Joe Biden and half the audience snoozed (Biden is auditioning to become an air traffic controller ),while the President made another of his patented 'most important speech of his adminstration' yesterday.

It was typical progressive boiler-plate red meat pablum. The President is in full Allinsky campaign mode now(isolate the enemy) . The President pretends to seduce the middle ;but his heart is still on the fringe. No need to recount the details . You've heard the same economic message from progressives since 1964 (and even earlier if you replay some of the best of FDR) .

Rather than link to the President's address ,I'll post Rep. Paul Ryan's response . He hit it out of the park.

I'm very disappointed in the president. I was excited when we got invited to attend his speech today. I thought the president's invitation to Mr. Camp, Mr. Hensarling and myself was an olive branch. Instead, what we got was a speech that was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate to addressing our countries pressing fiscal challenges.

What we heard today was not fiscal leadership from our commander-in-chief. What we heard today was a political broadside from our campaigner-in chief.

I guess it's no coincidence that last week when the president launched his billion dollar re-election campaign was the week we launched our effort to try and get this debt and deficit under control and get our economy growing.

Last year, in the absence of a serious budget, the president created a fiscal commission. Then with his budget he disavowed his fiscal commission. He ignored all of its recommendations. Now he wants to delegate leadership yet again to a new commission. How are we to expect different results? And the measurements of results of this new commission are lower than the measurements of success of the last commission that ended a few months ago.

We need leadership. We don't need a doubling down on the failed politics of the past.

This is very sad and very unfortunate. Rather than building bridges, he's poisoning wells. By failing seriously to confront the most predictable economic crisis in our history, the president's policies are committing us and our children to a diminished future.

We're looking for bipartisan solutions not partisan rhetoric. When the president is ready to get serious about it, we're going to be here working.

Exploiting people's emotions of fear, envy, and anxiety is not hope; it's not change. It's partisanship. We don't need partisanship. We don't need demagoguery. We need solutions. And we don't need to keep punting to other people to make tough decisions. If we don't make those decisions today, our children will have to make much, much tougher decisions tomorrow.

So I am sincerely disappointed that the president had a moment when we were putting ideas on the table, trying to engage in a thoughtful dialog to fix this country's economic and fiscal problems, decides to pour on the campaign rhetoric, launch his re-election, and pass partisan broadsides against us, making it that much harder for the two parties to come together with mutual respect of one another to get things done.

YouTube - Paul Ryan Slams Obama Deficit Plan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnN0X-fi5ds)

Hello tom:

Yeah.. He decided to save granny from Ryans death panel... Wassa matter with that? What?? Death panels are GOOD when Republicans propose them??

excon

Hello tom:

Yeah.. He decided to save granny from Ryans death panel... Wassa matter with that? What??? Death panels are GOOD when Republicans propose them???

excon

How is he saving them ? I heard nothing of meaningful entitlement reform at all. His message is the same replay I've heard forever. Let the rich pay for it.

How is he saving them ? Let the rich pay for it. Hello again, tom:

It works like this... A guy NEEDS a life saving operation. Ryan would tell him to suck it up. Obama would TAKE money from the rich to save his life... Ain't no more difficult than that.

Now, as a rich person, that may offend you... But, as a poor person, I don't care.

excon

He knows entitlements needs reform and he's delusional if he thinks picking the pockets of the "highest 2% of income earners " (those making $200,000 +... not millionaires and billionaires as he demogoged) will fix the entitlement problem. It is a DEMOGRAPHIC problem and a government theft problem... not a revenue problem.

Even if it were a revenue problem tax increases will not change that... only economic growth will grow the revenue. Drive capital away... no economic growth .

he's delusional if he thinks picking the pockets of the "highest 2% of income earners " (those making $200,000 + .....not millionaires and billionaires as he demogoged) will fix the entitlement problem. Hello again, tom:

What's delusional is the idea that Ryan is going to "fix" medicare..

excon

The president needs a lesson on the rich:


Eat the Rich (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/11/EatTheRich) by Walter Williams

I've often said that I wish there were some humane way to get rid of the rich. If you asked why, I'd answer that getting rid of the rich would save us from distraction by leftist hustlers promoting the politics of envy. Not having the rich to fret over might enable us to better focus our energies on what's in the best interest of the 99.99 percent of the rest of us. Let's look at some facts about the rich laid out by Bill Whittle citing statistics on his RealClearPolitics video "Eat the Rich."

