Posted on 03/15/2007 1:04:39 PM PDT by kms61
The Financial Times online edition (subscription required for full article) has noted from an interview that Barney Frank, the democratic House Financial Services Committee chairman, is working on legislation to repeal the ban on online gambling in the US that was passed last year. "Working on" is hard to define without more information
It is not clear at all if this is a "total repeal" or just a loosening of the laws. It is also a question as to whether or not this legislation could even make it to the White House through Congressional votes, and it is unclear of this would be for 2008 and beyond or if it was sooner. But either way, you have to look no further than Cryptologic (CRYP) to see how this could impact other stocks in the sector (they make online gaming software) if there is any truth to this. CRYP has even managed to defy a weak market if you look at the shares.
In Australia, companies like Betcorp and Lasseters Corp were hit hard last year because of the ban. In the UK, companies like PartyGaming Plc and 888 Holdings were also hit in 2006 over such issues. Gigamedia (GIGM) and American Wagering (BETM) were also noted in a story late yesterday along with pari-mutuel horseracing company Youbet.com (UBET). We have all missed the PartyPoker commercials as well.
Once again, take heed that "an interview" and "legislation" can be taken way out of context and there is always the possibility that this could be dead before it even gets started. My own call in so far has partially confirmed this, but with no details yet known. Many of the European online gaming stocks also made some rather large moves last week because of some loosening of regulations in the EU. There is not even assurance that it will make it to the form of a bill, so if you take any of this as "gospel" or as "fact" then the point has not been stressed enough that there may be no follow-through in reality.
I did put in a phone call to Congressman Frank's office and was told that this is true, but I have not been able to get the details from the Financial Services Committee as of yet. I am awaiting a call back to give more details.
Jon C. Ogg March 14, 2007
Jon Ogg can be reached at jonogg@247wallst.com; he does not own securities in the companies he covers.
Capitalism is not your strong suit, huh?
If he had succeeded, he would have been offering a product or service to the rest of us. He would have paid interest on his loans. Paid taxes to all levels of government. If he employed people, they would also have benefitted. In addition, they would have paid taxes.
So let's get rid of government welfare and food stamps and housing and rehab programs and all the rest, THEN we'll talk about legalizing gambling and drugs.
Deal?
Perhaps you could share where you saw that. I can't find it, other than a few detractors saying it is so.
According to Citizens against Government Waste, 'pork' is defined as :
A "pork" project is a line-item in an appropriations bill that designates tax dollars for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_earmarks.
They don't list Hunter as a 'porker'(earmarks). Please show us, other than spending on military for this war, where you find that Hunter is a porker.
Here's the list from 2001 of the porkers of the month. Lots of R's and D's there, but no Duncan Hunter or House Armed Services Committe, which he headed . They do show as porkers: Tommy Thompson, Sen. Robert Bennett, Sen. Joe Lieberman , Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison , Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.) , Sen. John Thune,Reps. Tom DeLay , Sens. Hillary Clinton , Sen. Larry Craig
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_porkerofthemonth_hallofshame
Methinks that either:
1. We have a troll
2. BMIC is guilty about ruining his own family, and can't deal with his guilt, and therefore must project it upon those with more willpower than he.
You, my good sir, have yourself a deal!
Cool, so I'm not a total heretic!
Seriously though, I would love to see that article, if it was in English since I don't read much spanish.
Here in the US people are very generous when they have a passion for the charity but with the state taking wealth and giving it to it's created charity people are more stingy. Look at what happened with Katrina and the American Red Cross after 9/11. People gave out of love and found out the money was not allocated as originally implied or that the money wasn't used to actually help the helpless but goes to business and local govt. and gets mishandled. People are less and less willing to give.
I believe if people weren't "forced" to give they'd give more and they'd have more to give.
Capitalism is not your strong suit, huh?
I would have to ask that question of you? Those who run online gaming are also doing the same things, employing people, paying taxes, etc.
The same thing goes for the Bunny Ranch in NV - the brothel. People are employed, make lots of money with which to pay bills, taxes, contribute to the local economy.
I gave that example to point out the hypocracy in your view. the difference is that you don't want socialism for what you consider "legitimate business" but you are fine with socialism when it is applied to what you consider immoral. You can't have it both ways, govt. won't work that way. You ether have freedom and free market or you have something resembling socialism, fascism or communism. Freedom or govt. tyranny.
Many feel guns are immoral and have attacked businesses involved in manufacturing or supplying firearms. I would imagine this would be against your beliefs but the only difference between this and what you propose for gambling and the like is your opinion. That's it.
You are either for govt. control or you aren't. Right now you are in the former group, you want a stronger, more powerful and larger govt. that will exert control over business and individual behavior and morality. There is a lot less immoral behaviour in China, and Iran, Afganistan before we kicked out the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, Fascist Germany and Italy, the USSR.
The only way to legislate morality is a police state. You seem to want a police state.
Spain's charitable giving is pretty low though I would like to think if the government didn't do it for us, more people would donate time, money, food, help etc.
