Slashdot Mirror

See my previous post regarding the U.S. Debt. Clinton didn't balance anything and increased the debt almost as much as Reagan without any impressive accomplishments such as ending the cold war.

Cut military spending

I'd rather cut entitlements which haven't done much to improve the situation for the poor in this country despite having transferred trillions of dollars to them.

International relation skills (many Germans still love Clinton, same can't be said about Bush (1 or 2)...)

International relation skills isn't just about being liked or loved, especially by anyone other than your citizens.

Clinton didn't take any decisive action internationally. He just left us with a big mess to clean up. He brushed aside North Korea that now has to be dealt with. He didn't invade Iraq in 1998 when there was more world support for that action and it was completely justified. He didn't adequately deal with Bin Laden. You think 9/11 was a result of Bush being in office for 8 months?

He's probably liked because he didn't do anything to piss anyone off. Which is pretty easy when you don't do anything.

We absolutely don't need a giant military for those purposes.

The fact that we don't need a giant military to crush Iraq or Afghanistan does not mean we don't need a giant military. The biggest benefit of our large and powerful military isn't the wars we've won, but the wars that haven't had to have been fought because most countries don't feel like rolling their dice against our military.

I don't think the US has ever had a president that was so unpopular with the rest of the world

Again, I could care less. Yes, it's nice when we have world approval. But do you have any doubt that Saddam would have liked WMDs? We know he *had* them. He used them on his own people and that's documented fact that nobody denies. If it turns out he didn't have them or destroyed them before the war that's not because he had a change of heart. It's because the world, backed up with overwhelming military might, demanded it. Given the chance he would have reacquired or redeveloped those weapons. And then, 50 years from now, Bush would be blamed for not dealing with Iraq before the "San Francisco Bay" chemical attack (i.e. Pearl Harbor) and they'd accuse Bush of having allowed the attack to give him a justification to take the middle east.

Come on, he can't win.

That would be either NASA or the American Science Foundation NOT the military.

I agree that those would be better places to spend the money for R&D purposes. Unfortunately, politicians don't spend much there. What I was saying is that the military defense budget is where a heck of a lot of this country's R&D takes place so while you can complain about it being "useless defense spending" you also need to consider the R&D aspect of the benefits.

Take a look at the Constitution. The government should not have a standing army for more than X years (5 I think it was),

Can you tell me where that is in the Constitution? I can't find it.

Tax cuts are always a good idea, unless you have mega-inflation in which case you can try to take additional money out of circulation if the Fed is unable to do enough by adjusting interest rates. But otherwise, tax cuts will stimulate a sluggish economy and boost a good economy further.

You can't hurt the economy by letting people keep their money.

And while I'm not a great fan of Clinton I'm pretty sure that the budget he signed lowered overall spending. (Thus managing to have a balanced budget for the 1st time in years.)

That's an urban legend started by the Clinton administration and never challenged by the press. Check out the last 50 years of the U.S. debt. The last year I see where the debt went down was in 1960 (Correct me if I missed some more recent year).

The debt didn't go down under Clinton. It went up $1.610 trillion. Considering it went up by $1.672 trillion under Reagan it's amazing that Democrats chastise Reagan for so much "deficit spending." Reagan spent just $62 billion more than Clinton while lowering taxes and winning the cold war and receiving the country in the middle of a recession. What did Clinton accomplish with his $1.6 trillion other than raising taxes after receiving the country with a growing economy?

Secondly, I agree that you cannot buy a gun through a dealer without a background check, but I do not believe a similar law has been passed for gun shows (though I've heard of several bills being debated in both state and federal legislatures). Correct me if I'm wrong (and provide links, please).

The laws regarding private sale vary from state to state. For instance, in my home state of NC, a private citizen can sell a longgun to another private citizen without the exchange of a purchase permit (the acquisition of which requires a background check). However, the sale of a handgun between any parties does require that the buyer present a purchase permit. This is regardless of where the sale takes place.

Meanwhile, across the state line in SC, a private citizen can sell either a longgun or a handgun to another private citizen without requiring the purchaser to present a permit.