This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.

How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.

According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress' voracious spending appetite. They're going to have to go after the non-rich.

But let's stick with the rich and ask a few questions. Politicians, news media people and leftists in general entertain what economists call a zero elasticity view of the world. That's just fancy economic jargon for a view that government can impose a tax and people will behave after the tax just as they behaved before the tax, and the only change is more government revenue. One example of that vision, at the state and local levels of government, is the disappointing results of confiscatory tobacco taxes. Confiscatory tobacco taxes have often led to less state and local revenue because those taxes encouraged smuggling.

Similarly, when government taxes profits, corporations report fewer profits and greater costs. When individuals face higher income taxes, they report less income, buy tax shelters and hide their money. It's not just rich people who try to avoid taxes, but all of us -- liberals, conservatives and libertarians.

What's the evidence? Federal tax collections have been between 15 and 20 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product every year since 1960. However, between 1960 and today, the top marginal tax rate has varied between 91 percent and 35 percent. That means whether taxes are high or low, people make adjustments in their economic behavior so as to keep the government tax take at 15 to 20 percent of the GDP. Differences in tax rates have a far greater impact on economic growth than federal revenues.

So far as Congress' ability to prey on the rich, we must keep in mind that rich people didn't become rich by being stupid.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University

The rich don't have enough money to pay for everything congress spends and he knows it, he's just looking for that "fair share," whatever that is and then he'll come after everyone else's money (except for Planned Parenthood - Granny may not eat but she can darn sure have an abortion under Democrat budgets).

And by the way, Obama said the rich WANT to pay more. Has Kerry paid Massachusetts taxes on that yacht yet

Hello Steve:

What did tom call Obama's speech? Pablum?? That's what your right winger is feeding us... Heard it before. Be scared. Socialist Obama is going to take ALL your money and your guns too. I threw in the part about guns.

Look. This isn't about the budget, because ain't nobody talking about REAL stuff. It's all posturing. Ryan took another shot at hated progressive programs that fundamentally CHANGED this country. He/you wants to change it back.

The FACTS are, we COULD live within our means if we'd cut the stuff that we really CAN'T afford and don't need, instead of the stuff that is the fabric of our nation...

Am I talking about 2, maybe 3 or even 4 wars?? For starters, you betcha I AM. But, as long as the conversation is about seniors and socialism, we ain't going nowhere.

excon

Defense spending as a percentage of the budget has decreased consistently in the last 30 years . The part of the budget that has gone out of control is entitlements.
But railing against military spending is popular with the base. That is why it became such a big part of the Obama deflection yesterday .
Here are the numbers... $330 billion in cuts 2009 $80 billion in 2010... $400 billion proposed yesterday.. . total ? Gee it's about the same amt of money the Demos spent in 2009-10 filling in pot holes and other bucket list projects to 'stimulate' the economy.

Yeah, we can make NK happy and cut back on defense spending like the UK did to pay for all its nanny state. They're running out of ammo (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8400079/Libya-Navy-running-short-of-Tomahawk-missiles.html).

Their navy had a total of 64 Tomahawks ? They are worse off than I thought .Clintoon fired more than that at an asprin factory.

Yes sir, the once finest navy in the world is in bad shape.

Hello again:

The reason WHY the budget impasse will continue is exhibited right here. One side says don't balance the budget on the backs of the poor, and the other side says don't cut my wars, even though they're NOT paid for.

And, neither side is going to budge.

excon

You must've missed the point I've made repeatedly ;that the Defense Budget already is being cut ,trimmed ,sliced with a scaple ,hacked and slashed with a blunt instrument .

You must've missed the point I've made repeatedly Hello again, tom:

Nahhh, I didn't. I'm just not buying it. I'll believe it when we pass a law that says our wars will be PAID for, or we won't fight 'em. When THAT happens, I'll agree to Medicare starting at 66.

What? You want the whole loaf at once?

excon

Then you won't see us get out of this fiscal mess. Even the European nations ,who have virtually no military , realize it's the entitlement scam that has brought them to insolvency.

