SOME SMART PEOPLE ARE TELLING ME IF BUSH GETS RE-ELECTED OFF-SHORE BOOKS ARE DONE. TRUE OR FALSE?

[barman]

If it had anything to do with lost tax revenue, the feds would legalize sports betting within the entire U.S.

We will never lose offshore gambling since there is presently no way for the government to legally prevent citizens from contacting the offhsores...whether by Internet, mail, or phone.

Additionally, Washington D.C. appears to be run by the 535 members of Congress, but the driving force behind those 535 are the tens of thousands of close staffers and support structure. And far too many of those people routinely use offshore sportsbooks for their own gambling. This group will always serve to undermine and effectively prevent the Congress from ever enacting actual Prohibition laws.

What you WILL see routinely for the next oh, MANY DECADES is a handful of anti-gambling type legislators who will make it a big vocal issue. Complete with stern lectures about the sins of gambling and how it damages Americans.

They will be given a modicum of reception from the press and other legislators, but nothing substansial will ever make it out of committee.

 

[RPM]

weekendalki,

are these smart people democrats?

 

[TheMDKid]

Jazz,

At the risk of getting this thread moved over to the Politics/Government Forum, I thought I'd chime in with my thoughts on your writings here. After reading all your political positions in the preceeding posts, and finding myself in almost total agreement with you, I was quite surprised to here you say that you were considering voting for Ralph Nader. Trust me on this one, Mr. Nader will NOT reduce government involvement in your life. You can take that to the bank.

Here's a better option. Check out these guys instead link. The LP is the ONLY political party to include the following PRO-gambling statement in their platform "we advocate the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting gambling".

If you're looking for an option from one of the 2 major parties, check out this guy link2. Mr. Paul and Rep. Barney Frank are the only 2 congressman that I know of that have come out publicly in favor of a person's right to gamble. Mr. Paul is the vastly better choice of the two, however, if you're major concern is loss of liberties in general or if you're biggest concern is taxes. Mr. Paul has been voted Taxpayers Best Friend by the National Taxpayers Union EVERY year he has been in Congress. Although Mr. Paul is not at the present time a candidate for any national office, he has in a number of recent speeches, alluded to the fact that he is not ruling it out.

One other note - my governor, Robert Ehrlich, became the first Republican governor of MD since Spiro Agnew by campaigning with his top issue being installing slot machines at racetracks. And he defeated one of the Kennedy
Dynasty to do it! This is a very promising development IMO, because it shows that being pro-gambling can be a positive position for a congressman to take. And we all know how our "leaders" like to hold a wet finger up in the wind.

 

[TheMDKid]

Originally posted by SportsSavant...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>why is it that u americans think that you can control the world? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Trust me, SS, we AMERICANS don't. Most Americans don't give a sh.. about the rest of the world. I bet 65% of Americans couldn't find Iraq on a world map, let alone care about what is going on there. Heck, I bet at least 30% couldn't find CANADA!

The problem is our CONGRESSMEN and the well funded MINORITY that get them elected and re-elected year after year. THESE are the guys that think we can and should control the world! The vast (and growing) MAJORITY of Americans, on the other hand, have grown completely discusted in the political process and no longer ever bother to vote. Perhaps if more Americans were to learn of options to our 2 main parties, like the one I mentioned in the above post, things could change.

 

[SINGURU]

I HOPE NOT!!!

 

[Jazz]

MD: My comment about Nader was intended as a joke - heck, he probably won't make it on the ballots anyway!

And looky here, a timely news item on SS benefits ... yet another reason I saved my pennies (becauee I thought/think my projected benefits would be cut once the Ponzi scheme, er, social program began collapsing due to the low birth rate relative to the Baby Boomer's era)

Greenspan Urges Social Security Cuts

Wed, Feb 25, 2004

In testimony before the House Budget Committee, Greenspan said the current deficit situation, with a projected record red ink of $521 billion this year, will worsen dramatically once the baby boom generation starts becoming eligible for Social Security benefits in just four years.

He said the prospect of the retirement of 77 million baby boomers will radically change the mix of people working and paying into the Social Security retirement fund and those drawing benefits from the fund.

(like they didn't fuc-king know this for 10 years or more!!!)

"This dramatic demographic change is certain to place enormous demands on our nation's resources — demands we will almost surely be unable to meet unless action is taken," Greenspan said. "For a variety of reasons, that action is better taken as soon as possible."

President Bush (news - web sites) said he had not seen Greenspan's comments, nor spoken to him, and declined to respond directly to a reporter's question about them.

Bush said that "my position on Social Security benefits is, those benefits should not be changed for people at or near retirement."

He renewed his call for personal savings accounts for younger workers that he said "would make sure those younger workers receive benefits equal to or greater than that which is expected." And Bush repeated his promise to cut the deficit in half over five years.

While Greenspan urged urgency, Congress is unlikely to take up the controversial issue of cutting Social Security benefits in an election year.