Of course, there are limits to such an exchange that are more or less uniform. For instance, the person receiving the firearm must be qualified to purchase that firearm (ie, 18+ for a longgun, 21+ for a handgun, no felony convictions, no history of mental illness, etc). The seller is not required to conduct a background check on the buyer, but knowingly providing a firearm to someone who is not legally entitled to possess a firearm is a felony in itself. It's also a felony to provide a firearm to someone if you have knowledge that they will commit a crime with it.

As for the links, you can find information regarding federal firearms laws by visiting either the NRA Institute website or the ATF's online firearms info page. For information regarding your state's firearms laws, most have that information on the state's website or on the website of the Public Health and Safety Board for your state. If in doubt, Google.

Assume that everyone has a gun in their house with a trained operator. What do the criminals do now? Do they give up their life of crime, turn towards crimes with less possibility of injury (shop-lifting, B&E unguarded stores, scams, etc.), or do they start an arms race? What do they do when there are no more easy targets?

Criminals are looking for easy money. They aren't interested in a profession where they will be shot at on every job, and as I explained before, robbery is a crime that relies on stealth and speed. Get in, take what you want, and then get out. The fewer people that notice, the better chance you have to get away. A criminal will not go to a home, engage in a firefight with the occupants, then engage in another firefight with the police and possibly the neighbors, in order to escape with a thousand dollars worth of portable merchandise. It just isn't worth the risk. Your "arms race" proposal just isn't realistic.

Do you know what the fastest growing crime in the U.S. is? IDENTITY THEFT. Why? Because it's easy to do, there is very little risk of getting caught, and it is very profitable. Why shoot it out with an armed homeowner for some jewelry or electronics, when you can steal that homeowner's identity and rack up $50,000 in credit card debt without ever coming in physical contact with that person? So that is exactly what criminals would do if everyone was armed: give up B&E and switch to the easier, more profitable crimes.

And there will always be easy targets, whether it's the unarmed woman who strolls alone through a parking lot at 2am, or the armed ex-marine who throws away those junk mail credit card applications without shredding them first.

I would love to have some more windmills in the area. It's not the best place for it though. The energy generated would not cover the cost of the windmill. I shopped around and talked to people that had/have them. They're only good in areas with lots of sustained winds.

We could also use another few nuclear (nuculer? ;) ) power plants. Radioactivity should scare people about as much as dirty water. As long as it's not clogging your lungs or all over your house, you're probably OK.

NIMBYs are going to have pioneer other planets if they want a perpetual pristine view. Earth isn't getting bigger AFAIK.

Go FTC I say - and you all are forwarding your spam to "uce@ftc.gov" and 419s to "419.fcd@usss.treas.gov", yes?

$48 trillion in the hole? Try $6.57 trillion. That breaks down to $3,813,339,673,423.83 in public debt, and $2,765,187,280,398.68 in intragovernmental holdings. Maybe you just forgot a decimal point.

Pictures

The President on the $2 bill is Thomas Jefferson.

Unfortunately, I can't see the Treasury Department putting some sort of Braille marker or other deliniating factor into future money production.
Definately not likely.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm Or for the cut and paste impaired:

Lose Money Quickly!

And yes, every single bloody year it goes up. EVERY YEAR!!!!!

Nah... Democrats tend to spend more and more and ask for more taxes to do it. Republicans tend to reduce taxes in the hopes that that will FORCE a reduction in spending.

Of course, reality is otherwise--and a recession, war, and terrorist attacks are what caused the current deficit, not the fact that we have a Republican president.

I assume you don't actually believe the economy would still be humming along, the Twin Towers would still be standing, and there'd be a surplus if Gore had been elected?

BTW--There was no budget surplus under the Clinton administration, that's essentially an urban ledgend the media let him get away with.

Just when does this become illegal or a threat to the public

If you have all the parts that you need to make a cruise missile, it is a destructive device under federal law and you're looking at 10 years in prison without the proper licenses. A destructive device is, among other things, "any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas. . .rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (E) mine, or (F) similar device" or any part or combination of parts from which a destructive device can be assembled. 28 U.S.C. 5845(f). To manufacture a destructive device in the U.S. you have to apply to the ATF for a manufacturer's license, which is $3,000 every three years and you have to register each destructive device and its components.

Of course, you can still put the info on the web...