Hello again, tom:

Let's recap.. The rich are out of bounds, and we can do all the wars we want, even if we don't pay for them. But we've got to kill Medicare and Social Security. It's THAT or NOTHING.

Ok, I'm willing to have that battle again. The problem you've got with your "my way or the highway" plan, is the country sees that tactic for what it is - an assault on the middle class - NOT an attempt at fiscal responsibility...

When you're actually ready to negotiate a deal, you'll find willing partners.

excon

Ex, as I pointed out earlier, it isn't that the rich are out of bounds, taxing them more just won't solve the problem. As Williams pointed out taking every penny they have would run the government for 141 days. Demanding the rich pay their "fair share" - whatever that is - is just feel-good class envy bullsh*t. It doesn't fix anything, it just assuages the self-imposed guilt of progressives yet that is the Democrats "my way or the highway" plan to solve the problem It's not as you say, "an attempt at fiscal responsibility." I didn't drink the koolaid, you know.

Ex, as I pointed out earlier, it isn't that the rich are out of bounds, taxing them more just won't solve the problem.Hello again, Steve:

That's right wing spin. Nobody believes taxing them "more" will solve it, and nobody is saying it. Taxing them more will HELP solve it. Simple math will confirm that. Simple morals will confirm the need for shared sacrifice.

I could take up left wing talking points too, but that would be boring.. I'm NOT doing that.. I'm actually making OFFERS. I'm putting stuff ON the table. I'm making an ATTEMPT at negotiation to SOLVE the crisis RIGHT HERE...

What do you guys say?? NO! It's MY way or the HIGHWAY! Well, that ain't going to work here, and it ain't going to work in Washington.

excon

Negotiate ? Bush tried that in 2005 when he tried to reform SS . They don't call entitlements 'the third rail 'for nothing. But which side is intractable ?
Here is my compromise. Begin dismantling the system before our children and grandchildren are overburdended with the costs of keeping us in our retirement communities . They working 2 jobs to make ends meet ;us smoking government provided medical weed and pitching horseshoes by the community pool.

I would never make those close to retirement age bear the burden for this transition. A deal is a deal . But it's time to begin the dismantling of the failed socialist experiments.

But it's time to begin the dismantling of the failed socialist experiments.Hello again, tom:

And, that's WHY it won't happen.. Your side doesn't want to FIX Medicare and SS. You want to dismantle them. As I said earlier, that's an assault on the middle class, and the middle class knows it.

You DO understand, don't you, that I SUBSCRIBE to the notion that our debt is NOT sustainable?? And that there ARE ways to reduce spending and raise revenue to a point where these programs are PAID for, WITHOUT putting our free market system, or our national defense at risk. You REFUSE to even consider that that's possible.

So, it's clear. This ISN'T about the budget... It's about the opportunity to CRUSH hated "socialist experiments". At least you have the balls to say so.

excon

I suggest there ARE ways to reduce spending and raise revenue to a point where these programs are PAID for, WITHOUT putting our free market system at risk. You REFUSE to even look at them.


Of course I do . It's called budget cuts and economic growth.

You mischaracterize my position by calling it 'dismantling '. If you were truly free market then you would see that there is free market alternatives to command and control big government solutions . But the nanny state is locked in 1930s industrial era solutions that began failing years ago. They think that the solution is to ever increasing tax obligations ,not only on the few rich ;but ultimately on us all.
The fact that the President in the face of a 2010 smack down ,and a refutiation of his irresponsible policies proves that he is the intractible one . Not me.
You have only proposed greater decreases in our national defense for spending reductions and tax the rich for revenue increases .
What else have you got?

You have only proposed greater decreases in our national defense for spending reductions and tax the rich for revenue increases .
What else have you got?Hello again, tom:

Glad you asked. Of course, I've proposed a LOT over the years. You'll recognize some of it.. I'm NOT a government is the solution kind of guy. I'm also NOT a Reagan, government IS the problem kind of guy either. I'm an entrepreneur. I believe in FIXING the problem - not throwing money at it..

