Chicago Fanatics Message Board :: View topic

Woodridge Ryan wrote:

As most of you know through my posts I probably tend to agree with more left wing ideas than right, but I consider myself an independent. Anyway, I notice Mac blamed this off-shore betting problem on the right-wing party. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this been a pretty strong bi-partisan effort? Did Mac jump the gun just because of his fristration with a right-wing influenced FCC?

United States isn't getting any cut of the action

Quote:

United States isn't getting any cut of the action

Why the government doesn't legalize internet gambling in the United States and tax it, I will never understand. Like the failure of the prohibition, gambling will occur inevitably, they might as well tax it and take the criminal aspects out of it.

Many of you will dispute that.....oh well!

Because gamblers ruin their lives and their family's lives, then I gotta support them. If I don't have to pay taxes to them, or get sued by them for having gambling legal, then I say let them ruin their lives.
The fact is, is that the social cost is too high. Many of you will dispute that.....oh well!

Many of you will dispute that.....oh well!

If you allow legal gambling, and you can offset gambling winnings with legal losses, as is the case now, there won't be as much tax revenue as you think.
It is said, and no I don't have any empirical study to quote, that for every dollar wagered, there is a 2 dollar social cost. Divorce, crime, etc..I think gambling is a net loss to the taxpayer.

The revenue comes from taxing the juice, not taxation of the gamblers.

scorehead 84, I don't disagree with your concern, but are you going to try and justify alcohol but not gambling?

Big government eventually gets around to fucking to everyone.

I guess F. Constanza does have a chance of losing his virginity after all!

Author:	Woodridge Ryan [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Mac on Betting....
As most of you know through my posts I probably tend to agree with more left wing ideas than right, but I consider myself an independent. Anyway, I notice Mac blamed this off-shore betting problem on the right-wing party. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this been a pretty strong bi-partisan effort? Did Mac jump the gun just because of his fristration with a right-wing influenced FCC?

Author:	The Gridiron Assassin [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:
Ryan, I elect not to use the off-shore gambling sites, but I'm sure the PRIMARY problem is that the United States isn't getting any cut of the action. Instead citizens are sending money out of the country, that they could be losing in Vegas, on the boat, or instead of gamgling, they could spend the money at some retail store. Like you said, it has nothing to do with left-wing, right-wing, etc. It's a matter of sound principle.

Author:	MUScholar21 [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:
Coast has disappeared lately, but this thread will get him back. Since it didn't affect me directly, I didn't spend much time with this legislation, so I couldn't tell you.

Author:	Woodridge Ryan [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:
Yea, that's the way I understood it grid.

Author:	Slap Shot ED [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Mac on Betting....
Quote: Woodridge Ryan wrote: As most of you know through my posts I probably tend to agree with more left wing ideas than right, but I consider myself an independent. Anyway, I notice Mac blamed this off-shore betting problem on the right-wing party. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't this been a pretty strong bi-partisan effort? Did Mac jump the gun just because of his fristration with a right-wing influenced FCC? Bernie Nichols was neither a right wing nor a left winger .He played center Ryan .

Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

Mac on Betting.... https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=9885	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Frank Coztansa [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:26 pm ]
Post subject:
Ryan, if there's one thing to learn about the US Gov't, its this; everything in politics is partisan.

Author:	BD [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:12 pm ]
Post subject:
It was introduced by Bill Frist (I believe), and attached to the Port Security Bill, but it's clearly an issue that no politician (or very few) aren't going to back as it's an easy win. A lot of the books (Pinnacle, Bet365 to name two) shut their doors to US Consumers, and the intermediate sites (like FirePay and Netteller) no longer allow US customers to move $$$$ back and forth to gambling site, and are no longer an option as well. Currently, I am still gambling online, and the books are finding different ways to keep their US base.

Author:	Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:57 pm ]
Post subject:
NOOOOO!!! Scholar you have to change that avatar!!! Immediately!!!

Author:	MUScholar21 [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:07 pm ]
Post subject:
What's the big deal?

Author:	Fargin Bastage [ Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:23 pm ]
Post subject:
Snaping leg avatar changed and this post has subsequently been edited. We now resume with our regularly scheduled programming.

Author:	OakBrookJoe [ Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:40 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: United States isn't getting any cut of the action Why the government doesn't legalize internet gambling in the United States and tax it, I will never understand. Like the failure of the prohibition, gambling will occur inevitably, they might as well tax it and take the criminal aspects out of it.

Author:	Chus [ Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:47 am ]
Post subject:
The bill was introduced by Republicans, but both parties signed off on it. The best part about it, was one of the guys at the forefront. None other than Tom Osborne, who is a representative from Nebraska ( where the N stands for knowledge ). Tom Osborne is gonna protect people now. Where was he to protect Lawrence Philips's girlfriend ?

Author:	scorehead # 84 [ Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:16 am ]
Post subject:
OakBrookJoe wrote: Quote: United States isn't getting any cut of the action Why the government doesn't legalize internet gambling in the United States and tax it, I will never understand. Like the failure of the prohibition, gambling will occur inevitably, they might as well tax it and take the criminal aspects out of it. Because gamblers ruin their lives and their family's lives, then I gotta support them. If I don't have to pay taxes to them, or get sued by them for having gambling legal, then I say let them ruin their lives. The fact is, is that the social cost is too high. Many of you will dispute that.....oh well!