Just when does this become illegal or a threat to the public

If you have all the parts that you need to make a cruise missile, it is a destructive device under federal law and you're looking at 10 years in prison without the proper licenses. A destructive device is, among other things, "any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas. . .rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (E) mine, or (F) similar device" or any part or combination of parts from which a destructive device can be assembled. 28 U.S.C. 5845(f). To manufacture a destructive device in the U.S. you have to apply to the ATF for a manufacturer's license, which is $3,000 every three years and you have to register each destructive device and its components.

Of course, you can still put the info on the web...

You're comparing apples and oranges.. The only thing historic about our unemployment rate is the record amount of government statistical fudging.

Here are a few tidbits.. Start with the U6 rate.. 10.4 % or about 15 Million under/unemployed workers.

Tack on a few other factors..
Like of the 9 Million DOL's has labeled as "Self Employed" workers, but only 1 in 5 are paying enough individual estimated taxes to cover Self employment taxes(15.3%) for a full time minimum wage (2000hr x5.15/hr *.9285 *.153).
Note: This assumes the other 4 out of 5 make zero income and I'm not even accounting for fed income taxes.
Note: Fed's inflict heavy penalties for underpayment of estimated taxes..
Net result, shift 7 million of the 9 million to the under/unemployed category.

"Disability rolls rise, skew labor data "
That's good enough to add 3 another million to the unemployed/uncounted catagory.

Add in the FACT that the DOL changed(1994) the household survey data collection method(page 180) and resulting in the doubling of the non-parcipation rate, from Five (5) to Ten (10) Percent(*2)(Page181) . The DOL accomplished this feat by substituting a scientifically sound MAIL IN form, with scientifically discredited IN PERSON interviews. Just imagine those newly intimidated 5% additional non responding households had at least one(1) unemployed worker. Tack on another 5 Million to the unemployed roles.

Estimates indicate that at least 2 million homeless people are roaming the streets, but you'll never see the DOL performing a household survey on homeless shelter.

So in short order, I've found, (with some minor overlapping of subsets),
Enough under/unemployed workers to double the U6 rate to over 20%..

.

Did you say greenbacks? Not for long.

HAHAHAHAHA

That must explain why the Treasury Department lists it as one of its nine bureaus and all of the IRS logos on its website have "Department of the Treasury" right under "Internal Revenue Service." I used to work for the Treasury Department, and had a very good friend who worked at IRS. If it isn't part of Treasury, then there are several thousand federal employees, as well as millions of taxpayers, who were told otherwise in official statements, paperwork, or because they work there.

But no. let's take a group of tax evaders, which is what the people at the link you providedare. At least, they are from a legal POV.

I think you mean the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Nobody uses Sacagawea dollars, not even terrorists.

If anyone is interested in the horses' mouths, here are a few references:

• US Bureau of Engraving: "All coins and currencies of the United States, regardless of when coined or issued, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties and dues."
  This statute means that you have made a valid and legal offer of payment of your debt when you tender United States currency to your creditor. However, there is no Federal statute which mandates that private businesses must accept cash as a form of payment. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
• Bank of England: The concept of legal tender is often misunderstood. Contrary to popular opinion, legal tender is not a means of payment that must be accepted by the parties to a transaction, but rather a legally defined means of payment that should not be refused by a creditor in satisfaction of a debt.
• Reserve Bank of Australia "...refusal to accept payment in legal tender notes and coins is not unlawful... If a provider of goods or services specifies other means of payment prior to the contract, then there is usually no obligation for legal tender to be accepted as payment....coins are legal tender for payment of amounts which are limited as follows.... not exceeding 10 times the face value if coins in the range 50c to $10 inclusive are offered; and to any value if coins of value greater than $10 are offered.

I think this would really potentially affect the hobby shops. If all rocket engines are going to be classified as explosives, then they would need to get the ATF permits, build proper storage facilities a certain distance from inhabited structures, and run background checks on their customers. Therefore, I assume that if what you say is true this would put an incredible burden on retailers, and we would see some significant backlash. While big box retail stores may have some facilites set up to handle explosives, I think most hobby shops do not.

I think this would really potentially affect the hobby shops. If all rocket engines are going to be classified as explosives, then they would need to get the ATF permits, build proper storage facilities a certain distance from inhabited structures, and run background checks on their customers. Therefore, I assume that if what you say is true this would put an incredible burden on retailers, and we would see some significant backlash. While big box retail stores may have some facilites set up to handle explosives, I think most hobby shops do not.

