Posted on 07/22/2010 4:40:29 AM PDT by IbJensen
‘Why (would) we would be taking steps to open casinos in every home, dorm room, library, iPod, Blackberry, iPad and computer in America?’
Nearly 67 percent of Americans are opposed to decriminalizing Internet gambling.
Yet, Rep. Barney Frank, D – Mass., – chairman of the powerful House Financial Services committee – is persistent in his effort to repeal the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).
Rep. James McDermott, D-Wash., has a companion bill to tax the proceeds — conveniently creating yet another revenue stream for the growing government.
Their bills gained little favor two months ago when considered by the House Ways and Means Committee.
Rep. Spencer Bachus, the committee’s ranking Republican, found Democratic support of Frank’s bill to be both contradictory and hypocritical.
“The timing of today’s hearing on Chairman Frank’s proposal to legalize gambling over the Internet strikes some of us as ironic, to say the least,” the Alabama congressman said. “After all the talk during the last year about shutting down the casinos on Wall Street, it does not make any sense to me why we would be taking steps to open casinos in every home, dorm room, library, iPod, Blackberry, iPad and computer in America.
“This morning, President Obama signed legislation whose proponents claim will protect consumers from unwise financial decisions and from predatory practices by financial institutions, he said. “(Yet) this afternoon, this committee is considering the merits of a bill that will fleece Americans by reversing current restrictions on Internet gambling, which is perhaps the ultimate example of Americans making unwise and harmful financial choices. It seems that Democrats’ solicitude for the well-being and protection of American consumers has its limits.”
Family groups agree and contend UIGEA’s repeal is not in the best interest of families, finances or freedoms.
Chad Hills, gambling analyst for CitizenLink, cautions Americans – especially those with libertarian-leanings – not to buy into Democrats’ clichés of “personal choice,” “consumer protection” and “tax and regulate.” Rather, he asks Americans to consider the long-term, unintended consequences.
“These bills are being pushed by the well-funded, illegal online gambling industry that seeks to exploit Americans, manipulate U.S. members of Congress and subvert U.S. policy – all in order to profit foreign gambling operations,” Hills said.
Societal costs of decriminalizing online gambling – which conservative estimates predict in upwards of $25 billion a year – would be yet another economic burden to already cash-strapped states and local governments – not to mention churches and nonprofit organizations.
In its 1999 report on Internet gambling, the National Gambling Impact Study Commission found that:
“many families of pathological gamblers suffer from a variety of financial, physical and emotional problems, including divorce, domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, and a range of problems stemming from the severe financial hardship that commonly results from pathological gambling.
“Children of compulsive gamblers are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors, such as smoking, drinking and using drugs, and have an increased risk of developing problem or pathological gambling themselves.
“As access to money becomes more limited, gamblers often resort to crime, in order to pay debts, appease bookies, maintain appearances, and garner more money to gamble.”
Frank’s bill would not only override existing federal and state laws prohibiting gambling, it would give the government extraordinary access to personal information, as well as to tax the Internet.
Surprise!
And when MILLIONS are destitute because of easy access to gambling, expect a mass bailout of these idiots.
For the taxes on money won. Tada.
For the first time in my life, I agree with Barney. I say repeal all the nanny state laws.
I prefer my gambling illegal, thank you.
I agree with Frank on this one. UIGEA is a horrible, uneforceable bill that had to be snuck through in th3e dead of night by attaching it to the port security bill at the last minute.
Broken clocks, blind squirrels and all that.
I don’t know. I don’t gamble and tend to think its foolish but being stupid with one’s own money isn’t any of my business.
Find a means of excluding welfare bums and I would be fine with it.
Did one of his “boyfriends” get caught in a gambling ring instead of a gay hooker ring this time?
Somebody already beat me to the broken clock metaphor but it still applies here.
In Bwaney’s mind, perverison is perversion is perversion (homosexuality, gambling, substance abuse)...and to him it’s all ok.
Hey, I didn’t know it was illegal!
But, if Barney likes it, it’s probably bad for America.
Period.
The call for nanny government gets in Barney’s way... now here’s a twist.
Huh? There are only 8 states in the nation that don’t have sponsored lotteries. All of the state lotteries allow you to purchase tickets online from out of state.
A lot of the states that don’t have lotteries, have casinos, horse racing, dog tracks, and bingo casinos, etc...
Add office and bar sport pools, sport betting, local card games, and whatever else people gamble on and you have a society that gambles. I frankly don’t see much difference from an idiot that gambles his money away on a government sponsored lottery or over the internet.
Internet gambling should be legal, monitored for fairness, and taxed like the other thousand of ways people gamble that the government sponsors or allows.
“Children of compulsive gamblers are more likely to engage in ...
Exsqueeze me but the correct term is:Degenerate Gambler
And they're not exactly a bunch of laughs to be around.
(Ya can't hit them and you certainly can't kill them)
I 'recall' seeing my first, Degenerate Gambler, when I was about 20 -- he was friend of mine from Little League and High School. He was curled up in a corner at Sportsman's Race Track pouring over the racing form likeit was the Bible, while surrounded by filth. I was with my 'Two Amigos', who also knew him. (We were the Three Musketeers, we went and did everywhere together)
Well, my old friend 'Bill' could barely take the time to talk to us, he had to 'concentrate' on making his next bet. And he looked like a GD wino.
So IMO the last thing we need is easier access to gambling.
(I've been going to 'The Track' with Family since I was about Eight so I've seen all kinds of Pony Players. But me seeing my old Little League friend like this made me sick)
This is starting to shape up like the FR drug threads... get Gov out of my face versus we’re going to hell in a hand-basket.
I agree. I don't need the government telling me what I can and can't do, especially when it doesn't harm me. I don't care if people gamble, drink, smoke dope, or live together as long as I don't have to subsidize it. I think the biggest argument the politicians have against Internet gambling is that it's hard to tax. I have a lot of confidence in them and I'm sure they'll figure out a way to do it.
I’m in the middle of the road. I don’t like gambling but see no good reason it should be illegal. On the other hand I don’t want a casino in my neighborhood either.
As someone who doesn’t believe in big government running our lives i’d welcome the move.
I imagine there are a lot of things you don't want in your neighborhood that you wouldn't necessarily want to make illegal either (a Walmart, a WIC office, a wind farm, a truck stop, GITMO, etc.).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.