Author:	OakBrookJoe [ Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:23 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Many of you will dispute that.....oh well! I do. Many people ruin their lives through alcohol as well. I am like you and do not enjoy paying for sorry saps, but would you rather the gambler bet to a bookie or a government regulated gambling agency that could limit how much an individual could gamble? Would you like to see your taxes reduced because the government is taxing billions from the gamblers? I don't like the government telling me what I can and can't do, but I do understand your position.

Author:	Frank Coztansa [ Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:02 pm ]
Post subject:
Linda S. wrote: I guess F. Constanza does have a chance of losing his virginity after all! actually linda, i didnt wake up alone today (i know, you're all happy for me..). and she didnt even work for the government! Caller Bob.

Author:	Coast2Coast [ Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:
back in the usa, where gambling is increasingly more difficult. Yes it was the right wing morality police who wrote the bill, but the lefties (led by Pelosi when she was Minority leader in October) signed on too and only a few Ds opposed it. The best part was the justification that offshore gambling is a laundry for Al Quaida money. Let's see...AQ was the instigator behind Iraq (wrong) and the source of dirty money in internet gambling (wrong). What else can the Bushies and Pelosis pin on Osama? And yes, I suppose gambling does have a social cost, but so do alcohol and organized religion...and we don't outlaw those vices...

Author:	good dolphin [ Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:13 pm ]
Post subject:
a little law that has become the catchall to justify federal intrusion into every aspect of our lives known as the interstate commerce act

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Woodridge Ryan [ Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:24 am ]
Post subject:
scorehead 84, I don't disagree with your concern, but are you going to try and justify alcohol but not gambling?

Author:	Mustang Rob [ Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Because gamblers ruin their lives and their family's lives, then I gotta support them. If I don't have to pay taxes to them, or get sued by them for having gambling legal, then I say let them ruin their lives. The fact is, is that the social cost is too high. Many of you will dispute that.....oh well! Two words for you: Stock Market I fucking hate all those degenerate investors who drain the economy by blowing their life savings on Enron & Tyco. Now I have to support them.

Author:	scorehead # 84 [ Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:
[/quote="OakBrookJoe"] Quote: Many of you will dispute that.....oh well! I do. Many people ruin their lives through alcohol as well. I am like you and do not enjoy paying for sorry saps, but would you rather the gambler bet to a bookie or a government regulated gambling agency that could limit how much an individual could gamble? Would you like to see your taxes reduced because the government is taxing billions from the gamblers? I don't like the government telling me what I can and can't do, but I do understand your position.[/quote] If you allow legal gambling, and you can offset gambling winnings with legal losses, as is the case now, there won't be as much tax revenue as you think. It is said, and no I don't have any empirical study to quote, that for every dollar wagered, there is a 2 dollar social cost. Divorce, crime, etc..I think gambling is a net loss to the taxpayer.

Author:	Mustang Rob [ Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:00 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: If you allow legal gambling, and you can offset gambling winnings with legal losses, as is the case now, there won't be as much tax revenue as you think. It is said, and no I don't have any empirical study to quote, that for every dollar wagered, there is a 2 dollar social cost. Divorce, crime, etc..I think gambling is a net loss to the taxpayer. The revenue comes from taxing the juice, not taxation of the gamblers. Gambling is already legal. Look at all the riverboat casinos and the state operated lottery itself. What we are discussing is wagering on sporting events, which BTW is also legal in this country but only in Vegas. It's fucked up logic. I wouldn't be surprised if all these off shore bills don't have a Las Vegas lobby behind them.

Author:	OakBrookJoe [ Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:21 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: The revenue comes from taxing the juice, not taxation of the gamblers. Correct, I mispoke that is what I meant.

Author:	scorehead # 84 [ Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Woodridge Ryan wrote: scorehead 84, I don't disagree with your concern, but are you going to try and justify alcohol but not gambling? I'm not sure how to answer this WR. I understand your comparison, but for me, it's like saying jaywalking laws are not enforced so burglary laws shouldn't be either. They're both crimes but different. It's not a good answer but I don't look at things that way. I just look at the singular issue. P.s. not my best post, but it's the best I can do just before a poker game

Author:	Mr. Reason [ Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:44 pm ]
Post subject:
Big government eventually gets around to fucking to everyone.

Author:	Linda S. [ Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:
Mr. Reason wrote: Big government eventually gets around to fucking to everyone. I guess F. Constanza does have a chance of losing his virginity after all!

Author:	doug - evergreen park [ Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:48 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: Why the government doesn't legalize internet gambling in the United States and tax it, I will never understand. Like the failure of the prohibition, gambling will occur inevitably, they might as well tax it and take the criminal aspects out of it. agreed.....and start using hemp products as well. eliminate the use of trees for paper, etc.. with legalized gambling, you could pretty much solve homelessness, hunger...

Author:	Mopery [ Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:10 pm ]
Post subject:
QUESTION: we all know that sports betting is legal in vegas. under the current law, what is stopping ceasars, the mirage, and bellagio from opening up an online sports book, based in vegas? are there any loopholes that would allow them to do this? probably not, because the people in vegas are too smart not to identify it by now.