If you have clearly more than half of each piece of soiled, worn out, or dirty bills, you can just go to your local bank and exchange them.

Bills damaged by fire, water, chemicals, decay should be sent to Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Office of Currency Standards (OCS), Room 344-PD, Post Office Box 37048, Washington, D.C. 20013 for examination. The bills should also be clearly more than half intact.

Sources: http://www.bep.treas.gov/section.cfm/8/39
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/sale s.html#q1

The thing that strikes me is funny is there are still people who think there was actually a budget surplus under Clinton. Funny, I don't see a single year where the debt went down. Smoke and mirrors... Smoke and mirros...

With what money do you propose we fund this government venture with? We have no money. If you don't believe me check it out: www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

6.4 Trillion and counting...

David

Don't miss the U.S. Bureau of Engraving & Printing tour (watch them print U.S. currency). Sorry, no free samples. For some reason they built the U.S. Holocaust Museum right next door.

You're confusing three (at least) different things. The nondocumentation of security fixes has to do with the DMCA, which behemoth I'm not even going to get into. Nor was I talking about the encryption export controls.

What I was talking about was the implications of the general US economic embargoes against Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, the Sudan, Syria, and Libya. Even with the relaxation of encryption regulations, you still need to watch what gets sent to those countries.

Now, I hate to spoil a good session of "you're wrong" / "No, you're wrong" with actual references, but here goes:

In the general export FAQ there's a question about whether certain embargoes (against Iran, Syria, and the Sudan) have been lifted. (Short answer: they haven't been)

In the Encryption export FAQ, several questions specifically mention how you're allowed to export encryption under various conditions unless it's going to one of those countries I named above.

Now, to show that my speculation about "reason to believe that a piece of software was going to Iran" bit in my initial post wasn't baseless paranoia, here's a quote from an informational memo from the Office of Foreign Assets Control about exports to Iran:

In general, a person may not export from the U.S. any goods,
technology or services, if that person knows or has reason to know
such items are intended specifically for supply, transshipment or
reexportation to Iran. Further, such exportation is prohibited if
the exporter knows or has reason to know the U.S. items are
intended specifically for use in the production of, for commingling
with, or for incorporation into goods, technology or services to be
directly or indirectly supplied, transshipped or reexported
exclusively or predominately to Iran or the Government of Iran.

Now, that entire document does seem to apply very specifically to people actually in Iran or agents of the Iranian government, so I'd presumably be off the hook in the scenario I initially considered. However, what happens when someone inside Iran submits a bug report?

The next time you are installing some piece of commercial software that comes with a big old lawyerese EULA, search it for references to these countries. I seem to remember that Netscape's old license even made it illegal for any citizen of these countries to ever install or use their software.

You must have forgotten that we live in a Republic, not a Democracy. The people have no real power whatsoever. Even if the people voted to repeal internet taxation, the politicians are under no obligation whatsoever to obey the vote. It's not really any different than a presidential election in which the Electors are under no obligation to cast their votes for the candidate that wins the popular election in a given state.

The *real* reason that internet taxation is wrong goes Way Way Back(TM) to our childhood in which we were usually taught that if we didn't have money to buy something, we couldn't buy it. The government has tried several ways to increase revenue.

First, during the Civil War, the government enacted the Bureau of Internal Revenue. This was a very small amount compared to excise taxes and tariff duties (the old way of doing it). The first self-expanding perpetual bureaucracy is born. Read more about the Civil War Bureau of Internal Revenue Here... And a way-way-cool tax history museum...

During the Johnson administration, the gubment took money off the gold standard and just printed as much as it needed to cover its spending programs. This ridiculous endeavor led to the hyper-inflation of the 70's and the 99.9% top incremental income tax bracket during the Carter administration, and the double-digit interest rates going into the 80's. It's amazing to me that the government didn't learn during this time that raising taxes does not increase revenue for the gubment - IT LOWERS IT because of the burden it places on the economy. People have less money to spend, so there are fewer sales, fewer profits, lower salaries, and LESS INCOME TO TAX. But, I digress...

