DHS to Begin Collecting DNA of Anyone Arrested

Foobar of Borg writes "The AP is reporting that the US will soon be collecting the DNA of anyone who is arrested by a federal law enforcement agency and any foreigner who is detained, whether or not charges are eventually brought. This begins to bring the US in line with the UK which, as discussed before on Slashdot, is trying to collect DNA of 'potential criminals' as young as five. DHS spokesman Russ Knocke stated that 'DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool.'"

Comments

Balance of power.

[h4rm0ny]

If you let the balance of power fall too far to the state, it's grossly naive to think it wont lead to use of that power over you, your friends and your children. History supports that as do numerous social studies.

Re:Balance of power.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you let the balance of power fall too far to the state, it's grossly naive to think it wont lead to use of that power over you, your friends and your children.

Since DNA will first be collected from foreigners, whose stay in the country is dependent on the government's good graces, it's not hard to imagine a Gattaca style future where, if the government has your DNA on file and you might have some unpleasant genetic predisposition, your application for residency or citizenship suddenly falls though.

Re:Balance of power.

[zappepcs]

You are absolutely correct.

"DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool." and this might be true, but it also remains true that standard policing is proven, as is forensics.

There is yet to be ANY evidence that infallible ID of every citizen leads to better security, better safety, or in fact anything better.

In the end, its ONLY use is control.

Criminals with no record, no arrests, and perhaps no citizenship fall outside the view of such a system creating yet another situation where only the innocent are inconvenienced.

REAL ID and biometric IDs have only one purpose, control of the citizenry. period. anytime. in. history.

I could spend days figuring out several ways to defeat any system of ID presented, and if I can you can be absolutely certain that criminals will. In fact they have much better resources than I do and would probably do a much better job. When you have networks of 'friends' to help you out on both coasts, and on other continents, it's easier to fake things etc.

When criminals want to do something the phrase "papers please" do not stop them. These ID schemes will in fact ONLY harm citizens and their rights to do as they constitutionally are allowed.

Re:Balance of power.

[plague3106]

Well, even the DNA samples have been called into question. Yes, if you actually recorded every single piece of DNA in a person, you'd probably have something close to foolproof. But not quite.

As it is though, I think we only look at a 130 some markers... so the changes of "collisions" are greatly increased. Also, it's been shown that some people actually have two sets of DNA. It's not been ascertained how many people may have two sets of DNA in them.

Re:Balance of power.

[contrapunctus]

I was supposed to donate bone marrow until they found a better match.
The person who would have received my marrow would have my dna in their blood but their own dna in skin and hair samples, etc.

Interesting times.

Re:Balance of power.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

If you let the balance of power fall too far to the state, it's grossly naive to think it wont lead to use of that power over you, your friends and your children.

The question is, is this really true.

Consider for a moment. Do the supporters of oppressive regimes actually suffer under them? Is it not the case that those who tacitly or overtly support this kind of power imbalance actually benefit? Certainly a minority of top supporters do, but what about the silent and not so silent majority that prop up the regime? Does their support not in fact, pay off?

Are registered Republican voters who attend church every sunday, protest against abortion, call for lower taxes and "family values" really going to suffer under these DHS policies? I invoke Godwin because it is inevitable. Look at 1930's Germany. If you weren't communist or jewish, then you, as a german, probably did rather well under the Nazi's. Why wouldn't you support them? It's not like you valued abstract concepts like "freedom" and "democracy" now did you?

Most americans, no, most people in the western world, do not value these concepts. They support internment, executions, secret trials. I'm not being rhetorical here. As long as you mention the right groups; terrorists, pedophiles, minorities, lower classes, etc, the average joe will not see their freedoms as something worth valuing anymore. People do not believe in universal rights for all, only in rights for the right people, which of course includes themselves. It's sad, but that's the way it is.

Re:Balance of power.

[leomekenkamp]

what about the silent and not so silent majority that prop up the regime? Does their support not in fact, pay off?

Well, that depends how you look at it. Being silent lets you live your live normally for 99.99% of the silent ppl. Being vocal pays off in NOT being able to live your life. So relatively speaking, being silent 'pays off' more than being vocal.

Re:Balance of power.

[metlin]

That is perhaps one of the most insightful comments I've ever read on Slashdot.

Most people don't quite look at it that way, but you've got a point there - folks automatically assume that just because people support a regime that does bad things, the same people will suffer under that regime. That is not necessarily true. The reason they select the regime is because bad things happen to "others" that they've been conditioned to hate (brown people, Muslims, immigrants, whatever).

The Christian right is no different. The average Joe Republican is probably rejoicing at Gitmo and the fallout of our human rights, because hey, he's not affected - it's "someone" else. And if he does get pulled over, he feels proud that he's helping the system further its goals.

It is usually the powerless ones who are always affected - Jews, minorities and in today's America, the non-citizens. And I am particularly riled up about this because I'm typing this from an airport in Texas, where as a "brown man", I was "randomly selected" to be searched. Yet again. I told the guy that I travel twice a week, and that in the past couple of weeks, I've been "randomly selected" at Texas almost every single time. His answer? "Do you tell the cop that you've never gotten caught speeding except when he's patrolling"

I was at a loss for words, and this is the irony of it all.

Re:Balance of power.

[anothy]

i have to disagree. under an oppressive regime, everyone (except potentially those in the regime itself) suffers, regardless of whether you support the regime or not. not evenly, and not always in the same ways, as your personal example illustrates, but overall.

take modern America as an example. middle-class Bush supporters are, in fact, suffering under that regime, they just don't realize it. our economy is a disaster; foreclosures and inflation don't care about political affiliation, nor (for the most part) did the massive job loss at the beginning of the Bush presidency nor the lower average wage of the jobs gained back in his second term. these are measurable ways in which his supporters still suffer. they either think those costs are worth it or are simply scammed into not seeing them (or not attributing them to his policies).
broadening it to hypothetical future abuses in the US is a bit harder, because we don't know what those abuses will look like. myself, i object to the concentration of power in the executive branch regardless of who's in office, largely because we don't know who's going to be in office a decade from now (which, on a personal aside, is why i support Obama instead of Clinton: i believe he's got a much better respect for the Constitution and our principles of government, whereas i believe Clinton's more likely to continue the centralization, although using that power for more positive things in the short term). we could imagine a regime where the federal government is explicitly targeting political/ideological rivals, but i think that's much further down the road (if we were to ever get there). in the shorter term, we'd see things like a chilling effect on media and dissent. the general repression of the free exchange of ideas hurts everyone both in abstract terms (weakening your society by creating a monoculture and constricting vision) and concrete (reduced global competitiveness compared to countries where free exchange is more valued).

take a less political example, in the other direction: public schools. i have no kids, yet i pay taxes to support public schools. i myself went to private schools my entire academic career (except a brief stint in a state university). still, i benefit from having a minimum level of literacy and education in the country. i happen to support taxes for education, but i know lots of people who don't; they still benefit from the system. same with roads (except for not really being able to avoid them): you might not like your taxes being taken (some people just object to taxes out of hand, after all), but you still benefit from the results.

