Conservatives screwing things up again...

[rgraham666]

No, it's preventing people from risking that money in gambling other than the state-sponsored outlets.

They can't tax anymore, so that money has to come from somewhere.

"Lotteries are a tax on the mathematically incompetent." - Emo Phillips.

 

[angela146]

So... (just so I have this straight)

We're saying that essential responsibility of government and Law is to prevent hurting to the tune of murder and robbery (obvious gross violations of security and safety, as well, I'm not being picky about it really)?

Murder and robbery create victims of *non willing participants*. Laws against murder and robbery protect people *from each other*.

These laws are intended to protect people *from themselves*.

 

[angela146]

I'm sure the legal casinos called in some of their favors to get this passed also. All casinos have ATM machines and you can get a cash advance there on your credit card.

Um, no, the casinos (or more accurately, their parent companies) actually want internet gambling legalized so that they can get in on the business.

Actually, a lot of casinos are indirectly making tons of money on the online poker sites. Harrahs, for example, runs the World Series of Poker. Most of the online poker sites have satelites to the WSOP. Each ticket to the WSOP costs $10k with a $1k take for the house (the house in this case is Harrahs).

They are projecting about 8,000 players in the WSOP main event this year and I would bet that most of the seats were won at online poker sites.

8,000 players means $8 million in "rake" for Harrahs.

Add to that all of the World Poker Tour events and you have a lot of money flowing from onlike poker into the brick and mortar casinos.

Besides that, all of this is creating tons of interest in brick and mortar poker. You basically can't get into a B&M poker room at a lot of places because they are jammed with people who learned how to play on line.

No, the casinos don't want this bill. It would kill a major cash cow for them.

In fact, I would expect that they will work behind the scenes to stop the bill in the senate.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

So... (just so I have this straight)

We're saying that essential responsibility of government and Law is to prevent hurting to the tune of murder and robbery (obvious gross violations of security and safety, as well, I'm not being picky about it really)?

Uh, I don't quite understand the question.

But my take on what government should be responsible for is more who they should be responsible too. Us the people. Morality is an individuals business. But, an individual should not be allowed to harm or take anything from another, the golden rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

If a person wants to gamble over the internet and use his credit card(s) to pay for it, it's no skin off my nose nor the governments business.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Uh, I don't quite understand the question.

But my take on what government should be responsible for is more who they should be responsible too. Us the people. Morality is an individuals business. But, an individual should not be allowed to harm or take anything from another, the golden rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

If a person wants to gamble over the internet and use his credit card(s) to pay for it, it's no skin off my nose nor the governments business.

but does society pay a hidden price? have our taxes gone to pay for the rehabilitation of an addicted Internet gambler? Have our CC interest rates increased because Internet gamblers have been unable to pay the exhorbitant sums of money they have run up on CCs?

I'm just sayin... for sake of argument and all...

 

[Guest]

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I found out long ago I'm nowhere near one of 'the fittest'.

Does that mean I should die?

No, just not gamble.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Uh, I don't quite understand the question.

But my take on what government should be responsible for is more who they should be responsible too. Us the people. Morality is an individuals business. But, an individual should not be allowed to harm or take anything from another, the golden rule - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

If a person wants to gamble over the internet and use his credit card(s) to pay for it, it's no skin off my nose nor the governments business.

But... and correct me if I'm wrong, of course... is it not the government's business to (1) promote or encourage social welfare and societal wellbeing /and/ (2) protect people and business from fiscal hazards?

And, in absolute conjunction with those ideas, is it not socially beneficial to limit extremes of credit abuse (on both sides of that coin, of course, but certainly the gambling of money that one truly doesn't have in a situation where identity fraud has such a high chance of success) /and/ insulating society from the fallout of individual massive personal debt being either (a) unloaded on society in the form of bankrupcy and (b) further drains on limited welfare programs?

In short... we legislate not just morality in the form of murder, but social progress in the form of public schools, economic investment in the form of job centers and aids, cultural identity in the form of endowments, and progress in the form of grants, welfare, and breaks to help people avoid slumming into existance as a societal burden.

We do these things and have done them for years.

And now we cry foul when the gambling of credit falls under popular opinion as either a social progress, economic investment, cultural identity, or general societal progression that we don't want to be allowable?