Enter Reaganomics - now, whatever you learned in your left-wing democratic union-controlled public school about Reagan and his economic policies was blatantly incorrect. When Reagan took office in 1981, the government's purse had 18 bullet holes in it and was leaking money like a sieve. Our great country was spiraling almost inexorably toward bankruptcy, and we came very close to defaulting on a round or two of long term bonds. The fact is that after the gigantic tax cuts in the early 80's, IRS revenue INCREASED. That's right, cutting taxes INCREASED revenue for the government. *shock*

"but, but, but, what about the deficit?" - okay, the deficit was caused by Harry Truman. Yes, the deficit spending in the 80's was mainly due to the Truman Doctrine, which required the US to fight the spread of communism throughout the world. There was this little country east of Europe, called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that had at some point in history developed nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and was on the rampage. Since WWII, they had already installed their communist regimes in most of eastern Europe and were pushing west. The Arms Race was a very necessary evil, and as much as I hate to say it, we had to win the cold war no matter what. Combine that with an unchecked social welfare program that was often corrupt and abused, and we were suddenly saddled with mind boggling debt.

Here's a little perspective on the debt: if you were to pave a 12' wide road with one billion one dollar bills, you would have a road long enough to drive 252,000 miles, about the distance to the moon. If you were to pave a road with the national debt's worth of one dollar bills, you could drive 1.5 million miles. However, there isn't enough cotton on earth to make that many one dollar bills. (FYI all US currency bills are 6.14" x 2.61" and weigh approximately one gram per note, regardless of denomination).

The point here is in agreement with yours that the government is stupid when it comes to fiscal management. When their budget runs over, they just raise more taxes to pay for it. They don't care about the long term effects because there's no accountability. The worst that can happen is that they'll either get "voted" out of office or hit their term limit. But, nothing they do while in office will usually have a negative effect until they're long gone..

We need a balanced budget LAW, just just some sissy amendment that can be changed and re-written to suit the convenience of the politicians, but something that is irrevokable, unmodifiable, and carries the status of a high crime. IN fact, I can write it right now, and IANEAL:

"It shall be a high crime against the United States for any individual or group of individuals to cause a government agency to spend more money than it receives."

"It shall be a high crime against the United States for any individual or group of individuals to cause the amount of money a government agency receives to increase at an annual rate that is higher than the sum of the rate of inflation and the rate of growth of the Gross Domestic Product."

We owe it to ourselves (literally!) to pay down the national debt. Every bond you buy from the government represents money borrowed by the government, from you, to spend on $4000 toilet seats, private jets, politicians' vacations around the world, and let's not forget the $58,000 486 machines that the government is probably still buying.

Some other interesting government links:
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing
All About our Tax System
All About our Tax System, the government's version of the truth
The United States Mint
The Social "Security" Administration

What I want to know is, who's bringing the volatile fruit flavor concentrates?

[People under the age of 21 in the U.S. can]

Vote
Join the army
Drive a car
Have sex (and children)
Work
Pay taxes
Own a gun

Yeah good thing we don't let those kids drink

So while you wouldn't have a fuel line feeding directly into your laptop from the airline seat, it'd still be convenient, and you could drink the leftovers....

Ah, yes, but you'd also have to pay the sin tax on your laptop fuel.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/about/service/nps/

The thought of screwing one of those little airplane sized bottles into the side of my laptop almost makes it worth it.

"Barkeep, another round for me and my little friend here!"

"Um, sir. I think I'm going to have to cut you off. The penguin is looking a bit tipsy and you actually think that code's gonna compile in the morning..."

The webpage linked to in the submission mentions you can forward your 419 spam to the US Secret Service Task Force. It wouldn't hurt to sent it to the Federal Trade Commission as well.

I never saw this type of spam/scam before until he pointed it out to me a few days ago. But it has been forwarded to uce.gov so hopefully they can catch this idiot.

Chris Beckenbach

First let me say that I own a shotgun myself for hunting purposes and that my ideal gun control laws are those which promote responsible ownership and education about guns, and that's about it. Statisics show that violent crimes such as murder and rape go down in a well armed public. And that's a Good Thing (TM)

However lets look at the Annual Firearms Manufacturers And Export Report (2000)

About 49 Percent of weapons made are non-hunting weapons. (I'm calling rifles and shotguns hunting weapons) This doesn't even account for the possiblilty of people owning illegal guns or using hunting weapons for non hunting purposes. (and as you probably know, rifles aren't strictly hunting weapons, even though I'm assuming so when coming up with a percentage)
Now what are non-hunting weapons used for? Self defense is about all I can think of. People don't just own guns for no reason. Sure, there is sport use. However, no one that I know who owns a non-hunting weapon uses it strictly for sport, there's always self defense as a motivation to own and practice with their weapon.
So, we've established that more than half of all weapons sold are for non-hunting purposes. What's left? Illegal uses and self defense, both include killing people, whether or not it's legal or illegal, voluntary or neccessary.