You are right, I bet people would give more if they were able to retain more of thier earnings and choose where they send money and aid. Since the govt. does it by default then why should people do more? Unless of course one realizes that most of the money is wasted on beaurocracy, bribery, etc.
Yeah. Offshore.
"The same thing goes for the Bunny Ranch in NV - the brothel. People are employed, make lots of money with which to pay bills, taxes, contribute to the local economy."
Should I get smarmy and start listing other ventures we can legalize to collect taxes, or can you figure out where that's going?
"but you are fine with socialism when it is applied to what you consider immoral."
I am? What the heck did I say that makes you think that?
"The only way to legislate morality is a police state."
Baloney. Enforcement need not be done at that level.
Should I get smarmy and start listing other ventures we can legalize to collect taxes, or can you figure out where that's going?
No need, this points out your hypocracy. You claim to be a capitalist but you are also interested in Govt. control of business when it touches something you consider immoral. The legal business of prostitution in NV does all the good things you listed as the community's benefit from business.
Employees of every business use thier earnings to participate in immoral vices. Your opinion is that business which provides a product you consider immoral should be restricted by govt. force.
"but you are fine with socialism when it is applied to what you consider immoral."
I am? What the heck did I say that makes you think that?
"which is unfair in that, had you WON, you wouldn't have shared it with the rest of us."
"The only way to legislate morality is a police state."
Baloney. Enforcement need not be done at that level.
Really?
So how much has the WOD lowered use, how much crime has it prevented?
How many crimes were committed by online gamblers that would have been prevented with moral legislation?
How well has the gun ban in DC kept the murder rate down?
Prostitution is virtually illegal so why is the porn business (paying people to have sex on camera and on video) a multibillion dollar industry?
Did crack cocaine exist before the War on Drugs, what about ice?
Is the use rate falling steadily across the country year after year?
Now tell me how big are the crack cocaine and porn problems in China, or Cuba, or N. Korea or Saudi Arabia?
Forced protection from Vice will never be freedom because only the individual can decide to be free from vice. If individual liberty is erased, so will be much of the vice. In order to eliminate vice, individual liberty must be eliminated.
Did GOD make a mistake when HE created you with total and complete free will?
Well, which the majority considers immoral, yes. You'll never convince me that people must be forced to tolerate smut because, after all, this is a free country.
""which is unfair in that, had you WON, you wouldn't have shared it with the rest of us."
That's actually communism. And a joke.
"So how much has the WOD lowered use ..."
66% between 1979 and its lowest point.
"Now tell me how big are the crack cocaine and porn problems in China, or Cuba, or N. Korea or Saudi Arabia?"
Exactly my point. How much of a police state do you want? Don't be bitching about the "failure of the WOD" then complain when the government cracks down on drug users.
Exactly my point. How much of a police state do you want? Don't be bitching about the "failure of the WOD" then complain when the government cracks down on drug users.
The question, again is one you should ask yourself. I don't bitch when the govt. upholds its duty and prevents or punishes people who use force or fraud to deny another's individual liberty. But, again you haven't faced the truth in this. There is no way to legislate morality without severe authoritarian intrusion into the individual's privat life in all it's aspects.
66% between 1979 and its lowest point.
And when was it's lowest point?
How about crack and ice, how did these crop up if drug enforcement apart from authoritarian rule works. And from a broader perspective how has the prohibition against prostitution kept smut/sexual immorality out of the popular culture?
""which is unfair in that, had you WON, you wouldn't have shared it with the rest of us."
That's actually communism. And a joke. - Those are your words. If a gambler doesn't share his profits you consider it immoral.
You'll never convince me that people must be forced to tolerate smut because, after all, this is a free country.
Here we are treated to the true belief system you hold to. You don't want a free country, in fact you seem to actively work to make sure this isn't a free country - out of fear of being exposed to things that as an individual you could easily avoid with a simple choice not to participate.
What I don't understand is the contradictory beliefs you seem to hold concerning freedom. You want people to be free to keep and bear arms and seem confident that the majority of Americans have a sufficient level of personal accountability to handle deadly weapons, but you at the same time believe that the majority of Americans are not responsible enough to handle drugs or sex or gambling. You want to restrict govt. controls over firearms but want to increase govt. control over morality. It's the same sort of Catch 22 we put our soldiers in. At 18 they are responsible enough to select who is in power in our govt. and carry automatic weapons and drive tanks but they aren't responsible enough to handle alcohol.
I wish you could see that when it comes to govt. it's all or nothing, eventually. You never get back individual liberty surrendered to the govt. When you legitimize unconstitutional restrictions on vice you do the same for restrictions on guns.
This is what comes from letting the RATS back in power.
amen. Keep fighting the good fight against the RINOS, CINOS, and Libertines that show up on these threads. There are still a few of us who stand up for traditional morality around here.
Despite being a member of the Republican Study Committee, Hunter frequently votes NO on their fiscally conservative annual budgets.
And Hunter is also pro-entitlement expansion: Yes on No Child Left Behind, Yes on the Medicare Drug Benefit, Yes on the 2005 Highway bill.
He also voted Yes on McCain-Feingold.