You understand that I don't know HOW to do it, but medical costs are rising at unsustainable rates... That CAN be fixed. That's a big one. We can make the tax code fair for everybody. I'm happy with a straight line tax, with the ends cocked to raise more from the rich, and less from the poor. It doesn't have to be cocked very much on either end. We can end 2 of the 4 wars we're in. We can end the drug war. We can END the NSA spying aparachik... We can INVEST in infrastructure. We can INVEST in alternate fuels. We can INVEST in education. We can END teacher tenure. Ok, raise the retirement age to 66 - maybe 67.

That SHOULD satisfy you because it DOES result in smaller government, but it probably won't... If we did that stuff, along with others, I'll bet we CAN operate on a balanced budget, pay DOWN the deficit, and KEEP ALL the promises we made. Really, my fix would save TRILLIONS!

You HAVE heard those things from me before, haven't you? I don't want to burden my grandchildren either. But, I'm not holding my breath. That's why I'm buying gold for them.

excon

. I'm happy with a straight line tax, with the ends cocked to raise more from the rich, and less from the poor. It doesn't have to be cocked very much on either end. excon

Im curious and not trying to hijack the thread but which tax are you talking about here? The Fair tax or the Flat tax ? Both have been on the table awhile.

Hello dad:

A relatively flat tax, say 7% that rises to 11% for the very wealthy, and drops to 3% for the very poor. That's it. No deductions or credits or exceptions. Everybody, including corporations, pay the same thing. We can accomplish this with a ONE page tax law.

excon

Hello dad:

A relatively flat tax, say 7% that rises to 11% for the very wealthy, and drops to 3% for the very poor. That's it. No deductions or credits or exceptions. Everybody, including corporations, pay the same thing. We can accomplish this with a ONE page tax law.

excon

I tend to like the Fair tax proposal that is out there and its very near the same lines as you are stating.

Here is something interesting for doing business in the U.S.

Doing Business in United States - World Bank Group (http://www.doingbusiness.org/data/exploreeconomies/united-states)


Check the "Taxes" section. Interesting figures.

No ex, I'm not demanding my way or the highway, just first place in fantasy baseball.

I'm all for reforming the tax code and making it more fair. I also adhere to the code of much is required from whom much is given... the rich can and should pay more than the poor. But, the poor don't get off Scot-free either which you seem to agree with.

So, let's cut the crap. I don't want to hear more talking points and fear mongering from our "leaders." No more media spinning how great Obama is at cutting spending, no more telling the world that Republicans hate women, children and poor people. Our president, the patron saint of the "new era of civility," right now is trying to scare the hell out of seniors and parents of children with disabilities. ENOUGH already!

ENOUGH already!Just change the channel if you don't like it.

Here is the relevant part of his address:
“One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates…This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.”

It's an appeal to emotion. Both political parties do it. It's nothing new at all.

Hello:

There's nothing inaccurate in what Obama said... People WILL be cut loose under the Republican plan - NOT because they're hated, but because they don't believe we can afford it.

Obama's plan believes we can.

That's as SPINLESS as I can make it.

excon

It's an appeal to emotion. Both political parties do it. It's nothing new at all.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. As always, your input is indispensable.

Before the address Paul Ryan was asked if by attempting to address entitlement reform he was opening himself up to demagogic attacks. He replied :
"We are," ...."They are going to demagogue us, and it's that demagoguery that has always prevented political leaders in the past from actually trying to fix the problem."

He probably thought it would come from clowns like Shumer ;not from the President.

Hello again,

Wow. Jon Stewart is right. I didn't know you'd be so hurt by what Obama said.

excon

As always, your input is indispensable.Thank you kind sir.

Hi EC.
We finally agree on something. A flat tax! But my proposal goes a bit further. 15% across the board total. This one 15% payment sent to one agency. They could take their share, and by using your zip code dole out the balance to state, county and city in the appropriate amounts. No exemptions, no deductions. Automatically the "rich" pay more because they still pay 15% of their gross income. The "poor" pay less because their income is less. Simple math, not Washington math.

Automatically the "rich" pay more because they still pay 15% of their gross income.
It's a good plan but I think that after years after dodging taxes through havens and loopholes the rich would revolt if those were gone. The money would invariably end up offshore more than it is now. It's tough to find a solution that satisfies everyone.