Furthermore, these statistics are pre sept 11. and we can probably assume that self defense motivation has increased in the populus.

Some more interesting gun facts:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/firearms/ facts:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/firearms/publications.htm

I can't vouch for Europe. But it looks like reverse engineering is explicitly protected in making originals of copyrighted works and in finding out trade secrets in the US. Check the US Copyright Office and the International Trade Data Sytem.

According to the ATF it is not illegal to make your own gun provided it is not a semi automatic and the person is not making it for sale and the person is allowed to possess a firearm.

A7) Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle?

With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a nonlicensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from making a semiautomatic assault weapon or assembling a nonsporting semiautomatic rifle or nonsporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machinegun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a federal or state agency. [18 U. S. C. 922( o), (r), (v), and 923, 27 CFR 178.39, 178.40, 178.41 and

So, given the inclination and funds, I could, as an american, obtain things like rocket launchers, and RPGs?
What's the stance in the U.S. on privately owned nuclear ICBM's?

As long as they are non-functional as weapons, yes. You may NOT own a functional WMD.

Many private citizen vet organizations own tanks, old rocket launchers, etc. There are a number of non-weapons capable fighter aircraft in private hands, all the way from WWI biplanes to a guy restoring an early model F-16. And I believe there is a privately owned MiG-29.

"Demilitarize" it, and you're ok. Basically, the BATF says anything over .50 cal is a no-no.
This is "Importation of arms, ammunition, and implements of war", but the same rules probably hold for domestic products.

Federal Reserve - Susan Stawick - 202-452-2955
Bureau of Engraving and Printing - Dawn Haley - 202-874-3545

Alternatively, fill in this form.

1. Is it not the responsibility of the credit card company (which is apparently unknown in this instance), not the credit card processing entity (ccnow.com) to verify that the billing address is the same as the shipping address? I have, on a number of occasions, specifically had to call my credit card company and authorize shipment to locations other than my billing address. This has even been bothersome at points, but I understand the reasons that the CC companies require this. I'd like to think that MasterCard would raise some flag when Bob, from Alabama, wants to send anything to the United Arab Emirates.

2. It is the responsibilty of the vendor (also unknown, but there are plenty of examples out there) to make sure that certain types of merchandise (e.g. cryptographic hardware and software to Lybia, Anthrax Spores to North Korea, >10 round magazines to California) do not violate state and federal regulations. AFAICT, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are not on the "technology proscribed list". Here is an excellent starting point for further investigation.

3. I suspect, but cannot prove, that if an Al Qaeda terrorist wished to procure a night vision scope for his Druganov sniper rifle, he could order up a crate-full from his local ex-KGB contact and have it air-dropped from a AN-22 on the "Go Away" mat in front of his cave entrance. Funny, I'm sure, but not without a grain of truth.

4. It's also important to know that, fundamentally, this "night vision scope" is neither a weapon (unto itself), nor particularly effective, as it is both surplus, and Russian made. Not to slight the proven fantastic ability of the manufacturing capacity of the former Soviet state (they did make millions of highly usable and portable AK-47s and their variants), but as surplus "electronics" equipment, their shelf life is probably somewhat suspect. Plus, the batteries are a bitch to get from Radio Shack.

All in all, I'm sure that something untoward is going on here. Someone got their CC# pilfered, probably the same way teenagers in the US lift card numbers from transactions at Applebees. Whether or not something more sinister is afoot, remains to be seen. I would, however, take a closer look at who was working at the Amman, Jordan IHOP that morning, and see what they were up to.

Banks are regulated either by the Comptroller of the Currency (that's what "National Bank" means) or by individual states. Savings and loan institutions are regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision. Money transfer firms are regulated by states. Credit card issuers are regulated by Federal law. Broker/dealers are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

It's not clear what PayPal is, but because they appear to accept deposits, they're subject to regulation. Even if they store the money somewhere else, that doesn't help; that may make them either a broker or a mutual fund.

