Patriot Act

[sxn675]

Actually, the Patriot Act changed up the 10k rule a bit. I don''t think that everything in it has been in place for decades. Some of the items were previously proposed and rejected because of limitations on our civil liberties. Because the proposals were already there, it was able to be put together and passed so quickly.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/1/2006 10:26:23 AM
Author: sxn675
Actually, the Patriot Act changed up the 10k rule a bit. I don''t think that everything in it has been in place for decades. Some of the items were previously proposed and rejected because of limitations on our civil liberties. Because the proposals were already there, it was able to be put together and passed so quickly.

Nope, I fill out the exact same paperwork as I did 10+ years ago. Perhaps the only difference is enforcement by other than banks. An individual was supposed to report it wyay back.

And, quite frankly - I have abolutely no problem - never have - with tracking & tracing money. It''s rule number one - follow the money.

 

[sxn675]

The form that you filled out might not change, but it's more integrated on the back end now. Just because your process hasn't changed doesn't mean that there have been no other changes. Banks filed reports and that's been going on for quite some time. Now, banks and businesses alike file reports for payments over 10k with your name, address, SSN and other info on it. I doubt that the average person is aware of this. Also, the account freezing process is now easier.

 

[movie zombie]

yes, the paperwork may stay the same but it is from the bank on up that the changes were made: their reporting requirements and who they must report to under which circumstances. example: the couple that paid off their $6k credit card bill because they thought it was the smart thing to do found out that because the paid a ''percentage'' not their norm, they were suspect under the rules and reported to homeland security.

also, i posted this in another thread but do not think that if you are white you are exempt; being an activist against eminent domain in the state of virginia is enough: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/280306trainingmanual.htm

i actually went to the link within the article and yes in fact the state of virginia does list eminent domain activists as terrorists.

movie zombie

 

[sxn675]

Yeah, I thought I said that those who are white and not a member of a targeted group are not likely to be impacted. It''s scary that speaking out renders one a "terrorist", isn''t it?

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/1/2006 1:17:25 PM
Author: sxn675
The form that you filled out might not change, but it''s more integrated on the back end now. Just because your process hasn''t changed doesn''t mean that there have been no other changes. Banks filed reports and that''s been going on for quite some time. Now, banks and businesses alike file reports for payments over 10k with your name, address, SSN and other info on it. I doubt that the average person is aware of this. Also, the account freezing process is now easier.

This is the same. As a business, you were required to report any cash payment over 10k w/ the necessary information. This is a direct result of the "war on drugs" and money laundering. Art, antiques & diamonds are up there on the list.

I''m all for full disclosure & tracking bank accounts for unusual activity. If the person making a 6k credit card payment "out of character" falls into that category gets netted, then so be it. Unlike private conversations, money is public - one needs to not go any further than 1099''s, etc. Even when you put a down payment for a house, you have to fill out paperwork as to the source. And, following the money works.

I have no problem with anyone following my money. It''s full disclosure already. Geez, the IRS could know what paper towels I prefer & that I buy those Bed diapers

to wrap pottery.

But, I must be on the "terrorist" watch as I do oppose eminent domain. I''ll let you know if I have any problems.

I wonder if it goes back to the person w/ a gun threatening the power guy & blocking an easement.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/1/2006 4:58:37 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 4/1/2006 1:17:25 PM

Author: sxn675

The form that you filled out might not change, but it''s more integrated on the back end now. Just because your process hasn''t changed doesn''t mean that there have been no other changes. Banks filed reports and that''s been going on for quite some time. Now, banks and businesses alike file reports for payments over 10k with your name, address, SSN and other info on it. I doubt that the average person is aware of this. Also, the account freezing process is now easier.

This is the same. As a business, you were required to report any cash payment over 10k w/ the necessary information. This is a direct result of the ''war on drugs'' and money laundering. Art, antiques & diamonds are up there on the list.