Re:Balance of power.

[epee1221]

You're right, but you fail to mention that criminals are really the only element of citizenry that need to be controlled

So why not just limit this to criminals?

Re:Balance of power.

[FredFredrickson]

Not to mention- the loopholes opened up to framing somebody.

Step 1. Obtain Somebody else's DNA
Step 2. Commit Crime
Step 3. Deposit DNA
Step 4. ???
Step 5. Profit

Re:Balance of power.

[FredFredrickson]

And you were modded "Troll."

Gawd, you should know better than to post on slashdot while committing such a heinous crime such as being brown.

Re:Balance of power.

[Firethorn]

Certain criminals will. Others will be deterred. The harder you make it, the harder potential criminals will have to work to pass under the radar. Hard work generally equates to more time (in which to be suspected), more overt acts, and/or more people to conspire with (i.e. more weak links in the chain).

Looking at places like the UK, which has been doing this for quite some time, not to mention having one of the most comprehensive surveillance networks, etc...

The petty criminals don't care. They vanish into the noise. When you have thousands and thousands of criminals, a low res camera picture of a thug in a hoodie isn't enough to do more than get a few matches - it would still take traditional police work to find him.

Take the DNA example. Sure, you know it belongs to Joe Crook, but you don't know which temporary girlfriend he's living with this week, and his crime isn't enough for the police to spend the resources to track him down. So he stays free.

Even with the inevitable catches, normally more because of stupidity on the part of the criminal rather than brilliance on the part of the police, it's often along the lines of a 'catch and release' system.

This proposal reminds me of the murder investigation in Gattaca. They come in, vacuum the whole place and find the hair of somebody who doesn't 'belong'. Their search for and fixation on him delays the catching of the real murderer - who worked there and had left, as a matter of course, fragments of himself all over.

DNA is all fine and dandy, but it isn't magic and doesn't replace good investigation methods. It's just one tool in the box.

Heck, get the database too large and you might actually undermine the system as comparisons take longer to spit back matches, where false positives become so common that people start discounting them. Heck, we see it already in the ballistics databases set up by a couple states - so many firearms are never used in crime, yet so many ended up in the database that false positives rendered the database useless.

Re:Balance of power.

[mlwmohawk]

you fail to mention that criminals are really the only element of citizenry that need to be controlled

This is a VERY dangerously naive position. Who are these "criminals?" Are all "criminals" alike?

A person arrested for chaining him/her self to a poll during a protest, should they be "controlled?"

We are *all* every man, woman, and child in the U.S.A. in violation of some law and probably have no idea. We are all criminals. Are we all to be controlled?

A serious crime like rape, murder, being a member of the Bush administration, should bring a penalty of DNA identification. Short of that its totalitarianism slowly creeping up on us.

Re:Balance of power.

[celle]

Kind of like that patriotic crap about our fathers "dying for freedom". Bullshit, they died to protect what was theirs and because under other governments they knew they would lose what was theirs. This is the main reason wars are fought. Concepts have little meaning, what you possess and control does. You want proof, just look at every official war and unofficial conflict/genocide/mass crime over the last several hundred years. You will find it's just a bunch of control games.

perhaps I'm missing something

[techpawn]

anyone who is arrested by federal law enforcement agency

How is this different than getting your prints taken when your arrested? Or do they only take prints when your charged where as this wants DNA if you're charged or not...?

Re:perhaps I'm missing something

[CRCulver]

How is this different than getting your prints taken when your arrested?

When I served in the U.S. Navy nearly a decade ago, their way of keeping my DNA on record was by drawing blood. I don't know if the method here is different (does hair or a cheek swab provide a useful sample?), but were it from blood, putting a needle in people who are arrested (not even judged guilty yet) is an unprecented trespass into personal space.

Re:perhaps I'm missing something

[techpawn]

I don't know if the method here is different (does hair or a cheek swab provide a useful sample?)

The article said cheek swab, but still "we need you to open your mouth so we can stick this in" sounds like something the government is telling us to do a lot lately...

Re:perhaps I'm missing something

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is DNA is more than an identifying trait. DNA defines your physical characteristics - the basis of you.

I'm not sure about *you*, but I'm a little uncomfortable with ANY government agency being able to tell me more about myself than I myself know.

This road leads to a Police State - plain and simple. Perhaps your comfortable living in a police state - I'm not.

What's next? Refusing you the vote cause your DNA shows a tendency to irrational behaviors or mental disease? Perhaps denying you a federal student loan cause you have genetic tendency of lower mental function? We aren't there yet - but moves like these are the first step

The government does NOT have the right to collect and store my DNA without my permission - PERIOD.

Anon.

Re:perhaps I'm missing something

[malsdavis]

"The difference is DNA is more than an identifying trait. DNA defines your physical characteristics - the basis of you." You are mistaking DNA with DNA profiles - which is what the government want. DNA profiles are more like an md5 hash of your data (i.e. DNA) rather than all the actual data which makes up you. Storing all that data would require absolutely immense processing and storage capabilities which simply don't exist. Besides, it will be a long, long time before DNA can be properly "read" and not just "compared" (which DNA analysis basically consists of at present). A DNA profile can identify you and basic traits but it can't "identify tendency to irrational behaviors" etc.

Re:perhaps I'm missing something

[bhima]

That still does not make me feel any better.

Re:perhaps I'm missing something

[F�an�ro]

DNA profiles are more like an md5 hash of your data DNA profiles are a lot more than that.
Depending on the type of profile, you could for example calculate blood relationship between people. You do not need tthe whole dna for that, close relatvies will also have close matches for the indicators used for profiling.

Some ways to abuse this:

"The crime DNA does not match this person exactly, but he is probably a close relative of the criminal, detain and question him!"