Hello again,

Wow. Jon Stewart is right. I didn't know you'd be so hurt by what Obama said.

excon

That is not the point. There was no substance to his speech beyond raw meat to the base. He started with the lie that the Budget was fine going into the Bush years ;blamed all the budget problems on tax cuts ,and proposed nothing else to fix the immediate or future budget issues.

Agree or disagree with the Ryan plan... it is still a serious proposal . Obama offered nothing in return .

Agree or disagree with the Ryan plan ....it is still a serious proposal . Obama offered nothing in return .Hello again, tom:

I'm not so sure... You'll remember during the health care debate, Obama asked for serious proposals from Republicans... They offered nothing in return except NO.

Ok, they finally did. Obama told them NO.

excon

Hello:

There's nothing inaccurate in what Obama said... People WILL be cut loose under the Republican plan - NOT because they're hated, but because they don't believe we can afford it.

Obama's plan believes we can.

That's as SPINLESS as I can make it.

excon

Where in the plan does it make seniors and parents of children with disabilities "fend for themselves?" It doesn't.

Not true . Again it was Ryan who put the Republican plan on the table. The Dems refused to consider any of it.

The Roadmap Plan | A Roadmap for America's Future | The Budget Committee Republicans (http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Plan/)

Hello again, tom:

I'm not so sure... You'll remember during the health care debate, Obama asked for serious proposals from Republicans... They offered nothing in return except NO.

Ok, they finally did. Obama told them NO.

Actually, what Obama told them from the beginning was, "I won." He has only talked to Republicans because he has to now.

Where in the plan does it make seniors and parents of children with disabilities "fend for themselves?" It doesn't.Hello again, Steve:

We've had these kind of la la conversations before... Of course, if DOESN'T say seniors will have to fend for themselves... But who is going to fend for them if the government won't? You've had this idea that we take care of everybody - PERIOD, END OF STORY, NO MATTER WHAT.

Of course, if I believed that, I'd be against Obama's health care plan, and I'd destroy Medicare too.. But it's not true. When you take away money for people to PAY their health care bills, and there's NOBODY there to step in, people go WITHOUT health care.

excon

See, you're arguing the same nonsense. It's NOT TRUE. Ryan's plan doesn't make granny fend for herself.

Complaints About Budget Plan Veer Off Path (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264207/complaints-about-budget-plan-veer-path-jonah-goldberg)

See, you're arguing the same nonsense. It's NOT TRUE. Ryan's plan doesn't make granny fend for herself.Hello again, Steve:

I don't know what happens to your addition when you consider right wing stuff... Ryan's plan is to save the government MONEY. It's saves it from SOMEWHERE. That means SOMEWHERE, SOMEHOW, SOMEONE'S medical bills ain't going to get paid... When you take away money from people to pay their health care bills, they don't get health care... There ain't no health care fairy. If you find one, have his brother, the Mercedes Benz fairy, give me a call.

Ryan SAYS what he says because he won't admit, like tom does, that Medicare will be DISMANTLED... So, I don't much CARE what he says.

excon

Ryan SAYS what he says because he won't admit, like tom does, that Medicare will be DISMANTLED..

#20 clearly I was speaking about social security . I was speaking of the Bush reform plan that the Dems would not consider.
Ryan likewise is proposing a reform . That means there is an alternate plan beyond "dismantle " or the word you used "crush" .

Whatever ;why argue semantics ?

Here is the Obama plan to save Medicare :

1. Tax increases for 2% of the population .

2. Military spending cuts even though the military has already absorbed close to $800 billion in cuts since Obama became President

3. Task the unaccountable Independent Payment Advisory Board to make cuts to Medicare.

Makes one wonder who is going to crush Medicare ,and which patients the President prefers to deny.

The Ryan plan allows for some patient choice. Obama's... not so much.

We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.Thomas Jefferson

What sort of speech did you expect from a world class Blowhard like Obama. The idiot still thinks after almost 2.5 years someone else is responsible for his own excessive spending in the last 2.5 years

Hip waders weren't enough to protect you from the crap spewing out of his mouth.

I suppose if he knocked up Michelle again he'd blame that on Bush too.

We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.Thomas Jefferson

Hi Tom.

I am not up on my American history but isn't Jefferson talking about paying taxes to England? You have your own parliament now.