I''m all for full disclosure & tracking bank accounts for unusual activity. If the person making a 6k credit card payment ''out of character'' falls into that category gets netted, then so be it. Unlike private conversations, money is public - one needs to not go any further than 1099''s, etc. Even when you put a down payment for a house, you have to fill out paperwork as to the source. And, following the money works.


I have no problem with anyone following my money. It''s full disclosure already. Geez, the IRS could know what paper towels I prefer & that I buy those Bed diapers

to wrap pottery.


But, I must be on the ''terrorist'' watch as I do oppose eminent domain. I''ll let you know if I have any problems.

I wonder if it goes back to the person w/ a gun threatening the power guy & blocking an easement.

Whats sad is that the constitution has been so deluted that you accept the level of intrusion by the IRS as normal :{
the goverment has been using the boiling frog trick for decades and its working.....

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/2/2006 5:20:39 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/1/2006 4:58:37 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 4/1/2006 1:17:25 PM

Author: sxn675

The form that you filled out might not change, but it''s more integrated on the back end now. Just because your process hasn''t changed doesn''t mean that there have been no other changes. Banks filed reports and that''s been going on for quite some time. Now, banks and businesses alike file reports for payments over 10k with your name, address, SSN and other info on it. I doubt that the average person is aware of this. Also, the account freezing process is now easier.

This is the same. As a business, you were required to report any cash payment over 10k w/ the necessary information. This is a direct result of the ''war on drugs'' and money laundering. Art, antiques & diamonds are up there on the list.


I''m all for full disclosure & tracking bank accounts for unusual activity. If the person making a 6k credit card payment ''out of character'' falls into that category gets netted, then so be it. Unlike private conversations, money is public - one needs to not go any further than 1099''s, etc. Even when you put a down payment for a house, you have to fill out paperwork as to the source. And, following the money works.


I have no problem with anyone following my money. It''s full disclosure already. Geez, the IRS could know what paper towels I prefer & that I buy those Bed diapers

to wrap pottery.


But, I must be on the ''terrorist'' watch as I do oppose eminent domain. I''ll let you know if I have any problems.

I wonder if it goes back to the person w/ a gun threatening the power guy & blocking an easement.

Whats sad is that the constitution has been so deluted that you accept the level of intrusion by the IRS as normal :{
the goverment has been using the boiling frog trick for decades and its working.....

No, what blows my mind is the same people who claim that higher income wage earners are not paying their fair share of taxes are the same people who want less intrusion by the IRS. Not singling you out in particular - but it''s a theme. So, I''m O.K. with them having full access to my bank account activity - I don''t have anything to hide. To me, that''s normal.

What''s intrusive about evaluating a receipt of bed diapers as to it relates to my business expenses? Pray tell? On the surface, one wouldn''t know it''s the best way to wrap fragile items. I take that as a business deductiion - they have a right to know why.

I don''t understand - what part of money is public isn''t understood? The money supply, etc. couldn''t be more public.

 

[sxn675]

Again, just because it''s the same for you doesn''t mean that this is the case across the board. It''s not necessarily the full disclosure itself which is a problem, but the account freezing without notification. I don''t think anyone was disputing that business deductions should have receipts and explanations on tax forms either.

Anyway, back to the Patriot Act - I think it''s sad how few Americans actually know what it is. You hear a lot of "if it helps protect us against one terrorist, it''s good" (or something along those lines). But, I don''t know how many people really know how much monitoring is going on.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/2/2006 6:10:00 PM
Author: sxn675
But, I don''t know how many people really know how much monitoring is going on.

Here''s the disconnect. I don''t think many people REALLY know how much monitoring HAS BEEN going on long BEFORE the Patriot Act - just maybe an ajustment in targets.