"This person is closely related to several convicted criminals, keep watching him"

"This person is related to a charged terrorist, deny him the goverment job"

"This person is related to several people who died early, let's raise his health premiums and offer him life insurances"

DHS needs to go

[BadAnalogyGuy]

It's one thing to single out certain segments of the population for greater scrutiny if the greatest proportion of violent crimes is perpetrated by that group. It's another thing entirely to use that as an excuse to tag and release citizens just because they act like animals.

There has been very little that has been good since the DHS was formed. Maybe it's a matter of them preventing bad things from happening, but the tighter the grip, the more problems will seep through their fingers.

Re:DHS needs to go

[backbyter]

It's the greater part of the population that brought this on themselves when they allowed the singling out of "certain segments of the population".

The new Miranda Warning

[Jodaxia]

...anything you say or DNA will be held against you in a court of law.

Shred and Incinerate

[giafly]

Some criminals already plant cigarette butts in stolen cars, to confuse the evidence and implicate innocent people, and I predict more of this. It's not hard to collect fake evidence from someone else's trash, to place at the scene of a crime.

To avoid identity theft, not only should you shred everything with your name and address, but now you also need to flush or incinerate everything with your DNA on it.

Re:Shred and Incinerate

[EricWright]

you also need to flush or incinerate everything with your DNA on it. I predict mass outbreaks of nudity, hilarity and squeamishness soon to follow.

Re:Shred and Incinerate

[Richard W.M. Jones]

It's not hard to collect fake evidence from someone else's trash, to place at the scene of a crime.

Don't bother with a particular person's trash, just go to a bar or a bus stop in a poorer area of town and pick up cigarette butts. Those poor people are probably on the database and are unlikely to have good, believable alibis. They'll go to prison instead of you.

Rich.

Re:Shred and Incinerate

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I've stopped laughing at people into voodoo and magic who thought that by stealing part of their intended victim, some hair or maybe a fingernail, they would gain power over them.

"DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool."

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

"DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool." Yes, and removing hands prevents stealing. It doesn't mean it is a good idea.

Re:"DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool."

[JasterBobaMereel]

So a terrorist who is US citizen, has a US passport, getting a an internal flight inside the USA, who's DNA is on file, will not hijack the plane?

Oh well that's ok then ....

Fingerprinting in Texas

[mistapotta]

The police state has already started in Bushland. The state of Texas has decided that all teachers will be fingerprinted (http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/fp/faq_SB9.asp) and their fingerprints will be compared annually to a nationwide criminal database. Any teacher who is not fingerprinted will be terminated within eighty days. Of course, I was scheduled for fingerprinting Monday morning. The one company in the state of Texas given the bid to fingerprint teachers couldn't be bothered to show up Monday, so I was bumped to Tuesday. Tuesday I was bumped to Wednesday because 9 AM is way too early for them to show up (they started taking "papers" at 1:45 PM.) Wednesday I was bumped to Thursday because they were "late" again. Just curious, what other licensed profession is fingerprinted and compared to a national criminal database annually? Doctors? Childcare Providers? Lawyers?

Re:Fingerprinting in Texas

[techpawn]

Just curious, what other licensed profession is fingerprinted and compared to a national criminal database annually? Doctors? Childcare Providers? Lawyers?

Pimps and Drug Dealers come to mind... wait did you say licensed...?

Re:Fingerprinting in Texas

[beadfulthings]

Almost anybody who works around children, or at least that's been the case in Maryland for about twenty years or so. I worked in the IT department of a children's hospital and was fingerprinted along with every other employee including the doctors. (As I recall, we were also all tested for AIDS). As a parent, and as an employee, it doesn't bother me. I'd prefer not to consign my children to the care of someone with a criminal background. Your alternative if the privacy question bothers you would be to seek employment where children aren't involved.

Re:Fingerprinting in Texas

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

Awesome idea. I have no problems invading the privacy of others so long as it protects me. Just don't invade *my* privacy.

...

Re:Fingerprinting in Texas

[uffe_nordholm]

I have a problem with this fingerprinting/exclusion of criminals at a workplace.

Suppose I have been convicted of some crime like embezzlement or robbing banks. Does this make me a worse teacher of mathematics? Or if I have been convicted of sexually assaulting a minor, does that make me unfit for a position as a securities trader in bank?

I realise that certain jobs, like law enforcement and judges, must have a 'clean record' in order to preserve the credibility of the profession as such, but I think society as a whole is going too far in this respect.

Just because you _can_ check every employees fingerprints against a police database doesn't mean you _ought_ to.

If one single company barrs ex convicts from working there, no real harm is done, but when too many companies do this, you get the situation that the only way for an excon to make a living is to keep on being a criminal. Is that what you wanted?

And suppose I apply for a position at some company (or school/public employment....). They ask me for my fingerprints and an extract of my criminal record. Shouldn't I be allowed to ask for the managment's fingerprints/criminal records? If they don't want to take the risk of employing me without knowing if I have been convicted of anything, shouldn't I be given the chance of deciding whether or not to work for someone who has been convicted of abusing his/her employees? Suppose the CEO has a couple of convictions for embezzlement behind him, and his former employees lost a few months worth of wages, I would deffinitely want to know, before making a decision on whether or not to take the position.

Re:Fingerprinting in Texas

[JasterBobaMereel]

Has your children's teacher ever been arrested for being involved in a protest against the government ...

Note you won't be told *what* they were arrested for they just won't be teaching anymore ...

So if you want to be a teacher don't protest ..If you want to work for the government don't protest .. ... If you want to work for a large company don't protest.. .......

You could already be a winner!

[Dreadneck]

Enter the DHS DNA Sweepstakes now for your chance to win an all expense paid vacation at your regional FEMA Happy Clown Candy Fun Camp. No purchase necessary!

War is peace, ignorance is strength, slavery is freedom.

I wish they had more insight

[Hojima]

It is beyond reason to even think that genetics can predispose someone to crime. Anyone that thinks so has the ignorance of those who think other races are inferior. It may be a small factor, but it is nowhere near as important as their development and current situation. And then I hear dolts that say, "well statistics say that blacks are more likely to commit a crime", but statistics also say that blacks live more impoverished conditions, and I bet you'll find an indisputable correlation between the two. This will be terrible news for anyone who may have the "criminal gene" (the idea is so stupid it's on par with the "likes to watch baseball gene"). He could be a innocent person that is more likely to be accused simply because of his genetic inheritance. Or worse he could be framed. How easy would it be for lazy policemen to "find" the hair of a local "predisposed criminal" to "solve" a murder case (which has been done, minus the predisposed part). Rather than even bother with these expensive programs, we should focus on the other factors that cause crime, such as lack of education.

