everyone knows is a heretical text. The true word of god resides in the GiaA Bible, since <insert hypocritical, poorly reasoned argument>.

Anyhow, the original text of chapter 23, verse 5 reads as such:
"He that gambles his money away is a fool, he that seeks to bar this man his foolishness is a greater fool, and he that fails to tax the crap out of internet gambling is the greatest fool yet"


RE: It is written
By LRonaldHubbs on 5/7/2009 3:08:24 PM , Rating: 4
Just look at Prohibition, or the Cultural Revolution in China. We can learn a lot from history. Chairman Mao, or Stalin, they purged their lands of degenerates and intellectuals, the scum of the earth in my book. And look at the great societies they built. People want to be told how to act. And most people are idiots, and that's exactly who my teachings appeal to.


RE: It is written
By nixoofta on 5/7/2009 3:20:58 PM , Rating: 4
Tom!?

Tom Cruise!?!

Is that you?


RE: It is written
By GodisanAtheist on 5/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: It is written
By GodisanAtheist on 5/8/09, Rating: -1
RE: It is written
By eetnoyer on 5/8/2009 9:03:27 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, it's shocking how many people can't read context. For the love of GOD people, read the damn username . It was intended as humor.


Two things
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2009 1:43:07 PM , Rating: 3
1) I love that idiot Barney Frank's comment.

quote:
"My fundamental reasons for doing this are that the government should not interfere with people's liberty unless there is a good reason,"


Really you bumbling fool? Well at least you're admitting you support taking away people's liberty when it suits you. The only reason this moron wants it repealed is because it would mean more tax revenue.

2) I do agree that it should be repealed. If people want to waste away their paychecks on gambling, that's their business. But they don't deserve a handout when their money is gone. Of course that won't stop the government from giving them one.




RE: Two things
By mmp121 on 5/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: Two things
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2009 4:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds familiar. Like some big thing having to do with home mortgages...


RE: Two things
By Nfarce on 5/7/2009 5:28:52 PM , Rating: 1
You forgot one:

Everyone will blame the failed Bush years.


RE: Two things
By Smilin on 5/8/2009 2:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
They may or may not blame him for this.

At least you are coming to grips with the fact that it the Bush years were failed though.


RE: Two things
By dBoze on 5/7/2009 2:24:29 PM , Rating: 4
How can you make the argument online gambling should be illegal in the United States?

Legal or not, people are going to gamble. Millions of Americans spend millions of dollars every day on on-line gambling sites run by other countries. The tax revenue from legal on-line gambling in the United States could easily afford to bail-out the company that makes your Camaro.

Honestly, what is your moral justification against legalized on-line gambling?

Here's the real reason it isn't legal:

quote:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) said he's in favor of the online gambling ban


Hmm, he probably isn't pressured by the casino industry though, right? Politics just don't work like that.


RE: Two things
By tmouse on 5/7/2009 3:06:52 PM , Rating: 3
Actually they would be the first to reap the benefit. Since they already are vested with a license it will probably easy for them to get an online license. Do you think just anyone will be able to open a site if it's made legal? There has to be at least the same amount of oversight and I do not see how that is even possible. Now; gaming officials can walk into a casino at ANY time and secure dice, cards, slots ect for verification. Since even the slightest change can radically effects the odds cheating is extremely easy. I for one do not see how a person could be so stupid to trust that the values you "see" on your screen are random and totally fair, or that any of the "players" are real people at all. If some runs a poker tournament and can see everyone's cards how will you know? How can the treasury department ever police such an industry? Well the economy shows there are a lot of stupid people so a fool and his money deserve to be parted. The problem will arise when we find these activities are being used to launder money and fund things not in our interests, then we will ALL pay for the millions that will be spent to investigate and prosecute to no avail since it will be uncontrollable at that point.


RE: Two things
By dBoze on 5/7/2009 5:47:23 PM , Rating: 4
I was very skeptical about online gambling initially as well. I do not partake in it personally, but I know and have known many who do/did.

It is simply in the best interest of poker sites to do everything possible to ensure there is no sort of cheating or hacking of any kind. This may sound naive at first, but you have to realize the true scale of it.

Online casinos make money in many the same ways brick and mortar casinos do--- including rake. Sure, a little money off of every hand or tournament fee might not seem like much. But it adds up. These companies are loaded. Many of them GIVE AWAY in excess of $20 million a week to their users through Sunday tournaments fueled by "frequent player points" of some sort (of course, much of this is coming from rake). They endorse professional poker players in the US with multi-million dollar contracts. They host huge events both in the US and other countries.

These companies are making enormous profits off of legitimate gambling. Why would they want to skew the randomness and security of their system, potentially shying away their valuable customers. They make boatloads of money simply off of users playing every day.

In cases where exploits or even bots are used, the poker sites have come down on culprits very hard in the past and refunded all money lost through illicit means. Of course, you can probably go off and find some little scam poker company if you tried... but stick to the big boys.

