Slashdot Mirror
Electronic Transaction Reporting Slipped Into Senate Bill
StealthyRoid writes "The Senate mortgage bill proposed by Sen. Chris Dodd (who was the recipient of a sweetheart deal on his mortgage from Countrywide, one of the beneficiaries of the bill) includes an attempt to sneak into law a requirement that all electronic payment processors send detailed transaction data to the federal government. The proposed law contains an exception for businesses with fewer than 200 transactions or a total value less than $10,000. Quoting FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey (former House majority leader) from the article: 'This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay's PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America's small businesses are breathtaking.'" This is the same bill that contains a controversial provision to fingerprint all mortgage brokers.
There is no danger if you have nothing to hide obviously.
But just to be safe, might want to hold out on that "McCain is evil" book purchase. Just in case, you know?
Note to moderators: this entire post, barring this line, is sarcastic.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
yes what we need more govt intrusion into our daily lives sure they won't monitor transactions unless they're over $10000 for 200. but how will they cull this out after the fact? Someday we'll enjoy the freedom and privacy the Soviet Union use to have.
... to tax you with, my dear.
There is a war going on for your mind.
The White House is planning on vetoing it.
Lets see it is a political story, on the negative side and does not mention the party the person is a member of.
Quick survey what party is Chris Dodds a member of?
Why the fuck is this the government's business?
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
Please, please, please call your Senator and urge him or her to vote against this bill. Make sure you say that it would be ludicrous to enact it because then even candidates collecting money via the Internet would be subject to its provisions, on top of the things mentioned by FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey (former House majority leader).
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
The summary says that the minimum reporting is under $10K (USD) or under 200 transactions, but the article shows an and.
Aside from that nitpick, how is this supposed to "raise $9.802 billion over ten years"?
Does that work? I know the definition of "mortgage" is pretty broad, and I guess technically money is collateral, but doesnt this mean that all products are now just loaned to you, you no longer actually own anything you buy? next will there be property tax on bags of chips? or your cupboard space?
There was a similar provision in the recent telecom bill, wasn't there?
I haven't had my gallon of coffee yet, can someone please explain the point of the Fed collecting that data?
I keep hearing this "sweetheart deal" thing about Chris Dodd. You know what the actual deal is? A 30 year AR mortgage intro'd at 4.5%. All that means is the man had good credit and timed his purchase well. It's not like that is out of the range for mortgage rates. When I first heard it, I was thinking a no interest mortgage or something like that. Instead, he's paying almost 5%, like the rest of us.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Welcome to The Police State. Population: You.
It won't matter if it's overridden.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Are they supposed to be shocked? They wrote this, they know it is in there... They know why it is in there.... They dont care what you have to say about it. It is what they want, and you will take it.
more reported income, so more taxes paid?
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
How are they going to work that one out? I can't tell from the original wording whether it is "we won't record" or "we won't create reports" for people with under 200 transactions, but if it is the former (which is what it sounds most like) then how do they manage to tell when you've gone over your 200 transaction limit? Or is this just politicians ignoring vital issues again?
Dodd got a break on 2 of his home loans, and because of him taxpayer money is used to save a troubled lender. While he's at it he's helping all lenders better measure risk for new loans by giving them an ability to look into every aspect of consumer's credit. Does this guy have any shame?
I don't know about you, but I'm seriously thinking of shutting down my credit cards and going back to strictly using cash for everything. This Big Brother Government is seriously beginning to piss me off by constantly being in my shorts!
I'm not American, but I have always been surprised about these riders... Why on earth are riders legal? A bill about picking daisies can have a rider about nuclear weapons... there's no connection, they can be introduced any time, and they always seem to be used to sneak in unfavorable laws... Why are they allowed?
Look kids, it's been a fun free ride and all, but if you think the government isn't gonna tax transactions once it figures out HOW to get at those transactions, well, ha ha ha. Sure. Okay.