Re:I wish they had more insight

[hal9000(jr)]

They aren't trying to check pre-disposition. They want positive identification.

I am opposed to this on principle which is that giving this much freedom to a body in power leads invariably to abuse. Unfortnately, there are fewer places in the world that actually give a rats ass about freedom and liberty.

Certainly not the US (I am American, btw) that claims to protect liberty with one hand and takes it away with another.

Re:I wish they had more insight

[FredFredrickson]

They aren't trying to check pre-disposition. They want positive identification. Interestingly, DNA can be used for positive identification in the future, much more accurately than any other form of identification... but one problem exists: Data Entry inconsistencies...

When I went to the DMV to get my license, I needed 3 original documents to prove I was who I said I was.

Now if I get arrested with a convincing fake ID- then my DNA gets immediately tied to a fake persona - or worse, somebody else REAL. Why should such hardcore evidence have such a shakey foundation? They should require 3 positive forms of identification to get DNA- otherwise it'd be easy to tamper with the database on purpose! And who, when committing a crime, would have 3 positive forms of identification on them? Or any at all??

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[polar red]

The more you cut taxes, the more the government will collapse. In the real world however ... taxes gets cut for the rich, and the poor pay for the infrastructure, education, military, ...

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[Richard W.M. Jones]

The ultimate form of revolution is tax cuts. The more you cut taxes, the more the government will collapse.

Yeah, that's worked really well over in the US for the last 8 years.

Rich.

Re:Simple Solution

[Sheepy]

Uhm, no. You get swabbed if you get arrested and charged. If you don't actually get convicted, the sample gets destroyed.

That's not true.

Both DNA profiles (the string of numbers used for identification purposes) and DNA samples (which contain unlimited genetic information), are kept permanently, even if the person arrested is never charged or is acquitted.
Gene Watch UK

the permanent storage of bioinformation taken from witnesses, victims, children, and people who are not later convicted;
The forensic use of bioinformation: ethical issues

Re:Simple Solution

[The Frogstar]

That's simply not true. DNA and fingerprints are taken on arrest, regardless of whether or not you are charged. There is no system in place to remove this data once it is taken, even if you are found to have been wrongly arrested (I have had first hand experience of this).

How else could there be over 3 million, almost 5% of the population on the database?

As a British citizen I can't decide which scares me more, DNA databasing or CCTV cameras. I can't wait to move to Patagonia.

Re:Simple Solution

[pinny20]

Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 if you are arrested for anything more than a minor offence (no need to be charged) your DNA can be taken and stored on the UK National DNA Database. It does not get destroyed.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[EaglemanBSA]

I would argue that the rich get tax cuts, the poor get social support and the middle class gets the shaft.

Re:Simple Solution

[happytechie]

No it doesn't inocent people are actively trying (and failing) to get their DNA removed from the database now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7266130.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/6768725.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6979490.stm Whilst the existance of a DNA record for previously innocent people is questionable in terms of human rights the power it has for tracking down people who have commited crimes is huge. The recent case in the UK of the murderer in suffolk is an good example. If the police are using it to arrest criminals I have no issue with it. Once my life insurance company and employer can use it for screening I have HUGE issues with it.

Please Read 1984

[pbailey]

I think everyone needs to (re)read 1984. And stop letting the government remove all your civil liberties in the name of making YOU safe !

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[imamac]

That's simply untrue. The "rich" (*those making over $200,000/year) who make up about 5% of the population pay the vast majority of taxes in this country. You can't cut taxes on the poor when they already don't pay them. The bottom 50% (income bracket) of people in the country pay about 3% of taxes. That's right. 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States#Tax_distribution

It's worse than that, he's dead! Jim

[maroberts]

Unlike fingerprints, once you build up a sizeable DNA database, you can also to a certain extent work out the DNA of people related to the person whose DNA you sampled. (or more accurately, from the DNA, you can establish that the DNA of perpetrator was relative of someone in your database). This "creep" allows you to effectively have a DNA database for the entire population with only a small proportion of records.

Ummm slightly misleading I think

[DnemoniX]

I saw this story on Good Morning America this morning and they phrased things a little bit differently than this article. What is obvious to some but not all readers is that if you are being arrested by federal agents it is for a "federal crime". This has nothing to do with somebody being arrested for stealing a car, identity theft, simple assault etc.

Re:Ummm slightly misleading I think

[backbyter]

I submit you can be arrested by Federal Agents for all of the crimes you listed in your argument.

If you have stolen a car and take said car to a National Park where you get pulled over for speeding, the LEO is definitely going to arrest you.

If you are in a National Park (or virtually any other Federal property) and get into a fight, you are most probably going to be arrested by a Federal LEO.

Re:Ummm slightly misleading I think

[DnemoniX]

None of what you present there is an argument against my observation. If you steal a car and then take it to federal property that does not make stealing the car a federal offense. If you happen to get arrested in a specific location such as a national resource by park rangers fine. However the act of stealing the car is still not a federal offense. If you get into a fight on Federal property that still does not make it a Federal offense. Every crime has to pass a litmus test of requirements to be classified in a specific category of offense, location is simply one of many mitigating factors.

Re:Ummm slightly misleading I think

[Reziac]

This has nothing to do with somebody being arrested for stealing a car, identity theft, simple assault etc.

Not yet...

Re:Ummm slightly misleading I think

[dcam]

So only people arrested for federal crimes, like protesting, will have their DNA taken?

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[WhiteWolf666]

In the real world, the U.S. taxcode is extremely progressive. The rich pay a far greater share of ALL taxes than anyone else.

The data shows the progressive tax structure of the U.S. federal income tax system on individuals that reduces the tax incidence of people with smaller incomes, as they shift the incidence disproportionately to those with higher incomes - the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%), and the bottom 50% with gross income of $30,122 or less pay 3.3% (earning 13.4%).[9][10]

From Wikipedia.

It's bullshit to say that taxation in the U.S. is somehow regressive, or that the poor pay for everything.

