‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ potentially very bad for poker (players) in the US + STAY ON TOPIC!!
This makes Black Friday look like a children’s birthday party.
There’s no chance this passes right? It would
If you can look through the provisions of this bill and think "both parties are exactly the same" you are already too far gone
Ofc both ends of the party aren't exactly the same. They are inverse aspects of the same system(political). They are only designed to expose the extremes/leaks of the other party but in doing so expose the extremes/leaks of their own party. Finding a balance between the 2 parties is the "GTO play". Which doesn't mean the extremes can't be used/explored occasionally, however living n the extremes 24/7/365 isn't going to work.
The same way in a poker system we have value bets and we have bluffs. You wouldn't play poker using only 1 extreme of the system of poker and expect to be a winning/good player would you? There's nothing wrong with bluffing as long as you're not only bluffing. It's important to use both aspects of the system despite the fact that a value bet and a bluff are inverse to one another, they are also related and complementary to one another in the system of poker as a whole and within the range of a good players game
Being tied only to the ideology of 1 political party as being corrects is like saying....it's only correct to value bet or it's only correct to bluff
Mod note: We obviously can't discuss this topic without politics. The subject is to important not to discuss it in NVG though.
Therefore, the "no politics" rule doesn't apply here. The "no personal attacks" policy is in place though. That means the next person who calls another poster b***, idiot or something along those lines will finish watching this conversation from the sidelines.
Fyi, it was a Democrat who shoved this into the bill at the last second with intentions to sabotage Republicans...and yes I have definitive sources. It was a demonrat Senate Parliamentarian (a lawyer), Elizabeth MacDonough invoking the Byrd rule. She was appointed by Harry Reid. Congress asked for 99% in deductions and she only agreed to 90%. She hates Trump fwiw. And just play
Seeing how the Parliamentarian is an advisory position and can’t add amendments to a bill, we can all conclude that this is, at best, fake news. And at worst a flat out lie.
Every government is at time of max exploit greed with taxes because whole fiat system which is tied to the usd is so outrageously inflated because governments with banks wanted to print lots of money to themselves. Matters very little if president is person X or Y democrat president had launched same bill with a different name. Historically this pattern follows a large scale war as the next event.
Hey yogurt for brains, I already said she DIDN'T amend the bill. Google her name and position and find out how much power she has over this bill. You just say "fake news" because you're mad you can't blame Trump somehow on this. .
Nice try. This is what you originally claimed.
Fyi, it was a Democrat who shoved this into the bill at the last second with intentions to sabotage Republicans...and yes I have definitive sources. It was a demonrat Senate Parliamentarian (a lawyer), Elizabeth MacDonough invoking the Byrd rule.
The parliamentarian can’t “shove” anything into a bill AS YOU CLAIMED. They are an advisor, not an elected representative. “Invoking the Byrd rule” only evaluates proposed amendments within a bill to determine if the bill can be passed with a simple majority or can be subjected to a Senate filibuster because budget reconciliation has restrictions on what qualifies.
It’s pretty profound you are not only continuing to double down on something several people have pointed out is totally false but also your lack of knowledge on how legislative procedures work. You should just take the L here, educate yourself, and maybe come back another day when you are a bit more informed.
She flagged the extension and said NO to the extension of current tax rules regarding gambling. The tried to negotiate and asked for 99% and she again said NO and only agreed with 90%. So apparently she held the power to do this. A change was introduced to the TCJA that temp removed the limitations that losses could not exceed 2% of AGI set to expire at end of 2025. It's over m
This is a complete mischaracterization of what the Senate Parliamentarian did and does. Amendments are proposed, and then the Senate Parliamentarian calls balls or strikes in response to Byrd rule challenges on whether an amendment can be properly included as part of a reconciliation bill. The Senate Parliamentarian has no role in deciding whether a particular amendment is a good idea or not. And the Senate Parliamentarian has no role in recrafting amendments. Yes, proposed amendments can be changed to try and address whatever concerns the Parliamentarian has, but that is as far as it goes.
It is absolutely ridiculous to blame the Parliamentarian for a provision in a reconciliation bill that was supported by all but a few Republicans.
Seeing how the Parliamentarian is an advisory position and can’t add amendments to a bill, we can all conclude that this is, at best, fake news. And at worst a flat out lie.
The Senate Parliamentarian isn't an advisory position. The Parliamentarian does indeed decide whether a particular amendment can be included as part of a reconciliation bill. But the Senate Parliamentarian has absolutely no authority to cause something to be included in a reconciliation bill. If Republicans didn't want this amendment in the bill, then all they had to do was not include it in the bill. The only thing the Parliamentarian did in this particular instance was say, "yes, GOP, I will allow you to do what you are trying to do." And for that reason, casting this amendment as a decision in favor of Democrats by a partisan hack is absurd.
My bad lemme rephrase
Both parties are outright evil
Carry on
The Senate Parliamentarian isn't an advisory position. The Parliamentarian does indeed decide whether a particular amendment can be included as part of a reconciliation bill. But the Senate Parliamentarian has absolutely no authority to cause something to be included in a reconciliation bill. If Republicans didn't want this amendment in the bill, then all they had to do was
How on Earth is it not an advisory position? She literally gives advice and has no actual authority to prevent the Senate from passing a bill that goes against her recommendations. It’s as advisory as it gets.
As the presiding officer of the Senate may not be, and usually is not, aware of the parliamentary situation currently facing the Senate, a parliamentary staff sits second from the left on the Senate dais to advise the presiding officer on how to respond to inquiries and motions from senators (including "the Sergeant at Arms will restore order in the gallery"). The role of the parliamentary staff is advisory, and the presiding officer of the Senate may overrule the advice of the parliamentarian.