They take the money you earn while working for a living and use it for corporate welfare and bailing out rich bastards who gamble and lose, so how long do you think they're gonna watch billions of dollars bouncing around the Interwebz before figuring out a way to dip their collective hand in there too?
As for the "freedom watch" website from TFA - you may wanna check out the rest of the site before you send any large donations.
Efforts to regulate carbon dioxide are an attempt by the global Left to gain control of the U.S. economy. lolwut?That which does not kill us makes us... st
You don't know that he has good credit, or that he timed his purchase well.
It *could* be explained by excellent credit and perfect timing, but there is no harm in checking up on exactly why he got the rate he got, his position obligates him to a higher standard.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
A congressional bill, as it evolves and eventually maybe becomes law, is a living document. In every sphere of the real world where multiple authors work collaboratively on a same document, we use content management systems, that allow versioning, attribution, and history. It makes changes to a document transparent. Businesses use it, non-profits use it. Why not demand our Congress to use it and stop this monkey business of "was slipped into the bill"? Sounds like conversation you'd here in the playground, for gods' sake..
Unfortunately, this is from a blog that wishes to attack Dodd(and little else at this moment). They have the most to gain by finding something to drop on him.
Try again, and without sounding like you just want to attack Dodd.
As for Congress, thank the obstructionist Republicans for the rating.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
"freedomworks.org" What is their goals? fighting "social engineers and the freedom-haters."
Ah yes. The freedom-haters. We all must be careful. They are out there fight now hating. Hating our freedom. And what is the only way to fight them? Of course, <A href="http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/history.php">promoting lower taxes, a limited government, and greater economic freedom</A>. But you knew that already unless you are already a freedom-hater.
also in there is a provision requiring all persons even tangentially connected to real estate sales to have their fingerprints sent to the gov to go into a database. so if you sell houses, do make ready, work on house financing, get ready to get printed and added to the db :).
i like congress better when they do nothing.
-.no
...for the "who's at home". When a Republican party member is spoken about here on /., you always, and I mean *ALWAYS* see his/her party affiliation highlighted, yet in this post, its a Democrat who got his hand caught in the cookie jar and there is no mention of which side of the aisle he sits on.
Nothing untoward in my post, just making sure we all know who he is affiliated with.
From TFA:
"Payment settlement entities [...] will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS..."
Although I'm a long-time libertarian, I have to say that if they're collecting ONLY an annual gross dollar figure, and not the details of individual transactions, it probably would help them collect taxes and it would probably be a sensible thing to do in the context of existing laws. Income taxes are stupid in principle, but I can't think of a good reason to apply them only to money that's harder to conceal.
It is a concern that this "gimme a ballpark figure" will eventually become "gimme your customer list" but we can burn that bridge when we come to it...
811.29.3.2
I thought the Nazis lost the War???
Is it just me, or does this just scream "I want to kill this bill by tacking on all sorts of unrelated things that are completely irrelevant so no one will vote for it, because everyone will hate something about it".
Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
"Income taxes are stupid in principle"
really? So, what, we should just tax everyone the same dollar amount?
And if you believe that, you also have to believe the moderation here has a clue about anything.
The post below best explains it-
Considering that it was slipped in by a Democrat (Dodd) and the person blowing the whistle is a Republican (Armey) you might want to warn people about not purchasing the equivalent "Obama Is Evil" book.
You know how you can tell the party affiliations on a Slashdot story? If its negative about a Republican the summary almost always mentions it. If its negative about a Democrat they usually just say "Senator" or 'Congressman" with no party affiliation.
According to countrywide he got .5 off his rate because he was a US Senator. He knowingly accepted the VIP designation then tried to claim he thought it meant nothing? He serves and has served on various boards which have some power over this industry? Perhaps his party affiliation is saving him. I bet it is.