One more step in the loss of privacy

[wheagy]

Why not just strap a camera on our heads at birth and get it over with? It won't be long before they just collect DNA at birth. Why not...will make things easier for law enforcement and that's what this seems to be all about.

Re:Would you DNA the Pope ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, just find one of his altar boys. DNA all over.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[wcbarksdale]

The ultimate form of revolution is tax cuts. The more you cut taxes, the more the government will collapse. Yes, it's great that the federal government never, ever spends money it doesn't have.

Jon Stewart recently said

[Serenissima]

(paraphrasing)
If you're in a free society, it's not safe. You can either have safety, or freedom. But you can't have both at the same time.

Re:Jon Stewart recently said

[epee1221]

It is quite possible, however, to give up freedom and still get no safety in exchange.

A question of trust

[Xian97]

While on the surface it may appear to be no more onerous than the fingerprinting system in use today, a DNA database would have far greater potential for abuse. What happens if they decide to use the DNA to detect ancestral or genetic heritage? Not to Godwin the thread, but technology like this would have clearly been misused in the not so recent past.

With the recent abuses of the Patriot Act, I don't trust the government not to overstep the stated purpose of this policy either.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[ArcherB]

I would argue that the rich get tax cuts, the poor get social support and the middle class gets the shaft. What is rich? I only ask because I got a tax cut and I can barely pay my bills. Tell me, am I rich? Can you please put a number to you RICH claim?

Wow!

[gstoddart]

AP is reporting that the US will soon be collecting the DNA of anyone who is arrested by federal law enforcement agency and any foreigner who is detained

Just fucking wow!

How do they define 'detained' ... is someone coming into an airport who hasn't yet cleared customs and gets pulled aside for scrutiny "detained"? They're already fingerprinting and taking biometric data. And I know at one point Gonzales basically said such people have no rights and could be arbitrarily detained without any recourse, but hopefully everyone has thrown out any legal opinion he's ever offered by now. He clearly doesn't actually know anything about the Constitution.

The move towards a near police state in the US is rather alarming.

I, for one, won't set foot in the US any more, and I know I'm not alone. I'm just not willing to subject myself to the absolutely insane level of bullshit that America is subjecting its visitors to. Sadly, the level of xenophobia and isolationist sentiment is just too scary for me.

Cheers

"Federal Crime"

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of the how my high school civics teacher put it:

Let's say I go to the supermarket with a hand gun, demand all the cash from the registers, and shoot several patrons just because I can. So far, all state crimes.

On the way out, I see a postage machine and realize I need stamps, so I shoot it open and remove a single stamp. *Now* I have committed a federal crime.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[Peter Mork]

The "rich" ... who make up about 5% of the population pay the vast majority of taxes in this country.

You, sir, have a strange notion of "vast majority". According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 5% (for whom the average income is $457,400) of the population account for 41.4% of all tax revenue*. That percentage is a far cry from a "vast majority." Perhaps you meant the top quintile (average income = $214,500) who account for 67.2% of the tax revenue. The effective tax rate for this group is 25.2%.

How much blood do you expect to extract from the lowest quintile (average income = $15,800) anyway? Sure their effective tax rate is only 4.3%, but increasing their tax rate to 25% won't have much impact on the massive deficits to which we've grown addicted.

*Like so many tax critics, you have forgotten that income tax is but one source of tax revenue. Once you account for the additional sources (social insurance, corporate income, and excise taxes), the picture changes considerably. The upper quintile account for 58.5% of income tax revenue, but only 41.4% of all revenue.

Re:if the rich pay the majority of taxes it only

[plague3106]

Oh shut up. "The most productive people?" Are you fucking kidding me? What EXACTLY does a CEO produce? If someone makes 1 million a year (and I'm hard pressed to think how any job that justifies that much) pays 50% tax, they still have a hell of a lot of money left. Compare to someone making 30k, 15% is a HUGE amount taken. And for what? An intrest free loan to the government? Wow.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[Anonymous Coward]

How are you comparing a corporation's income to a private citizen's income?

Tell us how much an Exxon CEO's income tax is compared to his income, then the same proportion for someone in the "bottom 50%" (less than $30k/yr gross income).

Re:Simple Solution

[unlametheweak]

As a British citizen I can't decide which scares me more, DNA databasing or CCTV cameras. You're showing your age. As constant surveillance becomes ubiquitous, people will simply take it for granted. Children now are (to some degree) getting their DNA put in a database by their own parents (for their own good that is), are being watched and tracked through cell phones and GPS tracking devices, have their lockers randomly searched at school, go through metal detectors (at some schools), and closed circuit camera's are starting to show up everywhere. It's all just a part of growing up. And for the grownups drug testing at work is also becoming the new normal (in the US at least). And there is even airborne surveillance now of civilians.

And let's not forget about the Internet and the NSA and the phone companies. It's no secret they are tracking our online activities. There's no need for cookies; deep packet inspection and profiling online behavior and environment variables are all just part of the game.

I can imagine when ankle bracelets with tracking devices will be put on people who are merely arrested. With new laws being created every year, there is more likelihood of a person doing something criminal. It makes sense to be pro-active when it comes to crime; even thought-crime. Blogs and (I'm sure Slashdot user's [through their postings]) are being profiled by the government. Like the saying goes; if you don't have anything to hide, then there is nothing to worry about.

It's a strange new world.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[porcupine8]

I think it's very funny that you cut out the portion of the quote where he defines rich as "over $200,000" and then go on to show that that's exactly right. Of course, he was wrong that only 5% make over $200,000, but instead of just pointing that out you go get all high and mighty.

We built it. They came.

[vkg]

Look, once you have the ability to use DNA fingerprinting, it's more or less inevitable that authoritarian groups will mount a long-term plan to use it. And for every group like the Innocence Project which is using it to exonerate people, there's five groups that go out after a political protest with mops and buckets to grab DNA samples of people who were there to run through the Federal Crime Database.

I'm not *for* this, I'm simply noting that once the science is there, trying to stop it being used in obvious ways which have some tangible social benefits (rape becomes very, very much harder to get away with) is very hard, even if the social costs (political protests become hard to get away with too) are also very real.

I have a partial solution to this problem.

http://guptaoption.com/4.SIAB-ISA.php

It's a proposal - done on a DoD grant - for using strong cryptography and division of powers to separate the biometric database from the identity database, so that all the metadata about a DNA sample - name, for example - is encrypted in a way which requires court orders to retrieve and - *critically* - stored by a separate agency so that it requires three separate groups to work together to bind a name to a DNA sample.