Also, FITCamaro: sorry! I misread :)


RE: Two things
By tmouse on 5/8/2009 8:22:24 AM , Rating: 4
I do understand the pari-mutuel system, the problem is while the major players (just like the casinos),in all probability, would adhere to the rules and just follow this as a business model, this is really based upon the scarcity of competition. As competition increases the profits drop (this is the only way casinos can lose in the normal course of business, and is the reason they oppose internet gaming). This will almost certainly lead to cheating, which will be almost impossible to detect (unless it is done stupidly which I'm sure some will). A tiny change can reap enormous profits. There is no way to prevent this unless the government installs the equivalent of a gaming commission in every state and requires the location of every site and its servers be known and not allow server switching. With this you can see verification would almost require the site to be off line and not allowing off site server switching hardly makes for a robust site. Add to this the fact that this move will require the US to allow overseas gaming where there can be no oversight. Maybe if we pass regulations that forbid any government sponsored recovery of any gambling loses and do not allow these debts to be cleared in bankruptcy, giving the players the full risk, so the rest of us would NEVER have to pay a penny of tax dollars, I would be onboard (whether the loses were thru cheating or not, forcing the player to pay for civil recovery and not use the CC companies which just pass the costs to the rest of us). I'm not saying everyone who runs these sites would cheat but as competition increases there would be significant cheating. Add to this cyber attacks using backdoors that could cause cheating the owners would not be aware of and the use of these sites for transferring money for illicit purposes and you have a bad situation. I can agree with your point about the large companies being responsible outlets but we all know that when this happens this will become the next big internet growth industry and then all hell will break out and we will end up paying for it with no real end in sight. While I'm not for legalizing morality or a nanny state I do not want to increase the chances I will end up paying (directly or indirectly) for others stupidity. Gaming should always be looked at for fun and as a minor distraction, doing it in the dark of your own room is just an invitation to addiction, at least on a vacation you have a chance to see the hole your digging yourself into, at home it's like boiling a frog by slowly raising the water temperature. If you see gaming as a profession (in this sense as a way of making money)then you have to endure the travel costs like every other professional. Having played my share of poker I personally do not see the attraction, a good part of the game is reading your opponent, I guess if these sites use live webcam feeds this could be possible, but minimizing the human contact/social element just degrades the experience, in my opinion .


RE: Two things
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2009 4:42:50 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you lack the ability to read.

I said I am FOR the repealing of the ban on online gambing.


RE: Two things
By sgw2n5 on 5/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: Two things
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2009 5:07:04 PM , Rating: 2
Uh yeah and an actual republican (aka conservative) wouldn't be for banning gambling.


RE: Two things
By sgw2n5 on 5/7/2009 5:22:07 PM , Rating: 1
Of course they would be for banning it, Jesus does not approve of gambling.


RE: Two things
By Nfarce on 5/7/2009 5:35:53 PM , Rating: 1
I know it's hard to believe, but not all Conservative Republicans come from the South and are wingnut bible thumpers preaching to others how to live.

Come to think of it, I believe a lot of the people currently in charge of Washington are doing just that now - except they are wanting to do it with real policy .


RE: Two things
By FITCamaro on 5/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: Two things
By sgw2n5 on 5/7/2009 5:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
I was being facetious, get over yourself ya douchebag.


RE: Two things
By sprockkets on 5/7/2009 6:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
Most people gamble for one reason: Greed. And greed or the love of money is clearly condemned in the bible. You do not have to be religious to see what the love of money does to people.

Think of that stupid woman a few months back that literally gave all her money to those Nigerian scammers, in hope of receiving big easy money in return. Everyone on this site saw her greed and condemned her behavior.

You could say you gamble for fun, but if that is the case, you would have fun if money was not involved at all.

And, btw, there was not gambling in the temple. The sellers there were extorting the people, and they clearly should not have been conducting any form of business in the temple.


RE: Two things
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2009 8:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
At least a good argument. However I think many people gamble for the thrill of the possible big payout. It's exciting. Not because they're greedy or love money.

Otherwise one could argue anyone who makes more than they need is greedy and loves money.


RE: Two things
By Smilin on 5/7/2009 5:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
So what if he's pressured?

The guy is from the state of Nevada where gambling is an important industry. If he doesn't pay attention to it then he isn't doing a very good job representing his voters.

You would suck as a senator.


RE: Two things
By captainpierce on 5/7/2009 2:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
That is rich coming from a statist like Barney Frank. I agree with his point but he has no absolutely credibility.


RE: Two things
By Nfarce on 5/7/2009 5:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo. Remember his great wise words when the previous two administrations tried to revise and/or increase regulations on Fannie & Freddie? Here, check it out from the WSJ:

2000: "In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."

2003: "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Bumbling idiot indeed.


RE: Two things
By InfantryRocks on 5/8/2009 7:54:36 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if anyone would be an expert on "overblown," it would be Bawney Fwank.