Read up on it, http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/06/12/Countrywide-Loan-Scandal
By lowering his rate they effectively handed him $60,000. In other words, Congressmen don't play by our rules. Their ability to regulate the industry means they intimidate without having to lift a finger. Considering his role in this bill and the fact he takes money from Countrywide for his reelection makes the whole thing stink.
and people wonder why crap like this little transaction law slips in. These guys are always slipping stuff in and out trying to avoid our knowledge of what they really do.
Dodd is a crook. He is a liar. He was simply caught and now is trying hide from it.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
They'll just bring it up again on January 20, when the next president (regardless of who wins) WILL sign it.
...I can tell you what DIDN'T kill her: smoking!
Well, if this passes I won't be purchasing anything off of the internet. Does anyone know if Amazon is trying to fight this?
A bill about picking daisies can have a rider about nuclear weapons...
The link between picking daisies and nuclear weapons went out with the Johnson Administration.1. Government finds that money is changing hands.
2. Government gets information on transaction.
3. Government taxes transaction.
4. Government profits.
5. GOTO 1
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Well, sure. The government would like to know about your every activity, from breathing, eating, voiding, spending, reading, listening, talking, pretty much everything. The better to tax you, regulate you, imprison you, coerce you.
That doesn't mean we should willing give up that right, nor does it say in the supreme law of the land where the government has been given that power.
Better to let 1 million people cheat on their taxes than 250 million give up every last vestige of privacy.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I cannot believe how corrupt your government is, I mean really. All governments are certainly prone to corruption, and mine is no different, but shit if your senate and house aren't just unbelievably corrupt, both right and left. The only way to clean out the bums would be to replace every single one of them and carpet bomb the offices of the lobbyists and other assorted scum that are Washington DC. There wouldn't be much left though, so you might as well jsut level the place and start over. As I recall the Canadians burned down the white house in the war of 1812, maybe they could go in again and finish the job?
Salut,
Jacques
This way, the government can make sure you're spending your money the "right way."
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
That Obama is the anti-christ, so I'm sure there are a few books out there.
Actually his OWN site has a few blogs that could make one think that way.(blogs on the obama site are moderated, so Obama at least passively agrees with these blogs)
(note that stuff there tends to disappear faster than Obama's campaign promises* once media link to it)
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/MarxistsSocialistsCommunistsforObama ...
This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/adamroberts/C2Qm/commentary
The Neo-proleatarian is now the bearer of the Revolution. Thats why I support Obama. He helps destroy the paradigm of bourgeoisie government, which is best for the Proletariat. In the end, this will only hasten the Revolution even if the Revolution must come as a massive goverment reform...
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/jemaahislamiyahforobama
Jemaah Islamiyah For Obama
We are a group that supports social justice for our oppressed Muslim brothers all over the world. We support Barack Obama for President because he is sympathetic to the plight of Muslims. He is a man of integrity, who will not be bullied by the neo-cons and the zionists. He will stand up for our oppressed palestinian brothers and sisters, whose land is being illegally occupied by that evil zionist entity whose name I just hate to even write.
Who is Jemaah Islamaya you ask ? Well :
Self-proclaimed killers of 202 people for "being infidels"
* using military force for an undivided Israeli Jerusalem for example, but obviously Obama "didn't know what he was saying". What sort of an excuse is that if you want to become president ?
But don't worry ... that this sort of stuff appears on MODERATED blogs on Obama's site obviously means that (I'm not kidding) :
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/michaelpugliese/gG5Gyt/commentary
It's all planted by fascist right wingers
It's democrats that currently control the laws, in case anyone's forgotten. This is therefore, their fault. And by extention, Obama's. Obama is a demagogue : he hates government power, EXCEPT WHEN HE'S THE GOVERNMENT
How can anyone seriously be stupid enough to fall for this guy ?
Write to your senators and congressmen/women and urge them to support the act and put an end to this practice.
Also, look at the "Read the Bills Act" and "Write the Bills Act"
i call bullshit on the dodd scandal. i took out a $275K loan in 2003. i was offered a 4.5% rate, but bargained it down to 4.25%. so dodd's power and influence got him the same deal offered to an ordinary joe like me? move along, there's nothing to see here.
parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus
I've thought the same thing. However, look at it this way...