* the DNA database must run the sample
* the Court must agree to decrypt the name information when it is presented
* the Identity database must agree to provide the encrypted data to the court

This approach gives excellent security to the individual, and acknowledges the simple reality that we can't make DNA analysis and other biometric technologies go away. We have to use other technologies to counterbalance them (strong crypto) rather than hoping to turn back the clock.

Tourism

[sherriw]

As a Canadian living close to the border, I'm feeling less and less welcome, and much less likely to pop over to the US to spend my dollars shopping or sight-seeing, given the growing risk that I'll be detained, finger printed, DNA stolen, laptop hard-drive taken or copied, and given a terrorist risk rating.

Really, "welcome" to the land of the free.

Here's hoping the coming election brings SOME kind of change.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[Hatta]

Of course the rich pay more taxes in raw dollar terms, they have more dollars to start with. It's not the amount of taxes paid vs income that makes a tax progressive or regressive. You have to look at the tax rate compared to income.

Poor people pay a greater percentage of their total income in taxes than rich people do. Rich people get more of their income from capitol gains that are taxed at a lower rate than income taxes. Also, poor people are disproportionately affected by sales taxes, since they spend a greater percentage of their income.

Your numbers only account for income taxes paid. Your numbers don't tell us anything about the actual tax rate paid by individuals. Using these numbers to claim that the US tax system is not regressive is completely disingenuous. Look at the next paragraph in the wikipedia article you quoted:

Other taxes in the United States with a less progressive structure or a regressive structure, and legal tax avoidance loopholes change the overall tax burden distribution. For example, the payroll tax system (FICA), a 12.4% Social Security tax on wages up to $97,500 and a 2.9% Medicare tax (a 15.3% total tax that is often split between employee and employer) is a regressive tax on income with no standard deduction or personal exemptions. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of U.S. taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.[12] The Tax Foundation has stated that the burden of the corporate income tax (a 15-39% tax) falls on customers and workers of the corporations, who are often not rich.

You're not telling the whole story here, and you know it. Shame on you.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[Firethorn]

Just because you can barely afford the payments for your Ferrari and 500k square foot house, not to mention the monthly trips down to the caribbean for hookers and blow doesn't mean that you aren't rich.

There was a similar discussion on another board I frequent. Part of the difficulty in defining 'Rich' is that many try to use income to define it, but in reality it's more a statement of wealth. For example, a sole proprietor of a business could have a gross annual income in the millions, yet not be 'rich' because 99% of that is immedietly spent as business expenses.

Still, one guy made a general rule of thumb that I liked:

Poor - Income at or below basic expenses; IE unable to save
Middle Class - Has the ability to save money/live better.
Rich - Independent of work; capable of living indefinitly off of assets.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[PopeRatzo]

I only ask because I got a tax cut and I can barely pay my bills.

Why do you think you got a tax cut? Because you heard it on the AM radio?

When you figure in user fees, transaction fees (have you seen what it costs to get a passport or file a government application?) and the extra cost to you because you've had to repair your car and lost traveling time thanks to the cuts in spending for infrastructure and the road you take to work is crumbling, along with the indirect costs that you bear because the economy is tanking thanks to the war, oil prices and a money policy designed to enrich the President's pals, you have most likely experienced a net loss.

Taxes are more than just the deductions from your puny pay check.

And I wouldn't even mind so much if there was any expectation that the current administration was being even a little bit responsible with the revenue. But you can bet they're falling all over themselves to give tax rebates, "incentives" and givebacks to the corporations, the Chinese and other "sovereign investment funds".

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[PopeRatzo]

Exxon pays more in taxes than the bottom 50% of American taxpayer.

And they pass whatever they pay directly along to the consumers. Who do you pass your income tax bill along to?

And the figure that Exxon supposedly pays in taxes never seems to include the money they get back in "incentives" for drilling for the oil that they then sell to us at inflated prices.

What we have these days in the US is socialism for the richest Americans. When Morgan Chase was able to buy Bear Stearns with the 29 billion that the government gave them, it was one of the biggest handouts in US history.

And last week the Fed announced plans to loan money to banks (which include brokerages that are not banks) at 2.5 percent, and then turn around and allow those banks to loan OUR money back to us at 30 percent credit card rates, that sure sounds like a handout to me.

George Bush has presided over the greatest transfer of wealth in our history: from the working class to the rich.

Oops...

[Firethorn]

These figures are 'capable of' determinations. You can still be rich and bleeding money out like a firehose if you have no fiscal discipline(like most big lottery winners). You might still be saving money and be poor through extraordinary measures.

Somebody who's 'Rich' in the midwest may be poor in NYC.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[Artifakt]

Corporate taxation is always voluntary. Any company that doesn't like its taxation level can simply disolve as a standard corporation and become any of a number of pass through entites that don't pay corporate taxes but pass all taxes on to the people who were once their shareholders.
        For a huge company like Exxon, with many, many foreign investors, corporate investors, etc, this would admittedly take about three to five years to fully transition, as it couldn't just remain monolithic and declare itself a single S-Corp or LLC . There would have to be a number of staged pass through entities which separated stockholders ineligible to join S-corps from ones who were, for example, until all stockholders ended up members of an S-Corp, partnership, LLC, or even a sole propritorship that had contracts with other parts as needed. But, the corporation itself would avoid more and more taxes every year of the transition.
        So why not? Corporate immunity. Whatever taxes Exxon pays, it thinks are worth it to reduce its shareholder's liability for 'incidents' such as the Exxon Valdez. If those taxes were ever too high, as determined solely in Exxon's own opinion, they could pick from several of the many alternatives and transition.
        This doesn't stop corporations from complaining that their voluntary taxes are too high just like an individuals non-voluntary ones.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[FredFredrickson]

So instead they decided to take a new route.

All ten men paid equally 10% of the bill.

The poorest 5 couldn't afford it, so they didn't drink.
6 and 7 could afford to drink a little.
8, 9, and 10 Could drink the most.

Then they realized that the analogy didn't work at all- substitute drinks with roads, police, firemen, public services. Either they happen or they don't.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[ArcherB]

Just because you can barely afford the payments for your Ferrari and 500k square foot house, not to mention the monthly trips down to the caribbean for hookers and blow doesn't mean that you aren't rich.