Greenspan, who turns 78 next week, said that the benefits now received by current retirees should not be touched but he suggested trimming benefits for future retirees and doing it soon enough so that they could begin making adjustments to their own finances to better prepare for retirement.

Greenspan did not rule out using tax increases to deal with the looming crisis in Social Security, but he said that tax hikes should only be considered after every effort had been made to trim benefits.

"I am just basically saying that we are overcommitted at this stage," Greenspan said in response to committee questions. "It is important that we tell people who are about to retire what it is they will have." He warned that the government should not "promise more than we are able to deliver."

While the country is currently enjoying the lowest interest rates in more than four-decades, Greenspan warned that this situation will not last forever. He said financial markets will begin pushing long-term interest rates higher if investors do not see progress being made in dealing with the projected huge deficits that will occur once the baby boomers begin retiring.

"We are going to be confronted ... in a few years with an upward ratcheting of long-term interest rates which will be very debilitating for long-term growth," Greenspan told the committee if the deficit problem is not addressed.

Greenspan suggested two ways that benefits could be trimmed. He said that the annual cost-of-living adjustments for those receiving benefits could be made using a new version of the Consumer Price Index (news - web sites) called the chain-weighted index, which gives lower readings on inflation.

He also said that the age for retirement should be indexed in some way to take into account longer lifespans. He noted that presently the age for being able to get full Social Security benefits is rising from 65 to 67 as one of the changes Congress adopted in the mid-1980s, based on recommendations of a commission Greenspan chaired. In his testimony, Greenspan said Congress should go further and index the retirement age so that it will keep rising.(that's what you get - I'll probably be 75 before I'll qualify once they do this

As he has in the past, Greenspan called on Congress to reinstitute rules that require any future tax cuts to be paid for either by spending cuts or increases in other taxes.

While that would erect a high hurdle to Bush's call for making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, estimated to cost at least $1 trillion over a decade, Greenspan again repeated his belief that spending cuts rather than tax increases were the best way to deal with the exploding deficit.

While not ruling out totally the use of tax increases to deal with at least part of the looming surge in spending on Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, Greenspan urged caution in increasing taxes.

"Tax rate increases of sufficient dimension to deal with our looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to economic growth and the revenue base," Greenspan said. "The exact magnitude of such risks is very difficult to estimate, but they are of enough concern, in my judgment, to warrant aiming to close the fiscal gap primarily, if not wholly, from the outlay side."

 

[TheMDKid]

Personally, I could care less about SS, to be totally honest. I think you are optimistic if you think you'll see anything at age 75. I have never thought from day 1 that I would EVER see any benefits. Anyone with half a brain can see that all Social Security is is a Giant National Pyramid Letter passed down by our grandfathers to us poor suckers on the bottom. Only difference is we didn't have any choice on whether to add our names at the bottom. The letters came with our names already filled in.

I have been dutifully socking money away for over 20 years to provide for my OWN retirement. Because of my foresight I won't need any of this ill-gotten booty when I finally lay down the shovel.

But my foresight didn't stop there. In an attempt to help others taken in by the government charlatans, I selflessly offered to do my part in helping to head off the day of reckoning for these unsuspecting Social Security recipients, by sending the following proposal to my US Congressman: "Please accept as my donation to the Social Security Trust Fund every penny I have ever paid into SS for the past 27 years and cancel any future benefits due me. In exchange, all I ask is that I should never have to pay into it another penny." Strangely, never did hear back from him. Kinda had me baffled, because you would think the Government, as desperate as they are for any revenues, would jump all over my offer. That is, unless Social Security truly IS a Ponzi Scheme.

 

[WildBill]

I guarantee at some point SS will go to a modified need-based system. If it comes down to denying benefits to poor seniors or being fair and paying out benefits as accrued it will be a political loser. All it will take is some politicians to show how people with $5 million nest eggs are getting a maximum check while people who have nothing are getting a tiny check. Putting your feelings about what people earned and deserved and whatever, politicians will find this to be an extremely easy justification for doing it, they will say retired millionaires don't depend on a monthly check, those that can't even afford rent do.

That is quite simply political reality. With the levels of retirement savings that people are keeping now and the fact that a maximum SS check won't mean much to most of these people, I suspect the backlash won't be bad. The key for politicians will be to do it as it comes up. If they take something that is already being sent out, that won't fly. If they do it to future retirees then it probably will get by.

 

[TheMDKid]

Sadly, Wild Bill, I suspect you are exactly right. While most of the world has struggled recently to take baby steps towards freedom, the USA accelerates it's rapid decent into communism. And not just your standard garden variety communism, mind you ... we're talking USA brand communism - mixed in with a refreshing dose of fascism to keep it exciting. Anyone wishing to dispute this needs only to recall the old communist manifesto - To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability to pay.