I understand that we use credit cards to do other things that gamble--but maybe this is where we choose to draw the line because of the nature of internet privacy and identity theft. Either way, maybe the people think this is one step further into the gray area than they're comfortable with.

The issue, I'm afraid, is not as simple as "it hurts nobody". It has all the likelihood and opportunity to hurt everybody, and if the people don't want it and choose to think of it as a direction we, as a people, don't want for sensible, practical, rational, and possibly moral reasons... who are you to judge it in any meaningful way with a simple "it don't hurt me?"

I just don't get you, man.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

but does society pay a hidden price? have our taxes gone to pay for the rehabilitation of an addicted Internet gambler? Have our CC interest rates increased because Internet gamblers have been unable to pay the exhorbitant sums of money they have run up on CCs?

I'm just sayin... for sake of argument and all...

Probably, which saddens me to see people become addicted to such extent that they require our help. But do you think legislation is the answer?

As far as CC rates they will go up and down with the tide and I think CC fraud is a bigger cause of increases in interest rates.

 

[angela146]

but does society pay a hidden price? have our taxes gone to pay for the rehabilitation of an addicted Internet gambler? Have our CC interest rates increased because Internet gamblers have been unable to pay the exhorbitant sums of money they have run up on CCs?

I'm just sayin... for sake of argument and all...

I don't see the government spending lots of money rehabilitating addicted gamblers.

CC companies are most likely charging a premium to the online sites for the privilege of accepting the cards (to cover default problems). CC companies are pretty smart that way.

Besides that, if the government would make it legal and impose the usual taxes, the financial costs would be swamped by the tax revenues.

BTW: the online gambling sites would dearly love to have the taxes and regulation in order to keep the industry clean.

[Edited for grammar and spelling]

 

[Guest]

 

[Zeb_Carter]

But... and correct me if I'm wrong, of course... is it not the government's business to (1) promote or encourage social welfare and societal wellbeing /and/ (2) protect people and business from fiscal hazards?

And, in absolute conjunction with those ideas, is it not socially beneficial to limit extremes of credit abuse (on both sides of that coin, of course, but certainly the gambling of money that one truly doesn't have in a situation where identity fraud has such a high chance of success) /and/ insulating society from the fallout of individual massive personal debt being either (a) unloaded on society in the form of bankrupcy and (b) further drains on limited welfare programs?

In short... we legislate not just morality in the form of murder, but social progress in the form of public schools, economic investment in the form of job centers and aids, cultural identity in the form of endowments, and progress in the form of grants, welfare, and breaks to help people avoid slumming into existance as a societal burden.

We do these things and have done them for years.

And now we cry foul when the gambling of credit falls under popular opinion as either a social progress, economic investment, cultural identity, or general societal progression that we don't want to be allowable?

I understand that we use credit cards to do other things that gamble--but maybe this is where we choose to draw the line because of the nature of internet privacy and identity theft. Either way, maybe the people think this is one step further into the gray area than they're comfortable with.

The issue, I'm afraid, is not as simple as "it hurts nobody". It has all the likelihood and opportunity to hurt everybody, and if the people don't want it and choose to think of it as a direction we, as a people, don't want for sensible, practical, rational, and possibly moral reasons... who are you to judge it in any meaningful way with a simple "it don't hurt me?"

I just don't get you, man.

Well then we will have to agree to disagree.

Government shouldn't be sticking it's nose in my business but I sure as hell should be able to stick my nose in it's.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Use credit cards for other forms of gambling? Yes--the state-owned and state-sponsored forms of gambling. Just because the money goes to the government doesn't mean that people do less harm to themselves, their families, and society than when the money goes to private enterprise.

It's not a line drawn in the sand, it's a wall thrown up to stop private enterprises from luring sheep away from government-owned gambling outlets.

I agree with Jammies.

This isn't so much a law to protect gamblers as a law to protect government sponsored gambling.

 

[angela146]

But... and correct me if I'm wrong, of course... is it not the government's business to (1) promote or encourage social welfare and societal wellbeing /and/ (2) protect people and business from fiscal hazards?

Sure, it's the government's business to make sure that businesses behave honestly. Hence they should be in the business of making sure that the games are legitimate and are performing according to the posted odds. This could be done if the industry were legalized, regulated and taxed.