There was a similar discussion on another board I frequent. Part of the difficulty in defining 'Rich' is that many try to use income to define it, but in reality it's more a statement of wealth. For example, a sole proprietor of a business could have a gross annual income in the millions, yet not be 'rich' because 99% of that is immedietly spent as business expenses.

Still, one guy made a general rule of thumb that I liked:

Poor - Income at or below basic expenses; IE unable to save
Middle Class - Has the ability to save money/live better.
Rich - Independent of work; capable of living indefinitly off of assets. I agree that "Rich" is relative, which is why I get pissed off when someone says that tax cuts only benefit the rich and only the rich get tax cuts. I live check to check with absolutely no money left over. Trust me, I will benefit more from a tax cut than Bill Gates. Granted, he may get a few million more that I do, but what's a few million to a billionaire? Now, an extra $100 a month for me means that I can get that big credit card paid off four years sooner and/or be ready for when an "emergency", like my car breaking down happens! That is HUGE to me.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[Peter Mork]

My apologies that you found my post "high and mighty." However, it turns out that the minimum income needed to be in the top 5% is only ~$125K. If we define rich as income >= $200K, then the rich account for ~2% of the US population. (I don't have the exact percentage at my fingertips, but the cutoff for the top 1% is ~$300K.) I cut out the dollar definition because it did not jive with the top 5% definition, which was the definition I wanted to reply to. I then introduced the average income so that I could compare the top 5% to the bottom 20%. (These figures drawn from 2005 data, as published in Dec. 2007 by the CBO.)

Proven Law Enforcement Tools

[vux984]

DHS spokesman Russ Knocke stated that "DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool."

Its also true that:

"Security cameras are a proven law-enforcement tool"

Perhaps DHS spokesman Russ Knocke would be ok with surveillance cameras being installed in his home. I mean, hey, its a proven law enforcement tool, so he should be happy to submit to it.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[ucblockhead]

If that's true, then we could cut taxes on the poor to 0% and make the lost revenue up by raising taxes on the "rich" by less than a percent.

Aliens discover civilization of criminals

[cylcyl]

In the distant future... When aliens come on the charred remains of earth, they salvage the digital remains of the human civilization.

Alien cultural scientists studies the record and analysed the DNA data recorded. They evaluated whether the species should be resuscitated thru cloning.

Unfortunately, this was finally rejected because they found that overwhelming number of the recorded DNA was found to contain anti-social genes and concluded that the humans were fundamentally flawed in that they were anti-social and when the society hit critical mass, they self-destructed

A BIG missed point

[willy everlearn]

Replicating the DNA so it can be planted as evidence.

Might I Point Out

[Phoenix666]

That the means of genetically finger-printing are not entirely beyond the means of the concerned public? We often like to think that government officials are more virtuous or more protected than the rest of us, but they're not. Somewhere, somehow, they must leave DNA residue behind, be it at a diner or fundraiser or prostitute's bed.

If we citizens resolve to track and catalogue them the way they do us, I think that we'd all quickly discover that the meme of holier-than-thou, upon which a policy like this rests, is a double-edged sword.

Yes, the government has ostensibly more money than we average citizens do. But the gap is not so enormous that it cannot be overcome. If we, as citizens of democracies, undertake the same level of vigilence toward our leaders that they mandate over us, then I believe we shall quickly find that the balance tips in our favor.

But more than our come-uppance, it is our duty to control those who supposedly work for us. Let's, as citizens, assert our employer's right to correct and discipline our employees in the government.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[$random_var]

Two points: Your "not a bailout" arguments seem to center around the fact that the Fed did nothing to avoid the destruction of Bear Stearns as an entity and the fact that a lot of their employees lost their jobs in the transition... that doesn't change the fact that the government stepped in and provided a huge pile of cash to finance a private deal, which pretty much sounds like a bailout to me.

Also, perhaps things would have been touch and go for a while if the government let Bear Stearns collapse ungracefully instead of gracefully, if the government wasn't pumping huge sums of cash into the industry that it may never see again. So? All the government is teaching the financial industry is "feel free to take risky positions, we'll come bail you out by taking on your riskiest investments and lending you money at killer rates". In the long run, it is far more important that banks learn to only take positions that they have properly evaluated and that they can survive. If a dumb bank has to collapse every now and then, so be it.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[gfxguy]

The bottom 48% of wage earners pay no federal income tax (SS and medicare is another argument, but if you want to argue for their demise you won't hear any complaints from me). In fact, many of those receive "Earned Income Tax Credit." In other words, even if they didn't pay into the system, they still get rebates. Yes, it's income redistribution, for good or ill, that's what it is.

Since I'm no the subject, after the Bush tax cuts, more people on the low end of the scale were paying no taxes at all, the tax burden shifted UP, not down.

Since 2000, the tax burden of the bottom 40% of income earners dropped from 0% to NEGATIVE 4%. Conversely, the burden on the top 20% went UP to 85% from 81%.

I'm sick and tired of people claiming the tax cuts were for the rich; if the rich benefited the most it's because they were paying the most, but everyone got a piece of the pie. Moreover, our tax system is still highly progressive... the tax cuts actually made it MORE progressive (accounting for increasing the percentage of the tax burden for the wealthy and lowering it for the poor). If you still think it's not "fair," then I'd like to see some alternative that you think wouldn't destroy the economy beyond it's already dead in the water behavior.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[photomonkey]

I agree with the gist of your argument, but let's keep in mind that the Fed didn't just 'give' Chase $29b.

It was a loan, and Chase will have to enter payments to Uncle Sam.

The government spends tons of money in really stupid ways, but I don't see a $29b loan to be a 'stupid way,' provided it prevented further financial meltdown.

This $600 stimulus package, however IS a dumb waste of money. Give my family $1200 in May so you can come at me in April for $1400. That money comes from somewhere...

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[fyngyrz]

Exxon pays more in taxes than the bottom 50% of American taxpayer.

Followed by...

How are you comparing a corporation's income to a private citizen's income?

You both came close. A considerable amount of Exxon's income (doesn't matter if it's moved to the CEO's pocket or part of a new drill bit or tanker) comes from what? -- selling gasoline, of course. And who is it that pays for that gasoline? The private citizen.

Corporations pay taxes, sure, but everything they pay is built into the price of the items they sell, and you should keep in mind who pays that: The consumer. Who also pays their own taxes.