 

[WEEKENDALKI]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The MD Kid:
Sadly, Wild Bill, I suspect you are exactly right. While most of the world has struggled recently to take baby steps towards freedom, the USA accelerates it's rapid decent into communism. And not just your standard garden variety communism, mind you ... we're talking USA brand communism - mixed in with a refreshing dose of fascism to keep it exciting. Anyone wishing to dispute this needs only to recall the old communist manifesto - To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability to pay.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
VERY GOOD POST.

 

[Jazz]

Communism? Yeah, looks like we're taking the gradualistic route with a first stop towards socialism ... here's yet another yardmarker on that march ... sickening

Government Gets Fat Fighting Obesity

Thursday, February 26, 2004
By Radley Balko

Last December, ABC News’ Peter Jennings hosted a prime-time special entitled “How to Get Fat Without Really Trying.” As you might glean from the title, Jennings intoned ad nauseum that America’s obesity problem lies not with obese Americans, but with food manufacturers and marketers, and with an aloof federal government.

“… There is no sign that government will obligate the food industry to change how they make and market food,” Jennings lamented. He closed the show with a plea: “As we made this program, we often thought about how long it took before government recognized that smoking was a public health issue. And now, it’s obesity. Just think of the money it is costing the country. So how long will it take government to act?”

The answer, unfortunately, is not long. President Bush earmarked $200 million in his budget for obesity-fighting programs (search). State governments, local governments and school boards across the country have banned vending machines and soda from public school campuses. Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown has floated the idea of a “fat tax” (search), as have several prominent names in the now-thriving anti-obesity activism industry. Congress is currently considering a bill that would force restaurants to print nutritional information on menus, a costly measure that would also pave the way for lawsuits.

And speaking of lawsuits, we all know by now what’s going on there, too. The trial lawyers are sharpening their knives for McDonalds, Frito-Lay, and Hershey.

The war against obesity is the logical conclusion of our wars against certain drugs and, later, tobacco. The most personal of daily decisions — what we put into our bodies — is now a matter of “public health.”

This is a dangerous development. Because at the same time politicians and the media are waging war against obesity in the name of public health, government is moving to take Americans’ ownership of their own health and well-being away from them, designating it public property. That is, our health care system is creeping toward socialism, and the just-signed prescription drug benefit (search) is merely the latest (and most ominous) example.

For example, government on all levels has also been gradually restricting health insurers’ ability to charge overweight people higher premiums. This means the guy who works out five times a week and watches his diet is increasingly being asked to pay the same amount of money for health insurance as the guy who loafs on the couch and dines on bacon sandwiches.

At a recent public health conference, nutrition activist Margo Wootan said, “we’ve got to move beyond ‘personal responsibility.’” Activist Skip Spitzer said responsibility was little more than “a cultural construct.” The largest organization of trial lawyers recently advised its members to weed out jurors who show a “personal responsibility bias.”

The title of Jennings’ special, “How to Get Fat Without Really Trying,” (search) is revealing. The aim of Jennings and these lifestyle activists is to shift responsibility for individual health away from individual Americans, and onto the American public as a whole. Once that happens, the case for massive government intervention in what, when, where and how we eat falls on a more receptive audience.

If I’m paying for my neighbor’s high cholesterol, I’m more open to the idea that perhaps government ought to start regulating what he eats. If we’re all paying for one another’s trips to the doctor, we’re all more likely to support government regulation of what McDonalds can and can’t put on its menu, what Safeway or Kroger ought to stock on their shelves, and maybe it’s not such a bad idea to ban Kraft and Nabisco from advertising cookies and corn chips — especially to kids.

Conversely, if I know my health is my own responsibility, and that my medical bills will be coming out of my own savings account, I’m a little more likely to take care of myself.

Personal responsibility goes hand in hand with personal freedom. We can’t regulate away responsibility without regulating away consumer and personal choice. Worse, countries that have attempted the social engineering efforts now advocated by Jennings and his ilk (Sweden, for example) have seen poor returns, leaving the citizens of those countries both overweight and less free.

The only solution is for Americans to demand ownership of and responsibility for their own health and fitness. Health and medical savings accounts are a good first step. Protecting the ability of health insurers to charge lower premiums for good personal habits would help, too. But most importantly, we need to return personal responsibility to the policy-making process. What each individual American puts into his or her body ought to be the sole concern and responsibility of each individual American—not nutrition activists, not state or federal agencies, and certainly not Peter Jennings.

Radley Balko is a freelance writer and publishes a Weblog at TheAgitator.com.

 

[TheMDKid]

Very depressing. Damn. No more bad news, please! First my Nets lose, then SIA boots me, now this! I can't take it anymore! Good Bye cruel world!

 

[Jazz]

MD, you're a sick bastard bringing up SIA ...

... I got booted over a year ago and still have nightmares about losing that out

 

[TheMDKid]

Sorry Jazz, I just had to vent. I thought I had stayed under their radar, but they finally nabbed me. I probably made between 17 to 20k there. The really depressing part is that I was using them in an attempt to middle out of Panam. It was going well, too, as my balance at Panam had dropped almost $1500. Problem is I still got $2300 to go. Crap. I need another square out.