And, in absolute conjunction with those ideas, is it not socially beneficial to limit extremes of credit abuse (on both sides of that coin, of course, but certainly the gambling of money that one truly doesn't have in a situation where identity fraud has such a high chance of success) /and/ insulating society from the fallout of individual massive personal debt being either (a) unloaded on society in the form of bankrupcy and (b) further drains on limited welfare programs?

People spend money that they don't have on a lot of things: fancy cars, houses that are too expensive, cable TV, going out to dinner etc.

Identity fraud doesn't have any more of a chance of success with online gambling than it does with online clothes purchases.

In short... we legislate not just morality in the form of murder,

Again, murder is a crime where one person vicitimizes another. The proposed law is intended to protect people from themselves.

but social progress in the form of public schools, economic investment in the form of job centers and aids, cultural identity in the form of endowments, and progress in the form of grants, welfare, and breaks to help people avoid slumming into existance as a societal burden.

All of the things mentioned here are examples of *promoting* things rather than inhibiting them. It's a big difference. I don't mind so much if the government gives me a free education or some money to start a business so long as it doesn't tell me what to do with my money once I have earned it.

We do these things and have done them for years.

And now we cry foul when the gambling of credit falls under popular opinion as either a social progress, economic investment, cultural identity, or general societal progression that we don't want to be allowable?

Not sure I understand this sentence, but "gambling of credit" isn't the issue. The law also bans money coming from checking accounts. If you wanted to prevent people from using credit cards because they shouldn't be gambling on credit, then leave the checking accounts out of it.

I understand that we use credit cards to do other things that gamble--but maybe this is where we choose to draw the line because of the nature of internet privacy and identity theft. Either way, maybe the people think this is one step further into the gray area than they're comfortable with.

The next step would be to prevent people from using credit cards to buy unhealthy products such as lewd magazines and online erotica.

No, the government should be in the business of making sure that the product or service behaves as advertised and making sure that the market place is operated fairly.

The issue, I'm afraid, is not as simple as "it hurts nobody". It has all the likelihood and opportunity to hurt everybody, and if the people don't want it and choose to think of it as a direction we, as a people, don't want for sensible, practical, rational, and possibly moral reasons... who are you to judge it in any meaningful way with a simple "it don't hurt me?"

The same argument could be made (and is being made) for pictures of naked people and erotic stories. There is just too much danger of people being harmed by immoral pictures and immoral stories so we better prevent people from buying them on a credit card over the internet.

 

[VoteForMe]

Your whole fucking life is a gamble
and I own the casino.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Well then we will have to agree to disagree.QUOTE]
Yup.

Use credit cards for other forms of gambling? Yes--the state-owned and state-sponsored forms of gambling. Just because the money goes to the government doesn't mean that people do less harm to themselves, their families, and society than when the money goes to private enterprise.

It's not a line drawn in the sand, it's a wall thrown up to stop private enterprises from luring sheep away from government-owned gambling outlets.

Well, hey... so long as its a private enterprise wall, sure...

 

[Selena_Kitt]

The law also bans money coming from checking accounts. If you wanted to prevent people from using credit cards because they shouldn't be gambling on credit, then leave the checking accounts out of it.

Darn there goes my Paypal/echeck idea...

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I still say we start a new credit card company in the Camen Islands good at any casino in the world or online.

 

[R. Richard]

Use credit cards for other forms of gambling? Yes--the state-owned and state-sponsored forms of gambling. Just because the money goes to the government doesn't mean that people do less harm to themselves, their families, and society than when the money goes to private enterprise.

It's not a line drawn in the sand, it's a wall thrown up to stop private enterprises from luring sheep away from government-owned gambling outlets.

Good points! However, I believe you need to extend the ideas a bit. The government doesn't mind if you use a credit card to gamble, as long as it's at an enterprise where the government gets a cut. However, even though Las Vegas is legal and pays taxes, the government won't let Las Vegas legaly collect debts outside NV. [Las Vegas has a crew of "tire changers" who roam high population areas outside NV. They contact people who wrote NSF checks. I assume they are tire changers, they do carry tire irons.] One thing the government is not going to stand for is nasty, immoral gambling where US cirtizens gamble, send money off shore and the US government doesn't even get a cut! [I mean, how do you think a Congressman is going to afford a freezer to keep his bribe money?]

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

but does society pay a hidden price? have our taxes gone to pay for the rehabilitation of an addicted Internet gambler? Have our CC interest rates increased because Internet gamblers have been unable to pay the exhorbitant sums of money they have run up on CCs?