Can you think of a generalized rule to prevent it? How does one quantify whether two subjects are related or not? Especially considering a valid relationship is a compromise -say we combine issue X which is important to group A (and weakly opposed by B) and issue Y which is important to group B (and weakly opposed by group A).
Sentiment summed up nicely here.
Constitutionally Correct
I thought this was there to prevent cross state online shenanigans like the enron scandal.
I'm not necessarily sure I would trust the word of someone with an epigram like that at the bottom of the page. (nor anyone who refers to inheritance taxes as the "death tax") if you check out their other principles at that website, you're looking at a deregulation cowboy. (I think slashdot is being played here...)
fwiw, the DHS already does this. if you pay an inordinate amount to your credit card, the transaction can/will be delayed a week or so while it is looked over be the homeland security department. (try it sometimes, one month pay substantially more than you normally pay in a month to your credit card, the transaction may be delayed up to 2 weeks while you are checked out.)
It sounds like from the part of the summary that this is limited to businesses. which already have to itemize much of their business costs and transactions for tax purposes, but there was a hole left for online transactions...
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
The simplest and best change all media can make is to include the bill number of the bills they are talking about. Then people can easily go to THOMAS and see and interpret the bill for themselves.
How about it Slashdot? Will you start including the bill number in any discussion about legislation?
just to be fair...
feeling a little defensive are we?
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Some URLs are getting yanked/deleted.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/michaelpugliese/gG5Gyt
and jokers to the right.
This practice one of the major points of contention I have with my country. Bills should have to be specific and focused on ONE and only one topic. This has to be one of the most corrupt and ridiculous practices, yet it goes on daily and no one is up in arms about it.
This would never fly in any other area of life, yet we allow it to happen blindly over and over again. /Oh, BTW we tacked on a bit at the end of your mortgage stating that you can only wear blue shoes and cut your hair every fifth Thursday.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
I haven't seen any source that says this is Dodd's bill or Amendment. Dodd is the committee chairman, but everything I can find on the Congressional Record says Dodd/Shelby. Even the link's only source says Dodd/Shelby.
Anyone have any evidence that this amendment was Dodd's or whether this provision was even supported by him?
and I've read enough comments to know that kdawson is so rabidly biased towards liberals that he/she would NEVER post an article even remotely critical of the democrats.
Obviously this post doesn't exist. I am actually your subconscious and I'm using this comment to urge you to seek help for what must be a rapidly deteriorating psychosis. I may try to alert you in other ways through out the rest of the day. Keep your eyes open for things like dogs loving cats, attractive women flirting with you, or console fanboys of all persuasions living together in harmony; I will only attempt to contact you through paradoxes.
I guess it's also possible that kdawson's account was hacked, but that seems like a long shot.
...you do realize that this is commonplace everywhere, right? They usually attach them to things like anti-child porn or anti-terrorist bills (okay, not that extreme, perhaps). That way if anybody votes against the bill (you can't vote against the tiny part attached to it), the person slipping that part in will point and say "see!? He wants the terrorists to win! He likes child porn!"
It's not too unlike trying to slip in a vote on software patents at an agricultural meeting.
( citation needed? mkay : http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,39185041,00.htm )
College-Pages.com - Online Colleges, Degrees, and Programs
Seriously, how long do we have to put up with this horseshit of modifying the content of a proposed bill once it's been proposed? It always gets abused and it seldom gets used for anything good. If you want to change a proposed bill then it should be completely and entirely withdrawn and resubmitted. This kind of horseshit is a perfect example of why unrelated amendments should never be allowed to piggyback on bills. I'm less than impressed with just about every elected representative we have today.
This bill is not what you think. I am more worried about big brother then most but after reading the bill I only see it refering to amounts of transactions for tax purposes. The following is a quote "will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee." It doesnt appear to require names or even transaction details. What do you all think?
