Skip to main content

Hey guess what!  Paying off your credit card debt is now considered questionable behavior in New America.  This post 9/11 world requires people who actually pay off their debt to be considered a threat to national security.  Here's the link.  A vital story too important to paraphrase.  A retired school teacher in Rhode Island tried to pay off his Mastercard which had a balance of $6,522.  His actions compelled his bank to report the transaction to Department of Homeland Security, which froze his transaction until it could be investigated.
After sending in the check, they checked online to see if their account had been duly credited. They learned that the check had arrived, but the amount available for credit on their account hadn't changed.

So Deana Soehnge called the credit-card company. Then Walter called.

"When you mess with my money, I want to know why," he said.

They both learned the same astounding piece of information about the little things that can set the threat sensors to beeping and blinking.

They were told, as they moved up the managerial ladder at the call center, that the amount they had sent in was much larger than their normal monthly payment. And if the increase hits a certain percentage higher than that normal payment, Homeland Security has to be notified. And the money doesn't move until the threat alert is lifted.

We are not free citizens.  Everything is being watched.  Every day they give us more reasons to quit the electronic system, go cash whenever possible.  The section of the Bank Secrecy Act that mandates reporting of suspicious transactions to the federal government was enacted in 1996.  Here's a PDF of the Office of the Currency Comptroller's BSA handbook.  Suspicious activity reporting requirements begin on page 14 of the PDF.  It looks like almost any kind of transaction, including paying off your credit cards if you don't normally do that each month, can trigger the reporting requirements.   Up until a few years ago I trusted the government not to abuse this power on a wholesale basis.

Kudos to Scripps Howard News Service for publishing this story.  They have an excellent searchable website for their news publications.

Originally posted to lapin on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:56 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Welcome to Corpo-Fascist America (4.00)
    "The self-denial of Americans about the state of their democracy is at a level one can only call it insanity."

    If your heart is troubled with the moral and spiritual decline and hijacking of America, check out the page

    by PubPolSanford on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:05:47 PM PST

    •  It seems like the Bush Administration (4.00)
      does something every single day that should lead to investigation, arrest, impeachment, and/or jail time. How much more are we going to be able to take before the whole country just flies apart?
      •  Maybe That's Their Strategy (4.00)
        it's a shotgun approach. They have so many scams going nobody can stop them all.

        This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

        by Mr X on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:34:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree, that's gotta be the strategy (4.00)
          Roll from scandal to scandal so the country can't stop and focus on one of the countless impeachable and illegal offenses.

          If your heart is troubled with the moral and spiritual decline and hijacking of America, check out the page

          by PubPolSanford on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:46:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You got it! (4.00)
          And BTW it's typical dyslexic behavior to keep people from finding out they can't read. Bush found it a great defense as a child and has raised it to the max.

          Contractors working  on a complete rehab do the same thing. You point out a problem and the reply is "No,problem,we'll take care of that." And the next time you look that day or the next,it isn't done and there's still another one. You have to fire the bunch or they will take you down.

          It's probably endemic in our culture now. It works in the school system by both teachers and students.

          Pass the buck and keep passing it. They'll get dizzy watching your hands.

        •  The shotgun approach (4.00)
          as ably demonstrated by Mr. Cheney recently.

          I've been calling it the "Whack-A-Mole Gambit" myself.  But "shotgun" sounds -- as it is -- so much more dangerous and cynical.

      •  Teacher fired for speaking about Bush? (4.00)
        Check this out, the Bushite scum are everywhere, they have programmed their "Bush Youth" to record any speech that does not praise the Unitary Dictator Bush!

        AURORA, Colo. - About 150 high school students walked out of class to protest a decision to put a teacher on leave while they investigate remarks he made about President Bush in class, including that some people compare Bush to Adolf Hitler.

        So just by reporting the facts, that "some people", including me, compare Bush to Hitler, this teacher is off the job- what happened to the First Amendment?

        Sophomore Sean Allen recorded about 20 minutes of Bennish's class during a Feb. 1 discussion about Bush's State of the Union speech and gave the recording to his father, who complained to the principal, Amole said.

        "After listening to the tape, it's evident the comments in the class were inappropriate. There were not adequate opportunities for opposing points of view," she said.

        http://news.yahoo.com/...

        So this "Bush Youth" member, Sean Allen didn't like hearing criticism of the Worst President Ever, so his teacher will be fired- what a travesty.

        •  I'm in college right now (4.00)
          I think I would transfer to another school if one of my instructors got in trouble for speaking out against Bush. Money talks and bullsh*t walks--I would let somebody else have my money.
          •  speaking out is the right thing to do (3.25)
            Any teacher who could review the Unitary Dictator's SOTU speech WITHOUT saying things against the liar Bush would not be doing their job.  But this little "Bush Youth Brigades" member is obviously brainwashed to "protect" his brainless leader.

            Bushite scum are everywhere, even though they are just 34% now, those are the richest 34% and they control all the TV stations and most newspapers- tough to fight back against the Bushite scum machine.

          •  This guy went too far... (none)
            Way, way, way too far for a public school classroom.

            There's a place for partisan political conversation, like here.  But the public school classroom isn't it.  Particularly the geography class.

            That's not to say there isn't room for political discussion in the classroom.  But, this wasn't that, this is an instructor's political rant.

            Audio

            He's talking out about far more then just Bush.

            "To BushCo, the truth is but a lie undiscovered."

            by Siberian on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:03:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  i agree (none)
              while i may agree with the teacher's views, to a degree, how would people like it if the teacher had been spouting right-wing bill o'reilly and limbaugh talking points?

              in short, the teacher's actions are not suddenly made right by him being opposed to Bush. he should have exercised more discretion.

              that does not mean i think he needs to be publicly flogged, etc. i refer only to whether his behaviour was acceptable teaching practice and i don't feel it was.

              •  I think it's a question (3.25)
                of the teacher's right to free speech. I caused a stink last semester when I wrote a paper in which I roasted the Bush administration. Some instructors don't agree with my views--but they were still forced to give me an "A"--because it was well written, well researched, and I was able to defend my position in class. Few people would say that I should have gotten a bad grade because an instructor disagrees with my views, and likewise, a teacher is entitled to theirs.
                •  if you can't appreciate the difference... (3.66)
                  between your writing of a paper with strong views and an authority figure, your teacher, discharging their duties in a professional manner, you need to think a little harder about the issues.

                  by the same token, if we accept your argument that it's simply about free speech, then i suppose a teacher is equally at liberty to discuss their sex life in vast detail.

                  free speech does not trump the fact that a teacher is contracted to perform a specific set of tasks, in this instance, to teach geography. call it what you want, but he wasn't teaching geography.

                  in the idealized world you describe, it would also be free speech for a cashier to insult customers or for a doctor to publish your medical history on the internet, or for someone to threaten to kill you, etc, etc. the free speech defense is not something that can be invoked immediately to rebuff any concerns over someone's conduct. society functions because of an intricate web of agreements between parties, not because of constitutional right to freedom of speech.

                  •  Stating your political views (none)
                    and telling 10th graders about your sex life just isn't in the same category. If the teacher had threateded to kill somebody, that would be different.
                    •  and why is that? (none)
                      please explain why the espousing of your own political views in an unprofessional manner and talking about your sex life in a similarly unprofessional manner, do not fall into the same category of the right to free speech, as the previous poster contended.

                      you're going to require argument rather than assertion. on what basis have you formed different categories?

                      •  I agree that sex and this thing are different (4.00)
                        But, I don't agree that there is no place for opinion.  Teaching a group of 10th graders requires opinion from time to time, but it does not require opinion in a talk radio format.  

                        A 20 minute rant is just not teaching.  

                        •  why? (none)
                          is sex any different, if it's a question of what is appropriate in a classroom and what isn't? and i was talking about the defense of free speech that the poster posited and how that would in fact green flag teachers to say all kinds of stuff that is equally irrelevant.

                          this matter should be dealt with through the school's provisions for the conduct of its staff, it should not be seen as a freedom of speech case or that will mean that right-wing nutjob teachers can also exercise their free speech in the classroom.

                          now what part of this very simple argument don't you understand?

                          •  Irrelevant to the discussion (none)
                            It's not an apt analogy. It has no place in this discussion.  I would suggest another analogy, or at least just rely on the argument without attempting to equate it to something "obviously" incorrect.  
                          •  i am not (none)
                            arguing by analogy, but i am trying to get at why people feel that inappropriate comments, that overly politicized a geography lesson deserve a free speech defence, rather than being resolved through school disciplinary measures.

                            no-one who supports this teacher has managed to say how they would deal with, reconcile, the fact that if you use a free speech defense does that mean right-wing nutjobs can equate democrats to al-qaida in their geography lessons. answer rather than obfuscate.

                          •  Okay then (none)
                            I'll let it go this time.  

                            Have a good one!

                          •  well Mr Kingfelix (none)
                            ... you play one of my favourite ganmes here - inappropriate relativist equaliazation.   The Rightwing Nutjob would basically have to start telling lies and never stop. The teacher, on the other hand, may have a little exaggerated to make a legitimate point - I have not heard the tape - but essentially he probably told just the facts and evaluated them appropriately.

                            One Difference between Bush and the Greatest Military Leader of All Times is that the latter sought and got passed a law to that effect before he declared himself to be above the law. Let me assure you that teachers who objected to those developments publicly in class, and with no unclear words, are considered most admired patriots by their fellow countrymen. There are times when showing your colours publicly is a patriotic and civic duty.

                          •  Respect (none)
                            I wonder if you cannot dicuss anything in the classroom if it is treated with respect.
                            Likes and dislikes bring attitude that may impress the students as to what they like or dislike But in reguard to the politics hopfull the teacher is a nice person
                  •  excuse (3.00)
                    excuse me,please point out where the teacher lied?  are we the most viloent country in the world? yes, do we have troops stationed all over the world? yes

                    etc etc, christ these kids need to be awakened. It might be their asses in the battlefield in a few short years.  

                    The teacher also went out of his way to tell kids not to just accept his views, but to form their own ones.
                    MY GOD, IT PISSES ME OFF when the truth becomes a viewpoint.

                    so now if I speak the truth, we should allow equal time for someone to come lie?

                    WTF,you apologist are nuts.  We need more teachers like this not less. It why this country is in the fucking pathetic shape it is in. Because to many pussies don't have the balls to speak truth to power.

                    •  This isn't about 'speaking truth to power' (4.00)
                      This is about making sure your using the appropriate forum to do so.

                      If this guy had gotten up at a political rally, meeting, whatever and said these things and then got fired from his school I'd be all over the school district for being in the wrong.

                      But, he's teaching students in a public school here.  He needs to keep his political views in check not use his position as the instructor as a bully pulpit to express his beliefs to this degree.

                      I'm unsure were you think he was going out of his way tell his kids not to just accept his views.  Did you listen to the audio when one of the students spoke up about his Hamas viewpoint?  He sure seemed to just turn right around and marginalize the kid.  Saying this guy was telling them to make up their own minds is akin to saying Bill O'Rielly's goal is for people to make up their own minds when they listen to his programs.

                      "To BushCo, the truth is but a lie undiscovered."

                      by Siberian on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:42:29 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  too right (4.00)
                        well said.

                        and a note for detractors - accusing people who don't wish demagogues of either persuasion to hold sway in the classroom of being apologists is pathetic. no doubt we'll be un-american next.

                      •  What the teacher said was FACTUALLY CORRECT (3.00)
                        There are MANY people who are comparing Bush to Hitler, including ME.  There are far more similarities than dissimularities, alas.  Except that Hitler was far more articulate and a much stronger leader.
                        •  Nope (none)
                          As Smithenus said yesterday, the more apt comparison is Mussolini, Hitler is far more grandly malevolent than the chimperor.  All Hail Il Dubya.

                          "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

                          by NearlyNormal on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:43:01 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  anology (none)
                          is that like believing students are monkeys AND should be addressed that way?
                          •  Distinction between giving your own op & (none)
                            talking about what is happening in public debates.  It doesn't sound like the teacher was giving his own perspective - more likely just saying what actually is true - many people in this country ARE actually comparing Bush to Hitler.  That's just plain true.  If you're in a social studies, history, geography, whatever class and political issues naturally arise, I think it's kind of hard to gloss over the fact that many people in this country now - possibly even the majority - think unfavorably about Bush and many of those are even comparing him to various dictators.  

                            We're actually asking this teacher to ignore his responsibility to give some historical perspective of what is happening and to tell kids about various legitimate political points of view that they might otherwise never get exposure to.  What the hell else is education about?  Just rote memorization?  Or completely focusing on facts of ancient history?  

                            If we were sitting in a German classroom in 1933, would it have been appropriate for the teacher to state that many people thought Hitler was a dictator and maybe compared him to some dictators of the past?  If things like this had only been done, how much grief might have been avoided or diminished.  

                        •  vp075 is giving people he doesn't agree with (none)
                          1s. i don't see him engaging in debate on here. what a chicken!
                    •  if you make it about truth... (none)
                      then face it, any wacko thinks they speak the truth.  creationists think they speak the truth, so do bush apologists, so do people who support the iraq war, and so do progressives.

                      as kierkegaard said,

                      "subjectivity is the only truth"

                      the truth is the one thing no-one possesses and everyone thinks they do!

                      comparing hitler to bush is an opinion, not a truth.

                      •  Well then, that settles it (none)
                        There is no truth, and we need only worry about balance.  A little Michelle Malkin, a little Noam Chomsky, a little David Brooks, and things'll take care of themselves.  Really now, is that your idea of education?  Making sure little Johnny can parrot all of the official sides of a packaged debate?  It ain't mine (and I've got a PhD).

                        I read the transcript carefully, and it is far from a polemic.  The teacher is open to questions, including multiple hostile questions (with follow-ups) from the filming student, and he spends time addressing them.  He clearly indicates that he does not have all the answers, and that the point of the presentation is to produce a desire in his students to think for themselves. He is not partisan, attacking Democrats as often (more often, actually) than Republicans.  And he did not compare Bush to Hitler, merely mentioned that the comparison has been made by others (as it undeniably has been and will continue to be).

                        Don't run in fear of the rightwing noise machine.  Get a backbone.  Stand up for the truth.

                  •  hmmmmmmmmm, giving extreme examples (3.00)
                    does not a good argument make. let me tell you what concerns me more. and that is seeing their teacher humilated and treated in an unprofessional manner for telling the truth. now that teacher should have exercised more restraint, but i think it is fine to use the method socrates used and that is asking questions and more questions. however, we know what happened to him! the example set for telling the truth is more troubling that the teacher geting carried away with comments.
                    •  corrupt (none)
                      The problem with the socratic method is that it leads to answers that leave you inept and incapable For having a new answer that would require change in policy or againt that which we have alredy agreed to that is established.
                      SO we are quite aware that we will never give up our strict policy and call those that disagree corrupted against the status quo
                      •  i don't know about that. i can see why (none)
                        you would feel that way. i watched some tv tonight. typically i don't except for a movie, history, discovery or home and garden channel. but tonight i watched lou dobbs and bill mahr. they know and are saying that the game is over. i am beginning to believe it. finally, thank you lord, the tipping point has been reached.
                  •  actually... (4.00)
                    it is because
                    society functions because of an intricate web of agreements between parties,
                    that we have teachers who teach a class like geography, which does have a very interesting political component to it. I vaguely recall one geography teacher discussing the geographical ramifications of certain political acts. There was something about nation states...boundaries...and how this Napoleon guy was trying to blur the lines by taking over huge bits of Europe.

                    not because of constitutional right to freedom of speech.

                    That's exactly why we have this thing called academic freedom. I don't know where it stands in the Hschool classroom. But in college? SCOTUS has already put its collective foot down on trying to dictate what a professor can or cannot teach.

                    "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                    by kredwyn on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:41:49 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  civics (none)
                      If behavior is taught and such the case for political behavior SHOULD ideology be included if an answer to social agreement could be limited to civics respectfully in a modern world
                      •  Ok... (none)
                        I've tried to deconstruct your sentence. But I'm not sure that I'm getting it. You've got a couple if/then statements mixed in with what looks like it might be a question.

                        Ideology is what exactly? A philosophical framework?

                        If so, then most classes, and teachers, start out with a philosophical foundation from which to work. Some are more effective than others.  

                        "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                        by kredwyn on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:01:37 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  REPLY (none)
                          In a world that has more than one form of government and ideology I wonder if civics is not a neutral fom of law that we can all agree to.
                          That woud be such law as no shirt no shoes no service or plese come to a complete stop at a red light.
                          That is a question in a political environment that has ideological difficulty with GOOGLE supplying china the means to adress their people with detrminations in their news broadcasts
                          Remember the chiniese are arguing in a modern chinese philosophy just as we are here
                          I just dont like arguing against china since that makes the population prone to bar
                          Yet I find the chinese have their bias as we have ours
                        •  yes (none)
                          yes you do understand
                          but could a socialist or closet socilist posing as a liberal democrat ever get away wit teachig current events in our democratic society?
                          really wouldn't we determin instead that he was bad in spelling rater than admit tat we dont want a leftist interpretation of the news
                          •  I think... (none)
                            No, I know it's possible to teach current events as a Lib Dem. But I also think that the main requirement of such teaching is simple.

                            The skills that students need are ones that encourage them to think critically about the world in which they live.

                            You don't pour dogma down their throats. Instead, you open up their worlds to different ways of seeing things.

                            One thing you need to think about? Presentation counts. If people don't understand what's being said, you lose your audience. Unless you have the reputation of someone like Derrida or Foucault or Marx or Popper...how hard do you really expect people to work in order to understand what you're saying? Your audience? It's key to know who that is...and how to write, teach, speak to that particular group.

                            Massive mis-spellings and bad grammar count against your credibility.

                            "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                            by kredwyn on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 04:01:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  yes (none)
                          yes you do understand
                          but could a socialist or closet socilist posing as a liberal democrat ever get away wit teachig current events in our democratic society?
                          really wouldn't we determin instead that he was bad in spelling rater than admit tat we dont want a leftist interpretation of the news
                  •  A public school teacher is a Govt rep (none)
                    All public school teachers are considered part of the government under the constitution.  Therefore, their speech can be regulated in a content neutral manner.  While I agree that Bush is as close to a fascist that this country has ever seen, it violated that state law which required a balanced viewpoint in the classroom.  Plus, as an authority figure over children, partisan speech will get close scrutiny due to the fear of propaganda.

                    That being said, I am positive that NOTHING would have been done if he praised Bush.  Thus, he will have a strong argument for prosecutorial abuse which would invalidate any conviction or firing since his job is probably protected enough to require a hearing first.

                    Economic Left/Right: -5.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36

                    by Democratic Hawk on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:27:42 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  belief (none)
                      creativity is seen as necessary to ensure to us what we as a people are accustomed to. Then shoud we give up the right to attend to the problem of manifest destiny so as not to incite patriatism as a practical manner to all speak the same language?
                •  Enjoy these days while you can (none)
                  because they are fast ending.
                •  Teachers Should be Allowed to Teach (4.00)
                  I remember being in the corn belt of the midwest in the mid-late 60's and having a couple of teachers actually start challenging us about Vietnam, civil rights, and gender equality (though they did not call it that).  They took tremendous heat but stuck to their guns and taught us factual information and challenged us to use the facts to come to conclusions.  Nothing about that is tantamount to "spouting right-wing bill o'reilly and limbaugh talking points."  A kid in public high school should be challenged and exposed to different points of view that can be factually backed up.

                  I thank heavens that I had Ms. Meyers and Ms. Gough back in Fairmount Indiana, they helped me see a world that was not monochromatic and bounded by corn fields.

                  "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

                  by NearlyNormal on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:34:31 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I have walked in his shoes (none)
                a lot of miles but for different reasons. The public school system is much like Chomsky's assessment of the media. It weeds out those who indicate they might be potential problems in the future. so any deviant behavior,whatever it is,gets noticed and a mental file is made. So then the administrator keeps looking for confirming evidence to back up his inital negative perception. I have seen many teachers,not only myself,begin to get scapgoated for millions of reasons.

                When you read Herbert Kohl's Thirty-six Children his book about his teaching year with a sixth grade class in the public schools of Boston in the 1960's where he did a fantastic job of motivating and producing real student questioning and outstanding performance,he was rewarded by being fired!

                The parents were furious but nothing could be done. I don't know if this is the same Herbert Kohl in Congress or not. But his value as an educator and a writer was riviting and inspirational.

              •  spouting limbaugh... (none)
                ...would be teaching lies. Your's is a straw dog argument. This teacher was factual in his lesson.

                I think the teacher's passion is a good thing for the students to witness. God forbid a 16 year old be exposed to different views than the ones his parents hold.

                It could have been a great opportunity for the parents to have more in debth discussions at their house. The fact that dad then took the tape to right wing talk radio is the real shame here.

                I hope my daghter has teachers that she agrees with and teachers she disagrees with.

                Infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at all times been the advocates of truth and justice... Robert Ingersol

                by BMarshall on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 10:21:38 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  I've Seen the Tables Turned (4.00)
              Back in high school (in the mid '80s), I had a very right-wing English teacher (not political science, history or geography, but English).  He regularly (almost every day) spouted right-wing propaganda--he was pro-capital punishment yet anti-abortion, pro-authoritarian regarding the government, schools and public institutions (except when it came to taxes, of course), etc. etc.  I believe it's OK for him to occasionally state his beliefs (within reason)--it's basically training (especially at a high school level, when we're almost into the "real world") for adulthood, where you're going to encounter this from other people (say...college, the work place, adult education, etc.).

              But--there was one problem.  If he'd just stated his opinions/beliefs that would've been fine (as long as he wasn't putting down individuals/groups/etc.)--but he also stated some mistruths.  The biggest one regarded AIDS (and speaking of not putting down individuals/groups/etc.--he definitely violated that with that topic).  He claimed that there were cases of AIDS where we didn't know where they came from--so he tried to use scare tactics like "We don't know--AIDS could've transmitted by mosquitoes or from a drinking fountain."  The thing was--we DID know, even in the mid '80s, that AIDS was NOT transmitted that way.

              Looking back on that teacher, we should've reported him on the AIDS thing which was several steps beyond "uncalled for"--but I think because nobody in the class believed him (and most of us thought he was full of shit anyway--though at least passable on teaching the class material), we didn't.  By the way, this was in Lawrence, Kansas--a blue town in a deep-red state.

              Item #1 for Jan. 2007--impeachment!

              by westcornersville on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:04:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I also remember... (none)

                When Westcornersville wrote a paper mentioning, I think it was Capital Punishment, he got downgraded because he disagreed w/the teacher.

                Bush will be impeached.

                by jgkojak on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:45:09 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  In the early 1950's (none)
                  in my modern history class,which was conducted by the teacher asking an interpretive question and the student replying with a long explanatory answer, I remember one particular incident.

                  Some question was asked,and a Jewish boy, (they were the smartest in the class)got up with a long,intellectual answer. I can't remember what it was,but it probably involved revisionism or Marxist interpretation,and the teacher just told him to sit down in the middle of it. Bob just kept  on going and was told louder to sit down,but he kept on going. The teacher finally yelled out for him to stop talking and sit down! So he sat down. This whole thing was so out of character for the class that it has stayed with me all my life.

                  I think now that it had something to do with McCarthy and the teacher could not afford to let those views be expressed out loud in his class. Or he would be in danger of being fired. He had a wife and two kids,one of whom I dated,to support.

                  You see that's where they have you. Once you are a family person you are vulnerable to the threat of being fired. and getting fired in the public school system does not end there. It will follow you to doomsday. Those administrators all know each other and talk about the teachers,just the way the teachers talk about their students in the teachers' room so that their behavior follows them all through the grades. They can never start with a clean slate with a new teacher because she will be informed what a dullard,laggard,deviant,disruptive blah blah blah child she/he is and told to be careful because his mother will go to the principal and try to get her in trouble.

                  Good private schools have a different problem. They are hard to get in so the parents' are always on tenterhooks that their child might not be allowed to go back the next year. So they shut up. But private schools are a political and personal hotbed in different ways. Read any of John Irvin'g novels and read between the ones about high end prep schools in New England.

                •  It's possible (none)
                  though I can't remember for sure.  With an English paper...there are a number of things that a teacher can "nit-pick" on.  He certainly didn't like it when students disagreed with him (a common thing)...that's for sure.

                  Item #1 for Jan. 2007--impeachment!

                  by westcornersville on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 12:33:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  agreed... (none)
              as an academic, I love the fact that there is academic freedom out there. But I also recognize that there needs to be some sort of relevance to the topic.

              I can see where what he was discussing could be handled effectively in a geography class. But that's not where he seemed to be going.

              Instead of suspending him, I'd have advised a discussion that included a review as well as a reminder that the class topic is geography.

              "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

              by kredwyn on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:06:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Geography (none)
                Not just State Capitals, and rivers.  I listened to the audio and think that this is just the kind of teacher that is needed for kids that are going to hit the real world soon.  Why should public school kids just get pablum.  Good for this teacher for trying to inform and inspire.

                "I said, 'wait a minute, Chester, you know I'm a peaceful man.'" Robbie Robertson -8.13, -4.56

                by NearlyNormal on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:05:47 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Geography... (none)
                  covers a wide variety of intricate networks of interactions. This includes history, boundaries, politics, and a whole bunch of other stuff that can be covered.

                  I never said that it had to be pablum.

                  You can get a whole lot of information in under the radar, IF you do it with grace and intelligence.

                  "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

                  by kredwyn on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:48:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for posting audio link. (none)
              That's a rant? I remember my high school teachers getting just as ranty, then, and nobody made a big deal about it. I remember a lot more inappropriate rants, like from the tennis coach who taught typing when someone complained that the class was too hard. That rant had NOTHING to do with typing!

              We can say he was just teaching geography, but what does that cover? We only get the audio in the middle of the talk and at the end, he's going on to talk about globalization so presumably, geography here is a little bit more than "Mr. Smith, please locate Prague on the map for us."

              I don't think it's wrong for the teacher to expose the kids to these ideas. He repeatedly says that they should think for themselves. He thanks the kid (presumably the taper because his voice is loudest) who disagrees for bringing up the questions. I didn't hear marginalization there! And kids can judge for themselves. They're not babies. They should start thinking on their own by that age. If it were a right-wing rant, I would hope the teacher would be as open to kids questioning him/her and that s/he would urge them to think it out for themselves. That is what makes the difference IMHO.

              I think it's because it was anti-Bush, not rah-rah-America, that it got the teacher in trouble and that's indicative of the climate we live in and that is a shame.

              "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." --Eisenhower

              -5.88, -6.82

              by Debby on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:06:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  I listened to it last night.. (none)
          ...and although I agreed with a lot of stuff the teacher said, I was also cringing at the way he was ranting. It was a rant I might have had with a like-minded friend after a martini or two. Heh.

