The Correct Response...
 

On May 2, 2:05*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly amazes me
that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_ the idea of the
policeman on every street corner (or is it every tenth of a street
corner these days?) being able to "demand your papers" (your ID) --
something I don't like either -- have _no_ problem _at all_ with the
police state being able to demand not only your ID but intimate details
about your family and home life, and every tiny detail of every
financial transaction you have ever engaged in, on pain of severe
punishment (ultimately enforced by uniformed goons with guns) when the
Census man or the Internal Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?

* *I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car.
Simple transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

* *I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was
required to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name,
address, all credit card and all bank account numbers were required.
Rent payments, utility payments, any other oblications. Employment
history for the last 10 years, with names and phone numbers.
Residential history for the last 10 years with names and phone
numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

* *And all sources of supplementary income.

* *When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal
information was necessary to write a check...why not just call the
bank verify the check and the amount, or hold it until it can be
verified.

* *I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.





Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

Yecchh.

The Correct Response...
 

On 5/2/10 17:17 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 2, 2:05 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly amazes me
that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_ the idea of the
policeman on every street corner (or is it every tenth of a street
corner these days?) being able to "demand your papers" (your ID) --
something I don't like either -- have _no_ problem _at all_ with the
police state being able to demand not only your ID but intimate details
about your family and home life, and every tiny detail of every
financial transaction you have ever engaged in, on pain of severe
punishment (ultimately enforced by uniformed goons with guns) when the
Census man or the Internal Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?

I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car.
Simple transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was
required to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name,
address, all credit card and all bank account numbers were required.
Rent payments, utility payments, any other oblications. Employment
history for the last 10 years, with names and phone numbers.
Residential history for the last 10 years with names and phone
numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

And all sources of supplementary income.

When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal
information was necessary to write a check...why not just call the
bank verify the check and the amount, or hold it until it can be
verified.

I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.





Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

There are a lot of ways for the dealership to protect itself from
a rubber check. Including simply holding the vehicle until cleared.
This was wholly unnecessary.



Yecchh.

The Correct Response...
 

On May 2, 5:43*pm, dave wrote:

large cash transactions have been suspicious as long as I can remember.

A large transaction for you is pan-handling for 0baMa0's Change.
Besides, you can't remember past this morning.

The Correct Response...
 

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:


When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal information
was necessary to write a check...why not just call the bank verify the
check and the amount, or hold it until it can be verified.

I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with the
Patriot Act.




large cash transactions have been suspicious as long as I can remember.

The Correct Response...
 

On May 2, 3:15*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/2/10 17:14 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 2, 2:07 pm, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 5/2/10 03:16 , bpnjensen wrote:

It's that last paragraph that really gets me steamed. *People who
receive gigantic salaries ought not be exempted into the lowest tax
bracket. *It just stinks, and it's a big part of what keeps the middle
class scrambling to stay alive in this country.

* * Yeah, when I pay more tax than John Kerry, it makes my blood
boil, too.

Goes both ways Peter, you know that.

* I"m sorry, what do you mean?

There are wealthy Ds and Rs who pay less than poorer Rs and Ds.
Nothing too mysterious, thank goodness :-)

The Correct Response...
 

On May 2, 3:22*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 5/2/10 17:17 , bpnjensen wrote:





On May 2, 2:05 pm, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly amazes me
that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_ the idea of the
policeman on every street corner (or is it every tenth of a street
corner these days?) being able to "demand your papers" (your ID) --
something I don't like either -- have _no_ problem _at all_ with the
police state being able to demand not only your ID but intimate details
about your family and home life, and every tiny detail of every
financial transaction you have ever engaged in, on pain of severe
punishment (ultimately enforced by uniformed goons with guns) when the
Census man or the Internal Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?

* * I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car.
Simple transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

* * I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was
required to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name,
address, all credit card and all bank account numbers were required.
Rent payments, utility payments, any other oblications. Employment
history for the last 10 years, with names and phone numbers.
Residential history for the last 10 years with names and phone
numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

* * And all sources of supplementary income.

* * When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal
information was necessary to write a check...why not just call the
bank verify the check and the amount, or hold it until it can be
verified.

* * I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.

Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? *I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

* *There are a lot of ways for the dealership to protect itself from
a rubber check. Including simply holding the vehicle until cleared.
This was wholly unnecessary.

Absolutely, fully agree.

The Correct Response...
 

On May 2, 3:27*pm, retrogrouch wrote:
On Sun, 2 May 2010 15:17:38 -0700 (PDT), bpnjensen

wrote:

* *I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.

Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? *I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

Yecchh.

Yep. Any transactions totaling *over $10,000 needs a Patriot Act
report. My DENTIST is having to file these.

Better than filing teeth, I guess.

The Correct Response...
 

On May 2, 3:40*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:
On May 2, 5:43*pm, dave wrote:



large cash transactions have been suspicious as long as I can remember.

A large transaction for you is pan-handling for 0baMa0's Change.
Besides, you can't remember past this morning.

Another useful contribution! Thanks so much!

The Correct Response...
 

On 5/2/10 18:23 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 2, 3:15 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/2/10 17:14 , bpnjensen wrote:

On May 2, 2:07 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/2/10 03:16 , bpnjensen wrote:

It's that last paragraph that really gets me steamed. People who
receive gigantic salaries ought not be exempted into the lowest tax
bracket. It just stinks, and it's a big part of what keeps the middle
class scrambling to stay alive in this country.

Yeah, when I pay more tax than John Kerry, it makes my blood
boil, too.

Goes both ways Peter, you know that.

I"m sorry, what do you mean?

There are wealthy Ds and Rs who pay less than poorer Rs and Ds.
Nothing too mysterious, thank goodness :-)


And it's wrong.


What really ****ed me off about Kerry, is that he ran on a
platform of raising my taxes.

Kerry makes 5-10 times what I make. And yet, I pay more than he
does already. I also donate more to charitable causes than he does.

Similarly with Biden, who insists that paying taxes is patriotic.

And yet, they wants to raise MY taxes, while exploiting all the
exemptions for their own.

If this guy, and others like him, are convinced that more taxes
need to be paid, lead the way. Kerry, Biden, Buffett, and Obiteme
can write extra checks to IRS, and send them in. Show us how
patriotic it is to pay taxes, by volutarily increasing their own tax
load.

In other words, put their hands in their own pockets before
putting them in mine.

The Correct Response...
 

On 5/2/10 18:24 , bpnjensen wrote:
On May 2, 3:22 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/2/10 17:17 , bpnjensen wrote:





On May 2, 2:05 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 5/1/10 17:24 , Kevin Alfred Strom wrote:

You know, I've been reading posts in this thread, and it truly amazes me
that some of the very same people who _strongly resent_ the idea of the
policeman on every street corner (or is it every tenth of a street
corner these days?) being able to "demand your papers" (your ID) --
something I don't like either -- have _no_ problem _at all_ with the
police state being able to demand not only your ID but intimate details
about your family and home life, and every tiny detail of every
financial transaction you have ever engaged in, on pain of severe
punishment (ultimately enforced by uniformed goons with guns) when the
Census man or the Internal Revenue man comes to call.

Isn't the latter much worse than the former?

I was with my girlfriend, this weekend, when she bought a car.
Simple transaction...pick one out, write a check. Drive it home.

I was amazed to hear the business office tell her that she was
required to fill out a credit application for the transaction. Name,
address, all credit card and all bank account numbers were required.
Rent payments, utility payments, any other oblications. Employment
history for the last 10 years, with names and phone numbers.
Residential history for the last 10 years with names and phone
numbers of landlords, mortgage companies.

And all sources of supplementary income.

When asked why the hell such detailed invasion of personal
information was necessary to write a check...why not just call the
bank verify the check and the amount, or hold it until it can be
verified.

I was told this was required, in order to be in compliance with
the Patriot Act.

Well, that's pretty loopy - I can sort of understand if it was just to
guarantee that she'd be able to pay if the check rubberized, but -
Patriot Act? I've never liked the Patriot Act anyway, and I didn't
even know this was in there.

There are a lot of ways for the dealership to protect itself from
a rubber check. Including simply holding the vehicle until cleared.
This was wholly unnecessary.

Absolutely, fully agree.


Hold on, that's twice in three days. Let me that weather forecast.