Read it here http://rpc.senate.gov/public/_files/L62HR3221Houseamendments0618SN.pdf
Name that party.
Another potential loophole into an anarchist cyberpunk future foiled again! If it isn't those crooked Republicans it's those lowsy Democrats! AARGH!!! At this rate, wearing goggles on my head and strapping PDAs to my wrists will never be acceptable in public!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) is responsible for this abominable privacy invasion. Yes, he's the guy who made a big show of filibustering the FISA revisions that included telco amnesty for violating it (and the Wiretap Act, thousands or millions of times) earlier this year as he ran for president. FWIW, that FISA telco amnesty is heading to passage in the House today, after passing the Senate months ago and getting a "compromise" papered over to force the courts to give the amnesty according to controived legal technicalities. I haven't heard Dodd complaining lately, despite this endrun around his fillibuster.
But I guess that since Dodd's been taking bribes for decades as Senate Banking Committee Chair (or Ranking Member, when Republicans are the majority), and banks will get a lot more transaction processing work from the government (paid by our taxes), his position is bought and paid for.
This invasion is perfectly complementary to the FISA-breaking warrantless wiretapping that telcos want amnesty for. What the hell kind of right to privacy survives the government tracking our every financial transaction, for datamining and other snooping?
This country has gone insane. And by "this country" I mean the politicians and their corporate sponsors, as well as the hundreds of millions of people just watching them get away with it.
--
make install -not war
No retail experience eh?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Define "subject".
Define "clearly and descriptively expressed."
Define "germane to the subject matter."
Sorry, this is Unconstitutional. No Congress can bind a future Congress or prohibit what laws it may or may not pass. The first time each new Congress meets, it must agree to the Rules of the Hosue or Senate (whichever is applicable). Anyone familiar with the rules of the Legislature should know this if for no other reason than the "nuclear option" debate on the filibuster that crops up every couple of years.
Article I, Section 5
One can no more say all bills must be one subject by legislation than a bill could be passed that said "No Law can be passed that recognizes gay marriage". By the rules of a House in a single Congress it could be done, but those rules are null and void the next time Congress reforms.
So its an unenforceable (overly vague), Unconstitutional bill. But other than that, its swell.
Is toast anyway, so not surprised a bit.
Time to go back to cash only.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The proposed law contains an exception for businesses with fewer than 200 transactions or a total value less than $10,000.
I don't read that as a person with 200 transactions or less and I also don't read it as a person doing less that $10,000 in transactions.
I read that as businesses don't have to report if the business does less than $10,000 in transactions or less than 200 transactions. The article doesn't say whether that is over the life of the business or a day. What kind of business doesn't do at least $10,000 in business in a month or over the course of the life of the business?
Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
I guess this is the start of another Republican witch hunt...This is not some outrageous sweetheart deal. My wife and sister each got mortgages at below the interest rates cited in the article around that same time. My wife was unemployed at the time and my sister was self-employed, working from home at the time. They both had (and still have) excellent credit.
This is much much ado about nothing at all.
Of course, that won't stop the Republicans, who like a good witch hunt.
College-Pages.com - Online Colleges, Degrees, and Programs
If the gov't wants us to send them a list of all our transactions, then they should start sending every citizen a list of all legislations and spendings like an rss feed of how our tax dollars are being used and who to call if we want to complain.
... and if this is about acquirers (merchants and those working on their behalf) reporting their detailed transactions, I have no problem with it. However, that's predicated on their being no issuer (cardholders) data *at all* being on those records. So if Joe's Equine Necrophilia Emporium.com sells a video about such a topic, fine, report it to the government. Who they sold it to needs to be available only under subpoena. (Of course, anyone who doesn't pay cash for such has simply compounded a questionable decision.)
Besides, all of this data for Visa/MasterCard already lives in the acquirer's systems anyway for generally a minimum of 180 days (in the US, can be longer elsewhere) to support dispute lifecycles. Visa and MasterCard members already have to report highly aggregated data regarding how much volume they did, both issuer- and acquirer-side, to the Visa and MasterCard associations sliced up a bunch of ways.