Tut

Tut , this quote was stated in a broader reference of his philosophical differences with other founders who were more inclined to expand the national government through the establishment of a national bank(which was a very controversial issue in the 1st century of the U.S.). This is a quote from his letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816 ,many years after the Revolution and his own term as President.

Tut , this quote was stated in a broader reference of his philosophical differences with other founders who were more inclined to expand the national government through the establishment of a national bank(which was a very controversial issue in the 1st century of the U.S.). This is a quote from his letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816 ,many years after the Revolution and his own term as President.

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the clarification. As I said my knowledge of American history is rather poor.

Tut

Oddly enough, just a few days after DC approved online gambling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/internet-gambling-is-coming-to-dc/2011/04/13/AF62F4UD_blog.html), the DOJ and FBI shut down 3 major online gambling sites (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/156429-fbi-shuts-down-online-poker-sites). I guess they didn't like the competition.

Exit question, how much of DC's online gambling bill is set aside to treat gambling addictions?

the DOJ and FBI shut down 3 major online gambling sites (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/156429-fbi-shuts-down-online-poker-sites). I guess they didn't like the competition.
They shut the sites down because of illegal activity. From the link you provided:

Prosecutors claim the poker companies arranged for money received from U.S. gamblers to be disguised as payments to nonexistent online merchants selling bogus goods such as jewelry and golf balls.

They also claim one-third of the money processed went directly to the firms as part of the "rake" charged to players for every hand played online.

The indictment alleges the firms hired third parties to open accounts at financial institutions to help process payments using fake companies as fronts. Four individuals have been charged with helping disguise the payments.

PokerStars and FullTilt Poker allegedly persuaded a few small local banks facing financial difficulties to process some payments in exchange for multimillion-dollar investments in the banks. One bank named by prosecutors is SunFirst Bank in Saint George, Utah.
I imagine the DOJ and FBI would shut down any business doing the same thing, don't you think?

They also claim one-third of the money processed went directly to the firms as part of the "rake" charged to players for every hand played online.Hello again:

They shut the sites down because they have no way of taxing them and they compete with the government's OWN interests.

In terms of the rake, the bank charged processing fees. If the sites felt they needed to pay banks MORE than that to handle their transactions, then it's cost of doing business. Although, I DOUBT they did pay them, because they made PLENTY just processing the transactions... Were the fees exorbitant?? No.

Were they looking out for their own gambling interests?? Of course... You don't think law enforcement had anything to do with it, do you? Bwa, ha ha ha.

Excon

Oddly enough, just a few days after DC approved online gambling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/internet-gambling-is-coming-to-dc/2011/04/13/AF62F4UD_blog.html), the DOJ and FBI shut down 3 major online gambling sites (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/156429-fbi-shuts-down-online-poker-sites). I guess they didn't like the competition.

Exit question, how much of DC's online gambling bill is set aside to treat gambling addictions?

None... its going to likely go for welfare and free abortions on demand for welfare queens. That's the sort of mindset the DC people have.

Oddly enough, just a few days after DC approved online gambling (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/internet-gambling-is-coming-to-dc/2011/04/13/AF62F4UD_blog.html), the DOJ and FBI shut down 3 major online gambling sites (http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/156429-fbi-shuts-down-online-poker-sites). I guess they didn't like the competition.

Exit question, how much of DC's online gambling bill is set aside to treat gambling addictions?

Traditionally States have justified their number running as a means to prop up education financing. It is a charade and the proof is in the fact that no state can boost of increased student performance from the revenues.

This is interesting . While many states permit vice, and collect revenues from it, in the case of lottery, and now on-line gaming ,not only is the state or municipality legalizing it ;they will actively promote it (and if I judge from the frequency of lottery commercials in NY... aggressively) .

Steve ,they won't use a dime for gambling addiction awareness. It would serve their interest as much as a pusher promoting drug rehab.

Steve ,they won't use a dime for gambling addiction awareness. It would serve their interest as much as a pusher promoting drug rehab.

No, but like Texas I'm sure they'll offer "resources" so you can "play responsibly (http://www.txlottery.org/export/sites/default/Misc/Play_Responsibly.html)."