The problem with the Patriot Act is that is gives a blanket reason for putting into or continuing monitoring policies etc that many groups with agenda''s lobbied for all along. For more than a decade legislation has been brought to many states to regulate the secondary market to include others than pawn shops. If I bought something at a road side sale, I would have to have an address, receipt, some to include SS# - a logistics nightmare. Could you see Granny scaling down to move fill out such paper work? It''s repeatedly been defeated. Now, with the "blanket - it''s good for security to monitor movement of materials - could give it new life.

And, don''t blame eminent domain on this admin. It was the liberal judges that all voted to uphold the right. Also, I see why they could be listed as terrorists. We had a instance here where the property owner would pull a gun on the workers, sabotage their equipment & cause a dangerous situation for the workers. A situation CREATED by the RIGHT to eminent domain to begin with.

 

[colormyworld]

I didn''t know the liberals held the majority on the supreme court.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/3/2006 5:07:09 PM
Author: colormyworld
I didn''t know the liberals held the majority on the supreme court.

This was before the two replacements. Go look at the voting record. It speaks for itself.

 

[sxn675]

Date: 4/4/2006 9:21:18 AM
Author: fire&ice

The problem with the Patriot Act is that is gives a blanket reason for putting into or continuing monitoring policies etc that many groups with agenda's lobbied for all along

Yes, I said that in an earlier post. Most of the provisions were PROPOSED before, not in place, like what you were suggesting. They were shot down before because of the ability to infringe upon our civil liberties. Also, any group of people have the potential to cause violence. But, it only seems to be the ones which oppose the government or who oppose the war which are on the terrorist list. Hmmmm

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 4/4/2006 3:09:27 PM
Author: sxn675

Date: 4/4/2006 9:21:18 AM
Author: fire&ice

The problem with the Patriot Act is that is gives a blanket reason for putting into or continuing monitoring policies etc that many groups with agenda''s lobbied for all along

Yes, I said that in an earlier post. Most of the provisions were PROPOSED before, not in place, like what you were suggesting. They were shot down before because of the ability to infringe upon our civil liberties. Also, any group of people have the potential to cause violence. But, it only seems to be the ones which oppose the government or who oppose the war which are on the terrorist list. Hmmmm

The reason that some of the legislation were shot down was because of grass roots protest. If you think PARTICULAR aspects of the Patriot Act are too intrusive write your legislature, contact the powers that be & state your case with a lot of noise.

And, I am still saying that YES - much of this monitoring WAS ALREADY in place long before the Patriot Act. I don''t think people realize this. Believe what you want. Nothing I say will convince you. I state above "continued" monitoring.

They''ve (a pretty inclusive "they") have been following the money for as long as I''ve known. It''s the basis of any investigation.

 

[sxn675]

Date: 4/4/2006 4:15:32 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 4/4/2006 3:09:27 PM

Author: sxn675

Date: 4/4/2006 9:21:18 AM

Author: fire&ice


The problem with the Patriot Act is that is gives a blanket reason for putting into or continuing monitoring policies etc that many groups with agenda's lobbied for all along

Yes, I said that in an earlier post. Most of the provisions were PROPOSED before, not in place, like what you were suggesting. They were shot down before because of the ability to infringe upon our civil liberties. Also, any group of people have the potential to cause violence. But, it only seems to be the ones which oppose the government or who oppose the war which are on the terrorist list. Hmmmm

The reason that some of the legislation were shot down was because of grass roots protest. If you think PARTICULAR aspects of the Patriot Act are too intrusive write your legislature, contact the powers that be & state your case with a lot of noise.


And, I am still saying that YES - much of this monitoring WAS ALREADY in place long before the Patriot Act. I don't think people realize this. Believe what you want. Nothing I say will convince you. I state above 'continued' monitoring.


They've (a pretty inclusive 'they') have been following the money for as long as I've known. It's the basis of any investigation.

I'd be very interested in any proof you have about the monitoring already in place as you're right, nothing you SAY will convince me. Thanks for the tip about contacting my lawmakers, but I've already done that and have been doing it. I'm sure that I'm on a list.