When someone says "corporations pay XXX and the consumer doesn't have it so bad because they only pay X", they're blowing smoke. Those corporations got a good proportion of that money from the consumer.

For every item you buy, you're paying built-in costs for income tax (and other taxes in some cases) that went into the materials, manufacture, transport, marketing, retailing, etc... of that item. This is with the money you have left over after paying for your own income taxes.

The bottom line is that the tax load on the average consumer is much higher than you think it is.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[fyngyrz]

The actual tax burden on the lowest income group will never drop to 0%, much less to a negative number, because the income taxes (and other taxes) of all the people involved in producing everything they consume are 100% built into the prices of those things they consume. From natural gas to a loaf of bread, everything carries a built-in tax burden.

Furthermore -- for instance in the case of natural gas or electricity -- where the utility company has a health care plan in place for its employees, anyone paying for natural gas is forced to pay for that health care plan before they can address their own health care needs, unless they're willing to live in the cold. This is true for all benefits that accrue to workers supplying low income people with services or goods for money.

Painting low-income people as a tax-free or contribution-free group is either naive, or disingenuous. It just isn't so. Less than the middle class? Sure. The middle class carries a huge load.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[Firethorn]

If it's taxes you're looking to avoid, and you haven't already, consider contributing to a traditional IRA.

Already have a 401k. The 'more taxes' part comes in that because I'm looking to retire early I can't put all my money into tax deferred accounts. Because I'm looking to have the same or more income when I retire, I'm maxing out a roth first.

companies not paying living wages and making sure the poor STAY poor.

You know, I find it sad that here we've been exporting jobs to china and india to save wages, yet people still aren't making 'living wages'.

I agree that you can make smarter choices with your money, but if your choices are having a 'safety margin' and eating, well, you'll probably choose to eat.

I have an interesting view on life, especially what minimum income levels it takes to survive on, what's critical and what's luxury, but yes, I agree that eating comes first. If you're having trouble making food bills, then you're poor(and probably qualify for assistance). I once, on a challange, drew up a budget for somebody making the old minimum wage because somebody said it's impossible to live on it. It can be done. It's just not nice.

Still, I only worked for minumum wage for about 3 months when I was still in HS. Ever since then, I've exceeded that wage by varying amounts.

Part of that is that I DO have knowledge, specifically money management skills. I don't keep track quite like I could if I wanted to, and my budget is fairly flexible, but it's that way because I can afford to be that way. I could probably save some money if I started clipping coupons more, but it just isn't worth the time to me for the moment.

Where you and I could probably borrow at around 7% for that two-year-old used car, the guy with no money has to pay 20% interest or more in a lot of cases.

Unavoidable consequence in that the poor guy with no money is far less likely to pay his loan back on time. Some poor people have good credit, many don't. Many can't handle it, viewing a credit card as 'free money'. For the poor guy who's likely to haul himself out of that category, a $500 decade old car out of the paper is probably a better option. Heck, my car is now 5 years old and still works fine. I really enjoy not having that car payment, but it's getting socked into investments for the eventual purchase of another car, as I know it won't last forever. Of course, I've never had 'bad' credit. I got my first CC back when I was 18, unsecured even. Still have that account*. Use it almost like a debit card; paying it off in full each month.

I've also said that any company that wants to pay that little shouldn't expect employees with cars. Works best in a labor-tight economy, of course, but I've heard of businesses in the past doing stuff like send out a van to pick up their cheap labor. Heck, over in China many factories provide dormatories and dining facilities for their workers.

You can't get a checking account if you don't make enough money, so you lose a chunk of your paycheck to a place that WILL cash it for you. You get charged service fees on your checking account if you don't have enough money in it. The whole setup is regressive.

If there's one business type that I'd throw a brick through the window on just general principal, it's the payday loan/check cashing businesses.

In reality, I've found that a little shopping around will get you a bank account without all that stuff. I've had a no-minimum, no fee** checking acount since I was 14-15. Heck, even a $5-10 montly fee would be cheaper than many check cashing places. Heck, last year I 'upgraded' it to a new plan that also gives me interest*** and 2 free foreign ATM withdrawals. Not bad, huh?

*Well, it's changed numbers because I got a bad/fradulent charge on it once; turned out the company handed a CC number off one line than what they should have. I wrote a letter and got it straightened out. Haven't had any problems since.
**As long as I don't go bouncing checks.
***On average, about 18 cents a month ;)

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[TheWizardOfCheese]

When Morgan Chase was able to buy Bear Stearns with the 29 billion that the government gave them, it was one of the biggest handouts in US history.

Not exactly. The government is at risk for as much as 29bn should the losses on the Bear assets acquired by JP Morgan (not Morgan Chase, a different company) reach 30bn. However, 1) losses are calculated against a price that is already substantially marked down, not the face price, and 2) JP Morgan absorbs the first 1bn of losses. Since they don't really want to lose another billion, they have a strong interest in preserving the government's money too.

And last week the Fed announced plans to loan money to banks (which include brokerages that are not banks) at 2.5 percent, and then turn around and allow those banks to loan OUR money back to us at 30 percent credit card rates

Since these Fed loans are collateralized, they are not lending YOUR money but the bank's money, in more liquid form. The purpose of this is to allow the bank to lend YOU money. You know, just in case you wanted to own a house or have a job?

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[ahabswhale]

While upper wage earners pay more tax (and keep in mind their income has sky-rocketed whereas the middle class and poor have incomes that are flat), when you include sales and property taxes it effects a greater portion of the the income of low wage earners. You can't just look at federal income tax and call it a day because it's hardly the whole picture.

Re:Cut taxes until the federal government collapse

[Curunir_wolf]

I don't think you understand what Bear Sterns does. For the most part, they are just paid to manage *other people's* portfolios. So if they were forced into bankruptcy, not only would their own assets get frozen, so would the assets of millions of customers and their billions of dollars worth of assets.

"Hey, Bob, can you go ahead and sell that that mutual fund? The bank is breathing down my neck and I just need to liquidate some stuff to catch up."

"Oh, gee, sorry, Jim. Since we're bankrupt now, we can't do any buying and selling - have to wait for it all to get settled in court. I'm sure you'll get a letter in a few months telling you who is managing your stuff now."

Here's a better tool

[Randym]

DHS spokesman Russ Knocke stated that 'DNA is a proven law-enforcement tool.'

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is a *better* freedom-enforcement tool -- *and* it has been used a lot longer than this new-fangled DNA stuff.