I keep waiting for Nobama to appoint a Casino Zcar. Likely a NY Italian with Mob ties... explaining to fagedaboutit... and compare Casinos to Firehall Bingo, and kicking up a "taste" to the DNC

Hello again,

The wonderful Paul Ryan had a town meeting yesterday... He got booed. See it here. (http://www.salon.com/news/paul_ryan_rwis/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2011/04/21/paul_ryan_booed_at_his_own_town_hall) Now, the left MAY have snuck in a couple of ringers, but the whole crowd??

Ryan was told, in no uncertain terms, by his OWN right wing constituents, to TAX THE RICH!

excon

How about taxing the 47% that pay NO income tax now...

Let THEM share a stake in this. They suck at the public tit... let them pay something to feed it.

I bet a good portion of the audience is some of those 47% of Americans who pay no taxes.

I bet a good portion of the audience is some of those 47% of Americans who pay no taxes.

... And think THEY are special and its someone else that has to suffer... as long as its not them.


They ALL think it's a great idea to get "free" stuff, and worse are ENTITLED to it... as long as someone else has to foot the bill.

But listen to them cry when THEY get handed the bill after feeding at the trough.

Hello again, tom:

So you think the whole room was filled with poor people - at a REPUBLICAN town hall - at PAUL RYANS town hall, where you couldn't help but notice there wasn't a winger in sight to shout down those lousy freeloaders??

Really?

excon

..............And think THEY are special and its someone else that has to suffer....as long as its not them.


THey ALL think its a great idea to get "free" stuff....as long as someone else has to foot the bill.

But listen to them cry when THEY get handed the bill after feeding at the trough. How do you know they people at that town hall don't pay any taxes? You realize they're republicans right?

How do you know they people at that town hall don't pay any taxes? You realize they're republicans right?

I bet many of them were democrats rounded up to cause trouble.

It's a standard practice they have been caught at more than once.

I bet many of them were democrats rounded up to cause trouble.

Its a standard practice they have been caught at more than once.Of course! Here's some interesting reading for you: Querulant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Querulous_paranoia)

Hello again, tom:

So you think the whole room was filled with poor people - at a REPUBLICAN town hall - at PAUL RYANS town hall, where you couldn't help but notice there wasn't a winger in sight to shout down those lousy freeloaders???

Really?

excon

Yeah I do ;the same way the Tea Party dominated the Democrat Town Hall meetings last year.

Hello again, wingers:

None are so blind as those who will not see. If that video didn't penetrate, nothing will

excon

Of course! Here's some interesting reading for you: Querulant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Querulous_paranoia)

First I've heard that term... That describes most of the Democratic base... and most of the Blacks in DC very well.

Yeah... like all the Obama press conferences where they stuffed the room with his whoreshippers and excluded anyone who would ask a real question.

And how they give him a free pass on things for the last 2.5 years they would not give a republican a pass on.

They Bellyached like little girls about a 180 billion dollar Bush deficit after 8 years... and work to justify a 5 TRILLION dollar Obama deficit after only 2.

And worse... after 2.5 years in office... Obama STILL isn't held responsible for anything he has done yet... Obama and the Democrats still Believe Bush is calling all the shots from Texas.

Yeah....like all the Obama press conferences where they stuffed the room with his whoreshippers and excluded anyone who would ask a real question.So they room is full of whores? Both the women AND the men?

So they room is full of whores? Both the women AND the men? Your words... whores do it to be paid... Democrats want something and expect someone else to pay for it... thus... its whorshiping the false Messiah.

Your words......whores do it to be paid.....Democrats want something and expect someone else to pay for it....thus...its whorshiping the false Messiah.
Actually yours:

Yeah....like all the Obama press conferences where they stuffed the room with his whoreshippers and excluded anyone who would ask a real question.

Hello again:

The bottom line is the Ryan plan is DOA.

I'm not going to post any polls here, but you DID see the one I posted about 70% of the Tea Party being AGAINST ANY cuts to Medicare. Now this town hall where Ryan gets booed by Republicans, and they're telling him TAX THE RICH...

Did I say, DOA??

excon

You called them Whores... I called then Whoreshippers.

Whores at least earn what they get... Democrats just want it handed to them and DEMAND someone ELSE pay for it. Whoreshippers follow someone as long as they are getting something they aren't being required to pay for. Sort of like welfare queens.