Club for Growth gave him a 49% on their 2005 scorecard. That places him 187th within the House GOP conference, out of roughly 230 members.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/10/duncan_hunters_voting_record.php
In recent years, Hunter has gotten Cs in the National Taxpayers' Union ratings (until 2006, when he brought it up to a B).
http://www.ntu.org/main/components/ratescongress/details_all_years.php3?house_id=68
This to me is the record of a pro-spending, pro-federal-expansion candidate.
If you like open borders, uncontrolled immigration and cheap labor contracts like Nafta, you're with the Club for Growth.
A lower rating by the club for growth is a GOOD thing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799102/posts?page=29#29
So far the only arrows being slung at Duncan Hunter have been to cite a rating given him by the Club For Growth. Never mind that most other conservative organizations such as the NRA, NumbersUSA, American Conservative Union - (92% LIFETIME) rate Hunter near or at the top.
The bottom line is this. Duncan Hunter wants to secure our borders, his 26 year legislative history proves that. He also wants the truth told about trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA and China, Fast track trade authority that bypasses constitutionally mandated congressional control. The Club for Growth, and the people involved in it have done just the opposite. As will their pick for president.
Anyone looking at Duncan Hunters voting and legislative record must conclude that perhaps the ‘Club’ is more RINO than Republican or Conservative.
You be the judge, is the ‘Clubs’ analysis of Hunter even remotely indicative of reality? If what they convey here is true, they admit they do not agree with just about 2/3 of republicans voting in congress.
So who does the ‘Club for Growth’ agree with? One of the bills they faulted Duncan for voting for was a transportation bill. Republican congressmen voted 218 to 9 for it. Is Club for Growth representing the republican base or something else?
"The Club for Growth is a section 527 political organization and an affiliated political action committee that raises money for candidates who support an anti-tax and limited-government agenda. It was created by former Cato Institute fellow Stephen Moore. "
Stephen Moore. That’s a name anyone involved in the battle to secure our nations borders needs to know. And where you find Moore, you find Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich and common agendas. Often, those agendas are not 'conservative'.
Moore has written articles in favor of increased immigration to the U.S., and has debated against immigration restrictionists. In one article, Moore favorably cited a speech at Cato by Rep. Dick Armey, R-TX, who said he believes the U.S. "should be thinking about increasing legal immigration." Moore worked on studies for the wing immigration advocacy group, the National Immigration Forum, which favors amnesty for illegal aliens.
In 1996, Moore along with Grover Norquist helped defeat any measures aimed at enforcement in an immigration reform bill.
Marcus Stern describes Moores involvement in an award winning article.
"The coalition was a juggernaut that fought virtually any verification initiative. Because Republicans control Congress, conservative lobbyists were especially influential. The fact that some limited, voluntary verification projects stayed in the bill at all outraged some conservatives. "
"I view it as the camel's nose under the tent for a national ID card," said Stephen Moore, an economist with the Cato Institute who lobbied against the bill. "The theme we played to Republicans was that if you're trying to roll back big government, you shouldn't be instituting this new police-state power."
Social conservatives like Norquist and libertarians like Moore don't see illegal immigration as a major problem.
"Illegal immigration is part of the price we pay for being both a prosperous and a free country, and I'm not willing to sacrifice some of our freedoms to try to keep out immigrants, especially when I don't think it's going to work very well," said Moore.
He added that spending $3 billion-plus a year to fund the Immigration and Naturalization Service "probably is a waste of money. But this is a political issue. And the way you deal with illegal immigration is you increase the INS budget. It doesn't do a lot, but at least politicians on both sides can go home and say, `Well, how can you say I'm not doing anything about immigration? I increased the INS budget.' "
What you don't do, he said, is involve employers in enforcement.
"Sometimes in politics you pass feel-good measures," Moore said. "And that's not necessarily a bad thing. Passing a bill that's mostly window dressing is a way of defusing public alarm about something. And in states like California, illegal immigration is perceived as a big problem."
Working closely with Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, Cesar Conda (former domestic advisor to Dick Cheney) circulated a statement against Prop. 187 of California in the nineties.
And what have Moore and his associate Grover Norquist been up to lately? More of the same.
Moore, along with Norquist, Newt Gingrich, Tamar Jacoby and other amnesty advocates penned a letter to the Wall St Journal proclaiming Bush’s guest worker plan as "a humane, orderly, and economically sensible approach to migration."
On September 19, 2005, the Federal Election Commission filed suit against the Club for Growth for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act for failing to register as a political action committee in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 congressional elections.
You can be sure that both Stephen Moore and Grover Norquist are working full time to keep our borders open and promote any and all trade/labor agreements whether they benefit the USA and it’s people or not.
Moore said this about Norquist. "From the moment he gets up to the moment he gets to bed, he thinks, 'How am I going to hurt the other team?"
Whoever the Club for Growth decides to push for president, you can be sure they don't believe it if that candidate pretends to want to secure the border and implement sane trade policy.
Buyer, BEWARE.
It should come as no surprise that the Club for Growth would come out against Duncan Hunter.
Wear it as a badge of honor, Congressman!
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.