The government doesn't enjoy the right to know what I purchased, or who I purchased it from. However, under it's authority to regulate interstate commerce, it does have the right to know how much dollar volume a particular business or person generates through commerce.
What a coincidence! I just read Little Brother linked from a slashdot comment last week, and it had just this sort of issue passed in a fictitious "Patriot act 2." Like the Turk suggested: time to go for cash. I wished governments would stop using these orwellian texts as instruction manuals.
Please... as bad as this sounds, but could we PLEASE stop making laws? Every week I feel like there's 1 more thing I can't do, and 1 more thing that I don't want to do but have to.
Could we please just stop making laws? I'm happy with my already limited lifestyle. I'm tired of having to keep up with the list of new obscure laws. We have no more need for lawmakers, everything that we needed for laws has been pretty well ironed out long ago, and any gray areas that have been solved through courts have been good enough.
Why is it that I can list more bad laws than good laws?
Disclaimer: I am not god.
We may not be created equal
But we can be treated equal.
Note the last line from TFA:
"Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years."
They don't (yet) give a damn WHAT you purchase. The whole idea is to let the tax man get at all those small transactions that presently tend to go unreported as income.
Of course, the unintended consequence of recording what you buy has its own issues, which fall under "general privacy". Nothing to hide? Do you really WANT everyone to know you bought S&M toys??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Liberals spin it to deflect guilt towards Republicans becasue as we know Democrats are clean and fair and never ever lie, cheat or steal.
The Coward who created the post below apparently has a penchant for Sci-Fi Rooted Conspiracys in order to present Dodd, the Democrat as a victim of Body Snatching rather than being guilty as charged.
I wonder what they will say when President Obama is found guilty of Representing the Socialist-Marxist-Muslim Friendly 5th Column Infiltration of the United States Govt and Impeached and run out of town.
They will blame Republicans of course because as you all know, Democrats are free of sin and only have our best interests at heart.
Another Coward Said...
The real Chris Dodd is a Democrat, but in this case his body has obviously been taken over by those havoc-wreaking Republicans! Invasion of privacy means nothing to them! To think that they have stooped to such base levels of taking over a Democrat's body just to serve their cause!
It is best not to refer to him as a Democrat until it is proved that it is the real Chris Dodd. In fact for the time being it would probably be best to say "A man who claims to be Chris Dodd..."
Now, if it turns out that it is the real Chris Dodd, then of course we have full confidence that his motives are to further, in the best way possible, the social and environmental causes that are vital to this country's continued existence!
Da Bush IS the incompetent root of all evil.
Look around you, the proof is indisputable.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
I can only hope that when Obama is King of Democrats, he will put an end to this type of bullshit. Maybe even clean ranks, force all these old bastards out!
Otherwise I will turn into an angry, unforgiving voter who rejects him and the rest of my government as a collection of corrupt and/or incompetent assholes determined to retard the march of civilization. Again.
We have a fleeting chance with this young idealist to hold him to the grindstone and force him to do the people's work. If we lose this chance, there's no telling how long before we'll get another.
(I don't care about partisan crap...as long as you are honest and transparent about your beliefs and intentions, we can all have a productive discussion to find enough common ground to Get Shit Done.)
"No Congress can bind a future Congress or prohibit what laws it may or may not pass."
And this is part of the problem. Congress is in a position to do as it damn well pleases, with only the fading shadow of the Constitution to prohibit them from passing bad laws.
But the point of the "One Subject At A Time" act isn't to prohibit what laws Congress can pass; it's to ensure that all subjects in proposed laws are *individually* examined. Unrelated subjects that used to be combined into a single bill would then be separated out into multiple bills. And most importantly, that way each subject gets seen in broad daylight, rather than being hidden in the shadow of larger subjects. Many provisions that now pass because "You can't vote against [insert hotbutton here]" would fail to pass when examined by themselves, with only their own merits (if any) to promote them. Earmarks and porkbarrels would go away real quick, since viewed as standalones, it's clear they're strictly for the benefit of special interests, not for the benefit of America.