I'm just sayin... for sake of argument and all...

I don't believe the government does any kind of rehabilitation. As for interest rates, they are based more on the individual's payment record. If you are consistently late, you are going to be paying a high rate of interest, while if you have a good record, your rate will be less.

At the same time, the higher rate is assessed partly because of defaults so, yes, defaults may cause your cc rate to increase, but only if you have a record of late payments.

 

[angela146]

One thing the government is not going to stand for is nasty, immoral gambling where US cirtizens gamble, send money off shore and the US government doesn't even get a cut! [I mean, how do you think a Congressman is going to afford a freezer to keep his bribe money?]

So, why not legalize it? Then they can have their piece of the action and they can regulate it.

 

[angela146]

At the same time, the higher rate is assessed partly because of defaults so, yes, defaults may cause your cc rate to increase, but only if you have a record of late payments.

In all likelyhood they are charging a higher merchant rate to the casinos in order to recoop those costs.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Oh, I think I love you.

Sure, it's the government's business to make sure that businesses behave honestly. Hence they should be in the business of making sure that the games are legitimate and are performing according to the posted odds. This could be done if the industry were legalized, regulated and taxed.People spend money that they don't have on a lot of things: fancy cars, houses that are too expensive, cable TV, going out to dinner etc.

I have nothing really to say about businesses behaving honestly. But, and here's the issue on the table, is it the government's business to invest in people not behaving dishonestly /and/ people behaving in a way that is taxing to others?

Identity fraud doesn't have any more of a chance of success with online gambling than it does with online clothes purchases.Again, murder is a crime where one person vicitimizes another. The proposed law is intended to protect people from themselves.All of the things mentioned here are examples of *promoting* things rather than inhibiting them. It's a big difference. I don't mind so much if the government gives me a free education or some money to start a business so long as it doesn't tell me what to do with my money once I have earned it.Not sure I understand this sentence, but "gambling of credit" isn't the issue. The law also bans money coming from checking accounts. If you wanted to prevent people from using credit cards because they shouldn't be gambling on credit, then leave the checking accounts out of it.The next step would be to prevent people from using credit cards to buy unhealthy products such as lewd magazines and online erotica.

I wasn't comparing gambling to clothes shopping. I was comparing gambling on-line (a heavily masked ability to risk credit for actual money) to non-onling gambling (a significantly less masked ability to risk credit for actual money). You say the proposed law is intended to protect people from themselves, but surely there are arguments (and sound ones) to the effect that it is there to protect /the people/ from people (the former in the Constitutional sense, the latter in the individual agent sense). Online checking accounts to make it hardly a bit more difficult for fraud. Routing and account numbers could = exploitation. You say its a slippery slope (by virtue of mentioning unhealthy products and the like as well as erotica), but we already legislate against unhealthy things (drugs of various kinds, hazardous materials) online and off as well as porn (child, as an example) online and off. The slope is already had it seems.

No, the government should be in the business of making sure that the product or service behaves as advertised and making sure that the market place is operated fairly.The same argument could be made (and is being made) for pictures of naked people and erotic stories. There is just too much danger of people being harmed by immoral pictures and immoral stories so we better prevent people from buying them on a credit card over the internet.

So, are we to say the government should not be in the business of making sure it does what the people want it to do? That would fly in the face of the democratic ideal, no? You seem to want to compare this to looking at nudie pictures, but it should be noted that looking at nudie pictures doesn't have the same actual or potential economic or social drain that gambling would.
A moral drain? I have nothing intelligent to say about that--not really. I can't quantify or substantiate the quality of a decision based on that, only the intention and we're not really interested in the intention so much as results, I don't think.
But, as long as there's a practical and actual division between someone stealing your credit card or bank account information and buying nudie access or ordering products or services with it and someone taking that information and risking your thousands of dollars for their thousands of gain /and/ someone risking thousands of dollars they haven't got ending up on the bankruptcy circuit (a confluence of possibility)... I think they're categorically different.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I don't believe the government does any kind of rehabilitation.

I do. Between prison programs, school counselling, and homeless/under-developed area assistances... I just kinda have to, y'know?

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

So, why not legalize it? Then they can have their piece of the action and they can regulate it.

The problem to the government is the sites are likely located out of the country. Since they can't get any of the action they want to ban them.