The parliamentarian and their staff provide nonpartisan advice to the presiding officer, chamber and committee leaders, individual senators, and staff about Senate rules, precedents, and statutes as they pertain to Senate proceedings.
The parliamentarian’s most important role is to provide procedural advice to the presiding officer during floor proceedings.
It is important to remember that the scripts and verbal advice provided to senators by the parliamentarian are merely advice, not rulings.
honestly...why not?
The topic is this particular provision of the bill and:
1) What is the impact if this passes to gamblers
2) If you want to oppose it, what should you do
I don't think it matters at all what party you support or what your political leaning is. Why this party supports it or that party opposes it or what their motivations are for doing so or what they've supported or not supported in the past is completely irrelvant.
Anyways, I invite everyone to come to Politics & Society and let your freak flags fly. As Rococo mentioned earlier, the moderation is quite a bit more lax currently than moderation has been historically
You can tell that the big beautiful bill is beautiful because none of the provisions in the bill will go into effect until after the 2026 midterms, so that Republicans can tell their constituents, "See? You haven't lost your healthcare, the Democrats were lying, vote for us again!"
Bloomberg: Gamblers Raise Alarm Over $1.1 Billion Tax Hike in Trump’s Bill
Gamblers are raising the alarm about a $1.1 billion tax hike buried in the Senate GOP’s tax bill that would slash their net winnings and potentially charge income tax when they break even or lose money.
In the Senate’s roughly 900-page version of President Donald Trump’s multitrillion-dollar tax bill, gamblers would only be able to deduct 90% of their losses when calculating their net income. Under current law, a bettor can deduct the entirety of their losses, up until the amount of their gambling winnings.
“I’ve spoken to many clients and they’re very concerned,” Zachary Zimbile, an accountant with experience in gambling regulations, said in an interview. “If you add a 10% penalty, it’s going to eat into a lot of their profit.”
Professional gamblers recently took to social media to rail against the measure, which would take effect next year, and urged Republicans to change it. Congressional scorekeepers have calculated it will net the government $1.1 billion through 2034.
Representative Dina Titus, a Democrat who represents the Las Vegas area, said she is seeking a fix.
How on Earth is it not an advisory position? She literally gives advice and has no actual authority to prevent the Senate from passing a bill that goes against her recommendations. It’s as advisory as it gets.
One of the unique features of a reconciliation bill is that it can be passed by a simple majority in both houses. In other words, unlike other bills, a reconciliation bill isn't subject to a filibuster (or the requirement of 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation over a filibuster). Yes, the Senate can overcome the Parliamentarian's "recommendation" on a Byrd rule challenge. But they need 60 votes to do so--i.e., the same number of votes they would need to overcome the filibuster. And the presiding officer of the Senate (i.e., the VP) can reject the recommendation, but that hasn't been done in nearly five decades.
Thus, the decisions of the Parliamentarian have real practical consequences.
But plumbing the nuances of the power of the Senate Parliamentarian is beside the point. The Senate Parliamentarian indisputably is not responsible for this amendment being in the bill. That's 100% on the 50 Republicans who supported the bill.
One of the unique features of a reconciliation bill is that it can be passed by a simple majority in both houses. In other words, unlike other bills, a reconciliation bill isn't subject to a filibuster (or the requirement of 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation over a filibuster). Yes, the Senate can overcome the Parliamentarian's "recommendation" on a Byrd rule challen
Ok but what does that have to do with whether the Parliamentarian is an advisory position? It’s the very definition of an advisory position. They have no power to enforce what they rule and no means to punish. They offer their expertise to the Senate leadership but there is no actual mechanism the Parliamentarian can use to force the Senate to abide by it.
But plumbing the nuances of the power of the Senate Parliamentarian is beside the point. The Senate Parliamentarian indisputably is not responsible for this amendment being in the bill. That's 100% on the 50 Republicans who supported the bill.
Pretty much. I’m just humored some troll tried to blame Democrats for a bill that was crafted by Republicans in the House and Senate with overwhelming Republican support. Which probably tells you just how unpopular this bill will end up being. Especially since he has no idea what the role of the Parliamentarian is and tried to pretend she “shoved” this amendment into the bill which is just embarrassing.
The Senate parliamentarian can actually be overruled by a simple majority vote of the Senate. It’s just that this would be a major breach of Senate protocol and no one has been willing to go this far yet.
But regardless, I have seen absolutely no evidence that the parliamentarian had any role in this part of the legislation, and I can’t really comprehend how she could have had the influence that BGnight is ascribing to her given what her actual job is.
FWIW, I am a professor of American legislative politics. I have teach courses on and have published research on the US Congress. Several people in the thread don’t understand what they are claiming.
The Senate parliamentarian can actually be overruled by a simple majority vote of the Senate. It’s just that this would be a major breach of Senate protocol and no one has been willing to go this far yet.But regardless, I have seen absolutely no evidence that the parliamentarian had any role in this part of the legislation, and I can’t really comprehend how she coul
That is technically correct. I stand corrected.
We all agree that the Senate Parliamentarian isn't responsible for this being in the bill.
well according to twitter some senator from Idaho named Crapo (yes thats his name) is the reason for the language. One of American's fine Mormon senators who is also a convicted drunk driver. cool!
dems may not be exactly pro poker or pro gambling, but now both the UIGEA and this poison tax policy have been put forth by religious republicans.
I can see how a lot of players who were formally pros using poker for 100% of income will now need regular jobs and maybe play on the side. It's a lot easier to cheat on your taxes that way.
It's not real to me until SrslySrs makes a song about it.