The bill under discussion today is itself a good example of why a "One Subject at a Time" law is needed. Sure, offer *separate* bills for "reporting transactions" and "fingerprinting mortgage officers", that's perfectly legit; after all there is no limit to how many bills a Congresscritter can introduce. But combining them because that way the unpopular provision gets passed along with the popular one, that's just dirty pool.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Not only do I never carry a balance on credit cards, I use my credit cards on business trips, to hold a hotel room or to rent a car (which, for all but a couple of times per year, is for business), and that is literally all I use them for. When on business and your expenses are covered the paper trail is beneficial--it IS on behalf of your employer and you SHOULDN'T hide that stuff.
However, in my personal life, I ALWAYS use cash. I leave the credit card in the wallet and use my debit card at the ATM in the bank to withdraw cash once or twice a week (I NEVER use ATM's not in a bank branch, nor do I use point-of-sale debit terminals).
I have done point-of-sale projects in the past and have first-hand knowledge about how antiquated and crackable the technology is, which was bad enough, but three years ago I had the PIN and magstripe data skimmed from myu debit card when I used the card to pay for a fuel purchase using a doctored terminal. I now view point-of-sale debit card technology as insufficiently trustworthy for my financial needs.
Since that incident I only use my cards at bank branches (at the teller or the ATM) to get cash, then I live on paper cash purchases. There was an unexpected side benefit too: I spent a good 20 percent LESS than when I lived on plastic cards..without even trying. This is because you can do your budgeting right in your wallet--no need to wait for the statement in them ail or log into a website or whatever to figure out how much you spent and how much you can spend for the rest of the week without depleting your savings. When you don't have much cash left in your wallet and it is habit to just use cash you just start spending less.
Now, you've got nosy little congresscritters wanting to mine your purchasing records data..in the name of "keeping you safe", but it can conveniently flag people with unreported income. I guess there is another benefit to my method of living on cash now: you have nothing to hide because you show next to nothing. The gov't can oly see how much you're withdrawing and has no idea (or proof) of your spending habits (for all they know you're putting the money you withdoraw in your mattress).
The mainstream "DID CLINTON GET A SLOPPY BLOWJOB????" media, *favoring* democrats? The mainstream "Let's only mention Bush's failings in passing and never his party" media?
There's a reason Republicans (much like yourself, I suspect) blame the "liberal media bias"; reality has a very well-known liberal bias towards not tolerating disgusting slimeballs.
The reason you don't see as many democrats scandals on tv is there aren't as many freaking pedophiles, perverts and corrupted assholes in the Democratic party.
As a little interesting homework, try and make a list of recent indicted Democrats. Then indicted Republicans. Compare. Ponder the "influence of the media on the judges" or whatever apologist bullshit you want to blame THAT on.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
...but could you provide at least one pair of links in the past year from major media outlets (CNN, NYT, and so on), that backs this up. In other words, an article about a national democratic figure that fails to include party affiliation, while an article about a republican figure that includes the party affiliation. The primary topic of the article must be the act of which the official is accused, and the offense of the democratic figure must be at least as great as the that of the republican. Ideally the pair of links should come from the same media outlet.
Seriously, you might get this kind of crap from local newspapers with axes to grind, but the national media? They at least put (D-NY) or (R-MT) after the official's name, showing both party affiliation and state.
We are the 198 proof..
It still doesn't make sense. "Subject" can't be adequately defined. If I propose a bill that increases the gas tax and uses that money to fund research into clean energy alternatives, how many subjects have I broached? If I put stipulations in the taxes, perhaps exempting charities, does that add another subject? If I put restrictions on the type of research or reporting requirements at any place receiving the funding for such research, is that another subject?