RE: Two things
By foolsgambit11 on 5/9/2009 3:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
The 2003 quotes was made as part of a political battle to keep political control of Fannie and Freddie in the Congress, rather than the Executive. Bush was trying to get the Treasury Department to get oversight. Given the Treasury Department's 'stellar' record at oversight of the financial sector, and my general distrust of a strong, unitary executive, I think Frank was on the right side of the argument. His statement was part of the political games that go on in these conflicts. And it wasn't technically inaccurate at the moment he said it. The worst excesses of the bubble were yet to come.

Barney Frank is one of the smartest, cleverest, and most principled people in Congress. And he falls squarely on the side of free-market capitalism. On economic issues, he works very well with Republicans, being ideologically indistinguishable. Pragmatically, they split occasionally because many Republicans sacrifice their free-market principles to (usually "classic" Christian) moral considerations, and because Frank will sacrifice his free-market principles to different moral considerations.

Recognize that you're going to get a liberal from Massachusetts - heck, probably an openly gay liberal at that, no matter what. Then recognize that you're not going to get a better friend of Libertarianism than Frank in that seat. Of all the Democrats who could be chairing the HFSC, there are none more qualified, in natural aptitude or experience, than Barney Frank.


Internet Gambling is Illegal?
By GaryJohnson on 5/7/2009 2:15:03 PM , Rating: 4
You can still invest online, how is that different from gambling? Money + Risk = More or Less Money. Wether you're risking it on a poker hand or a real estate venture, a slot machine or a startup tech company, it's all the same.




RE: Internet Gambling is Illegal?
By Integral9 on 5/7/2009 3:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
One word. Taxes.


RE: Internet Gambling is Illegal?
By FITCamaro on 5/7/2009 5:06:03 PM , Rating: 3
If you make a lot of money gambling, you still have to pay taxes on it.


RE: Internet Gambling is Illegal?
By Integral9 on 5/14/2009 10:23:29 AM , Rating: 2
That's my point. You pay tax on your winnings, the casino pays tax on their winnings (your losses), so regardless of who wins the hands, the government has a new tax base and revenue source.


By odessit740 on 5/8/2009 1:05:16 PM , Rating: 2
Don't ever compare Poker to slot machines. Slot machines have a negative EV, long term poker results are based on skill or lack there of.

"Bbbbbbuuuuuttttt they were suited." Sure they were buddy, sure they were.


Grammar
By MagicSquid on 5/7/2009 2:35:50 PM , Rating: 1
First paragraph.

quote:
The ban was originally put into effect into three years ago, and has been met with resistance from gambling companies and a number of American gamblers.


Third paragraph, last sentence.

quote:
free to make their own choices does not apply to individual adults to gable with their own money."




RE: Grammar
By Smilin on 5/7/2009 5:50:09 PM , Rating: 5
Guys in case you didn't notice dailytech editing isn't the best in the world and yes it's annoying.

What's more annoying is the fvc*ing grammar police thinking that we care enough to need their services.


So Legalize Pot!!
By Hlafordlaes on 5/8/2009 9:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
"My fundamental reasons for doing this are that the government should not interfere with people's liberty unless there is a good reason..."

So, why is marijuana illegal?




RE: So Legalize Pot!!
By odessit740 on 5/8/2009 1:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
You can't tax something which you can grow in your house.


RE: So Legalize Pot!!
By foolsgambit11 on 5/9/2009 3:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
Barney Frank is for legalizing pot, too. He's been for it since at least the 70's, when he introduced a bill in Massechusetts to legalize it. He's been working on a national bill to legalize pot for the past year or so, but it is (as expected) getting nowhere.

The bill's co-sponsor? Ron Paul, of course.


net neutrality..
By DrRap on 5/7/2009 2:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
After the ban was signed into law, many Americans tried to cleverly gamble on websites based in Europe and Asia


nothing can stop internet revolution




RE: net neutrality..
By mindless1 on 5/10/2009 2:59:12 AM , Rating: 2
False.

Internet revolution was only an extension of what the masses wanted. The revolution will be constrained to support what those masses want, no more, no less.


Really?
By mydogfarted on 5/7/2009 3:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
After the ban was signed into law, many Americans tried to cleverly gamble on websites based in Europe and Asia -- a tactic that worked until credit card companies were ordered to stop approving transaction to foreign online gambling sites, which caused gambling firms billions of euros lost revenue.


Raise your hand if you play poker online for money...
*raises hand*

I still put money in my online accounts using my U.S. based credit cards and banking accounts. They just use 3rd party clearing houses to get the money now, including Western Union.




RE: Really?
By odessit740 on 5/8/2009 1:02:19 PM , Rating: 1
Yes sir. People need to stop bitching and just legalize our Poker.


Cheap way to make money.
By William Gaatjes on 5/10/2009 3:54:49 AM , Rating: 2
Do some research in history. You will find that in times that the economy is not at it's best, gambling abuse rises. This is just a very cheap, morally wrong and unethical way to make easy money. People need money to pay for their bills. Now gambling is an easy way to make money. If you win that is... More debts. Less education. More simpleminded actions. More crime...




"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki