You Must Be in Favor of This

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

So you like us to believe that the Wilson issue is the ONLY time that you have supported law enforcement on this forum? This is the only time you ever sided against law enforcement. Also Rupe were you not outraged at existing regulations that require banks to report all transactions over 10K? Is it the extra 5 K that enrages you?


https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/saf...section8-1.pdf

First of all, I couldn't tell you what Administration implemented the $10k thing in the first case, so you can't accuse me of being biased. I know the thing has been around forever. I'm used to it. Everybody knows about it. You know that if you make a deposit over 10k, it's going to be reported. I don't like it, but it is what it is. I understand why they do it.

But now they have been taking it to a whole new level. As if reporting it isn't bad enough, now they are confiscating all the money from people's accounts. As Danzig said, in this country you are supposed to be considered innocent until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In these money cases, it is the opposite. You are considered guilty if you make suspicious deposits. They will take away your money. The burden is on you to prove you're innocent. That is insane. I'm against that no matter who is in office. I wouldn't be shocked if there were cases similar to the cases mentioned in the NY Times while Bush was President.

But no matter who is to blame for the thing getting to the point where it has gotten like those cases mentioned in the NY Times, now Holder wants to double down and get even more aggressive. After articles like the NY Times article, most politicians were outraged and wanted to stop this kind of thing. Holder was the opposite. He thought we better start getting more aggressive and going after people making withdrawals.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

First of all, I couldn't tell you what Administration implemented the $10k thing in the first case, so you can't accuse me of being biased. I know the thing has been around forever. I'm used to it. Everybody knows about it. You know that if you make a deposit over 10k, it's going to be reported. I don't like it, but it is what it is. I understand why they do it.

But now they have been taking it to a whole new level. As if reporting it isn't bad enough, now they are confiscating all the money from people's accounts. As Danzig said, in this country you are supposed to be considered innocent until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In these money cases, it is the opposite. You are considered guilty if you make suspicious deposits. They will take away your money. The burden is on you to prove you're innocent. That is insane. I'm against that no matter who is in office. I wouldn't be shocked if there were cases similar to the cases mentioned in the NY Times while Bush was President.

But no matter who is to blame for the thing getting to the point where it has gotten like those cases mentioned in the NY Times, now Holder wants to double down and get even more aggressive. After articles like the NY Times article, most politicians were outraged and wanted to stop this kind of thing. Holder was the opposite. He thought we better start getting more aggressive and going after people making withdrawals.

You will feel even worse reading the link that I posted. Also I highly recommend the book that I posted for Zig. It is eye opening.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

You will feel even worse reading the link that I posted. Also I highly recommend the book that I posted for Zig. It is eye opening.

It sounds like you have read plenty of books on this subject. What is the solution? Is there a solution? What types of policies should be implemented to reverse the path we are going down?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It sounds like you have read plenty of books on this subject. What is the solution? Is there a solution? What types of policies should be implemented to reverse the path we are going down?

I honestly don't see a solution because those that benefit would be responsible for changing the rules.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

I honestly don't see a solution because those that benefit would be responsible for changing the rules.

We are screwed. Can't afford bribes....er, lobbyists.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

I honestly don't see a solution because those that benefit would be responsible for changing the rules.

The people who make policy are obviously the lawmakers in Washington. And they obviously don't represent the people. They represent special interests. So I understand that things won't change. But in an imaginary world if we had people in congress who actually represented the people instead of special interest groups, what would they need to do to reverse the path we are on?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The people who make policy are obviously the lawmakers in Washington. And they obviously don't represent the people. They represent special interests. So I understand that things won't change. But in an imaginary world if we had people in congress who actually represented the people instead of special interest groups, what would they need to do to reverse the path we are on?

Raise tax rates on income over $1 million a year. Return to taxing capital gains at the same rate as income, and lift the income cap on contributions to Social Security. That would be a good start.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Raise tax rates on income over $1 million a year. Return to taxing capital gains at the same rate as income, and lift the income cap on contributions to Social Security. That would be a good start.

Raise minimum wage to where it should be, 10.50 an hour. Make future increases automatic with cost of living, like ss is done.
Put everyone in medicare, which abolishes medicaid and the broken va health system right off the bat. That gives everyone basic care, and one can buy supplements just like the elderly do.
no more subsidizing rich corporations, which is a higher budget expense than subsidies to the poor!