Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Mar 3, 2006.
Thank God I carry high balances and barely pay the minimum payments, like any God-fearing red-blooded American should. The only people that can afford to pay that much on a card balance are drug dealers and terrorists.
And maybe commies. But I've never really heard of a rich commie.
Does the tempering of the disturbing with the surreal make it an easier pill to swallow?
how do you go from paying off your credit cards (minimum payment plus a little extra perhaps) to a huge solid chunk of cash you can hand over like that?
what did he win that he was able to delete his debt?
Wow, I sure hope I never receive an inheritance or win the lottery or something! If I get the urge to pay off my bills, I might be mistaken for al-Qaeda.
You're kidding. You mean you've never heard of this guy?
What business is it of yours, or anyone else's bar the IRS?
The article clearly doesn't state why the bill was so high, maybe they had gone traveling or made a couple of big purchases? Also, maybe they sold some property or cashed in a CD. There are any number of reasons why.
Why aren't you more concerned with this insane rule? How could anyone paying off a debt be considered a terrorist sympathiser? A retired Texan schoolteacher nonetheless!
i have often put large business charges on my personal card (rack up those airline miles), then made large payments once i'm reimbursed. just one of many scenarios, and i'm agreeing with skunk that it's no one's business.
i wonder if the CC companies continue to charge interest on the balance while the payment is under investigation.
Actually, they're in it with Homeland Security. For every extra dollar they get to charge people, HS gets a 25% cut.
Wow, I'm glad I haven't paid down my credit card debt with the money I got when I cashed in my stock options after leaving my last job. As a non-US citizen I would probably end up being deported (although I'm sure they'd let my two little girls, who are US citizens, stay).
Is this a statement of fact or rhetorical in nature?
And they probably also charge you a late fee, since you didn't make a payment on time. (After all, they don't "receive" the money 'til it clears Homeland Security...)
Has anyone found any other reporting on this story? I mean, something independent of the original Scripps-Howard story that zimv20 linked to. I went to the ACLU web site (no, really!) and tried searches for "Soehnge" (which turned up no results) and "bank privacy act" (which got a lot of hits, but nothing recent that appears to be relevant to this story).
Edit: Just to be clear: If anyone can point me to some reasonaly authoritative document that describes these post-9/11 changes to the "Bank Privacy Act" that the story refers to, that would be swell.
Lyle, the Homeland Security folks probably have enough small print tucked away in Patriot Acts I, II and Not For Public Knowledge that any money transaction over a few hundred bucks gets checked out.
I did a trade-in deal to upgrade a truck, two years back. My truck plus a check and out the door, I thought. Well, yeah, after they filled out extra forms for the HS folks, including my SS #. A check, now, remember, not greenbacks.
The whole world's gone stark raving bonkers...
But then, why would I expect rational thought from those who've given us the TSA and its gropers in training?
Just cynical humor.
here's an example:
you have a credit card with a 12 month 0% interest intro rate. you want a new MacBook. you have $5000 in your checking account. you put the MacBook on your 0% card, the $5000 into a 12 month CD. you make minimum payments, and at the end of 12 months, you cash the CD and pay off the card.
that's what i've done for my last two computers, and it's what i plan to do for my next one. why should the government be compelled or allowed to interfere with that transaction?
tax return. a home loan refinance. a new consolidated loan. money owed to cardholder [from whomever] was returned. sold something of value. lucky poker hand. won the lotto... any number of things.
that is ridiculous! if only they paid so much attention to what is SPENT on those cards... like when my friend's platinum card was stolen and got $9,000 put on it before anyone caught it. greedy pricks probably don't like people getting out of debt.
that freaks me out a bit. i just paid $3000 towards my credit card last month, and this is not common practice for me. do you want to know how pissed off i'd be if someone got in my face for that? good grief. this spying game crap is insane.
I did a search for the guys name and the info and got a couple of hits, but most of them were quoting the article. I can't blame you for being cynical, as it does sound like a conspiracy theory, but the fact that so many of us are ready to believe it in this day and age should tell you something. That, and there were both pro-Bush and anti-Republican/pro-Dem articles on that site. It is a real site, and the story is a couple of days old. I'm sure there are plenty of other anecdotal stories of things like this occurring. A quick Google search confirms.
Most people never realize because the transaction goes through pretty quickly, but I've had some large amounts take a couple of days to be posted to my account after paying online.
I do contract work. When I'm not working, I use the cards more and pay less. When I go back to work, I pay them off (down to 1 now). Besides the numerous other responses already posted. Seems weird that you would sooner question the guy than what happened to him. Seems like the gov is being a little more paranoid on this one than they should, and I doubt it will uncover much, if anything.
And this isn't even the worst of what's happening.
This kind of scrutiny for large transactions has been happening for a long time, it all gets checked for possible money laundering. The Secret Service was moved from the Treasury to Homeland Security a while back, but large-ish chunks of money have triggered reporting since well before 9/11.
can you qualify "money"? i know that any cash transaction of $10k or greater must be reported. anything additional?
The $10K cash thing is mandatory reporting.
There is a second system of suspicious activity reports for any transaction over $5000 whenever the bank suspects that something funny may be going on. It's the bank that decides what to report. This system was added in 1996.
Here comes the police state , we will be in everyones business, we will intrude into your life at everychance, we will tell you what you can and cant do...................Keep voting Republican........we can make everyone guilty of something even if they arent. The Police State. Brought to you by the same control freaks who wont stop millions of mexicans or the Uae from running our ports but pay off a credit card early.............. George Bush's America or rather Homeland
I'm just flashing back to the recent story about the college student who supposedly checked out Mao's Little Red Book from the library, only to have DHS officials show up on his doorstep to interrogate him. The story got (as I recall) a good deal of coverage in the press and on the blogosphere. Lots of outcry here at MacRumors about the police state, no doubt with a post from DHM about the the draft-dodging scumbags behind it all.
And a week or so later, it was revealed to be a hoax. And as I recall, the response here was like yours: "Well, sure he made it up, but it sounds true, doesn't it?"
I have no idea if the (current) story is true or not. I'm not claiming conspiracy, I was just looking for any reporting on the story independent of the Scripps-Howard news service. Something that backs up the claim that after 9/11, changes were made to the Bank Privacy Act (or whatever) giving these powers to the DHS.
I love how the Government has got their ****ing noses all in a contract between me and another individual.
It's none of your ****ing business.
It's not bad enough that they ditched real bankruptcy law, and then told cerdit card companies that they "should" increase their monthly minimum payments, which, of course, they did all under the guise of "Federal Guidance."
Canada, here I come.
If this is true, it's just another silly waste of taxpayer dollars.
It amuses me how many people said they were voting for Bush because they didn't want to live in a 'nanny state'.