Additionally, compromise isn't a bad thing. A bill that has two "subjects" isn't inherently bad. A bill can have two 'subjects' but only make sense in combination or only have enough support if implemented in combination. Those bills aren't inherently bad.
Finally, its still an Unconstitutional bill because it tries to restrict Congress's ability to pass (or discuss) legislation. At most it could be a rule and then, again, it would only apply to that session.
Transfer of funds and checks in amounts of $10,000 or greater have been reported for many years. Nothing really new here.
As you say "subject" tends to be fuzzy -- but your example is at least all on the same planet. Cars, roads, gas tax, all focus on one general subject. However, add to that, say, provisions affecting transportation *specifically* of livestock feed, and that's getting too far off-topic, notably for singling out one ASPECT or intersection of another industry.
Maybe a moderation system could be used -- if enough Congresscritters think it's not single-topic, then it has to be broken up. And "enough" should be a reasonable minority, say 10% (you want the minimum objection small to discourage backroom coalitions). Surely at least 10% of 'em are sufficiently honest at any one time??
"Additionally, compromise isn't a bad thing. A bill that has two "subjects" isn't inherently bad. A bill can have two 'subjects' but only make sense in combination or only have enough support if implemented in combination. Those bills aren't inherently bad."
Think about what you just proposed -- essentially that two lousy bills (and chances are that if they're that poorly supported, they're not good bills) in combination equals one good bill. Two wrongs now make a right. I know it's not always like that, but it's USED that way far too often by Congress itself.
And finally, the reason it matters whether it's a "rule" or a "law" is that Congress can change mere rules a lot easier than it can change laws. If a "Single Subject" or "Read the Bills" rule is too onerous (meaning too inconvenient to special interests), it'll just be ignored. It's harder to ignore a *law* and still justify your behaviour to your constituents.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
This article from Government Executive (http://www.govexec.com/features/0608-01/0608-01s2.htm) may shed some light on why the provision is in the bill. It's all about following the money.
I don't know why everyone's so up in arms about the government tracking purchase data. They can't be any more evil with our transaction data than what Wal-Mart, you local chain mega-grocery, the phone company, or the banks that issues our credit cards do with it in the name of capitalism, commerce, and their 1st ammendment "right" to innundate us with junk mail, spam, and credit card offers.
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
According to the ACLU's press release it passed. A sad day for your country, I suspect. http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35740prs20080620.html
It isn't the things I can think of them doing with it that worries me, it's the things that I haven't thought of that are worrisome.
I wouldn't put the onus of this bias on /., though. I've noticed that the media in general has been publishing more Obama stories than McCain stories. I think there is a good (if not healthy) reason for this, too. Obama is more newsworthy. Like him, hate him, or indiferent to him, you must admit he something different. And not just racially, but his campain is not quite following the historic pattern, his followers are different. John McCain is just another stodgy white-guy, going for oil executives and
College-Pages.com - Online Colleges, Degrees, and Programs
Big deal. Paypal et al. will be required to report payments received, so you will have no choice but to declare them for tax purposes. So what? Is there a legitimate reason for not declaring $10k+ that I'm missing?
Anybody who loses out by this becoming law does so because they were breaking the law anyway. If you don't like the taxes, complain about the taxes, but don't complain because they're making you pay them.
(Or move to the UK. Our government isn't that clueful about the intarwebs yet.)
"It's not time to shoot the bastards, yet."
--Claire Wolfe
"It's time."
--Andy
lollll...gee, all of that BDS-stuff you have embedded in your post strikes me as being "a politically motivated post [...], intended to inflame other posters".
I mean, c'mon - Bush may be your hero, but that doesn't mean he has to be ours...
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
We have a certain expectation of our trolls, that they should be clever and subtle.
Troll? Nah, that's a flawed assumption on your part. I couldn't give a damn about trolling. It was meant as a direct insult, pure and simple.
Those who cling to fascists are themselves weak, cretinous, contemptible, slimy little specs of worm shit, or sick in the head, or both.
Electronic transaction reporting, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)