In the early days of money-market funds that offered check-writing privileges, there was a real question how they would be regulated. But that's been worked out. PayPal will end up being regulated as some kind of financial institution, even though it's not yet clear which kind.

Banks are regulated either by the Comptroller of the Currency (that's what "National Bank" means) or by individual states. Savings and loan institutions are regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision. Money transfer firms are regulated by states. Credit card issuers are regulated by Federal law. Broker/dealers are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

It's not clear what PayPal is, but because they appear to accept deposits, they're subject to regulation. Even if they store the money somewhere else, that doesn't help; that may make them either a broker or a mutual fund.

In the early days of money-market funds that offered check-writing privileges, there was a real question how they would be regulated. But that's been worked out. PayPal will end up being regulated as some kind of financial institution, even though it's not yet clear which kind.

When I first started doing this, it was a little odd and inconvenient. Now, I feel a great sense of liberty. Excepting my bills, nobody knows what the hell I'm doing with my money. Cash transactions are a lot faster at stores, plus there's always money on-hand.

Ever since the "Know Your Customer" initiative a few years back, and since learning about SARs, I've become even more wary of financial institutions. It's gotten to the point where I'm thinking about socking away my savings (which goes now into mutual funds) into a safe. Mr. Ashcroft can look at my records all he wants and he won't see much. Losing a little bit of interest is worth it to me, in order that I may have a little more privacy in this witch-hunt government we now have to live with.

I don't like the fact that: 1) My financial history can be reviewed on a whim; and 2) My assets can be siezed almost on a whim. Look at those poor folks in South America, whose banks throttled their own money usage. I won't ever be caught in that situation.

I usually don't have that much money on-hand, so all you scare-mongers can hold back on the "what if you get mugged" thing. I pay all bills and do any essential expenditures that same day (the big grocery spree, getting car tuned, etc.).

If only I could force my employer to pay in cash. They recently began requiring direct deposit!

The pertinent portion of law that applies to [accepting cash] is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 102. This is now found in section 392 of Title 31 of the United States Code. The law says that: "All coins and currencies of the United States, regardless of when coined or issued, shall be legal-tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties and dues." This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

The pertinent portion of law that applies to [accepting cash] is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 102. This is now found in section 392 of Title 31 of the United States Code. The law says that: "All coins and currencies of the United States, regardless of when coined or issued, shall be legal-tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties and dues." This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.

I've always been fascinated with foreign currency (specifically, the printed variety), and the Euro is the most interesting to come around in a long time. Is there any place online one can order printed currency or coin ala the US Mint? (http://www.usmint.gov/ for coins or http://www.treas.gov/ for printed currency-- US Mint apparently handles international orders for those curious about US currency, not sure about the Treasury.)

http://www.bep.treas.gov/document.cfm/5/43/150

• The California 210/30 freeway extension costs approximately one billion for 28.2 miles of freeway. [The Big Dig in Boston is over 10 times more expensive, for you easterners.]
  [www.dot.ca.gov]
• The federal government spends about one billion to pay interest on the federal debt each day.
  [www.publicdebt.treas.gov]

I believe that is incorrect; the United States issues Federal Reserve Notes (bills, and I believe coins also) which are backed mostly by gold or gold certificates. The US government Treasury holds quite a bit of gold.

The US Treasury Dept has a FAQ that explains this. See "What are Federal Reserve notes and how are they different from United States notes?", which specifically states:

Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue.

Sooooo... Debt held by the public: $3,276,772,616,898.09 ($3.27 trillion)

The USA's yearly budget dwarves even the national debt.

When I pay my neighbor, ...by federal law, he must accept US Currency as payment of my debt.

Sorry, no. 31 USC, 5103 is the piece of law you (mis-)quoted. It reads (in relevant part):

United States coins and currency... are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.

According to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (part of Department of the Treasury):

This statute means that you have made a valid and legal offer of payment of your debt when you tender United States currency... . However, there is no Federal statute which mandates that [anyone] must accept cash as a form of payment.

(emaphasis added) Former quote is here; latter is here.

Didn't anyone see the movie Conspiracy Theory?

Tracking devices have obviously been in our money since the introduction of the new money.

An Editorial on the CT Anti-Video-Game Bill
State Sen. Toni Harp
Secret Service Report