          I absolutely don't think he should be fired or placed on administrative leave, thats extreme. But I also think it was a pretty inappropriate lecture for 10th grade students - who are essentially a hostage audience. I guess there's a fine line between giving students perspective on a given subject vs just dishing out a personal opinion. YMMV.

          •  oh (3.00)
            oh please, held hostage my ass. Kids can easily dismiss it if they want. It could also save the fucking lives however. It is these kids asses that could be on the future battlefields.

             Please show me where on the tape did the teacher lie?  or our we just suppose to continue on teaching lies in our schools.

            USA #1 USA#1,  yeah, excuse me if some of us find a teacher teaching actually a breath of frsh air, or should we just continue on having them teach Disney propaganda america?
             and you wonder why this country is in the shape it's in?

            •  It's not about USA #1 (4.00)
              The kid are minors.  They are under the care of adults.  When in school, they are under the care of administrators and teachers at school. They are required by law to be in school.  They are not required to take this individual's class by law, but they are compelled to attend school.  

              If I were that teacher, I would ask the students what they think.  If the students use information that is not factual, then you give them the correct information.  

              In a college class, it's a different story.  

              The teacher causes problems for his own political movement by giving fodder to his opposition.  

              He made a poor choice, and I would hope that he wouldn't fight any decision that allowed him to remain in school.  He sounded like a talk radio host.  That's not education.  

              I have misgivings all the time about what happens with my child at school.  I don't care if he hears opposing viewpoints, but if a teacher were to sit there and lecture my kid for that long, even if I agreed with it, I wouldn't be happy.  That's just not an education.  If he wants to insert his own views, that's great, but he has to do it in an appropriate manner that leaves space for opposition.  

              How scary could opposition be from a bunch of 10th graders?

              •  You are why (none)
                teachers who are excellent but may have failings from time to time of a passionate political nature,leave the school system to the grey dullards who will never give you cause to write a paragraph like this. Neither will they inspire your child,go beyond the call of duty in the classroom,or fire your child with a real concern for the hypocrisy and injustices done by those who rule over us.

                Yes,he may have been inappropriate for the situation. But certainly not anywhere near as inappropriate as our dear preznit. The president gets away with all of it,but the teacher gets scapegoated for words.

                It's good for kids to see a teacher lose control of his cool and get aroused by something being done to them and us. So what if it's geography (and they all know our pres doesn't know anything about geography or history so why bother with it anyway as it's not important for success)or arts and crafts or anything at all,it's wonderful when a teacher goes off subject like that!

                It's non-fascist! That's why they can't stand it. And that part of you which prefers order,rebells against it too. We are all well conditioned to defend our latent authoritarianism when it comes to our own pet thoughts.

                •  Í don't think my former principals (none)
                  or my current supervisor where I teach astronomy in the planetarium would agree with you.

                  Have a good one!

                  I can only say that you haven't met a more inspiring teacher than myself.  I don't mean to brag.

                •  abbey, the one you got from vp075 is a (none)
                  person on here who has never made a comment or a diary. kinda makes you wonder, huh?
                  •  vp075 = Vice President with 075 shooting average? (none)
                    Heh! ;-)
                  •  Yeah, I got a 1 from vp075, too today... (none)
                    ...and so began to check out the mystery person. That led me to this thread.

                    He/she gave a '4' to a comment by francophile explaning that they're a proud Pat Buchanan Republican. I think that might help solve the '1' ratings. Interesting isn't it how some don't have the nerve to post a comment of their own to offer it up to community approval/disapproval; and then they don't even have the tact to explain why they rated your comment down? Great member of the community -- really concerned with being a constructive participant, eh?

                    Oh, well...bigger fish out there to fry. Just thought I'd pass along what I found.

            •  school is compulsory (4.00)
              therefore with the qualifer, kids are essentially hostage. Sugar coat it how you want but they aren't free to leave. They can tune it out, kids have been tuning out teachers since there have been teachers, but they still have to sit there.

              Could you point out where in my post I said or implied the teacher lied or that teachers should teach lies or that teachers should be cheerleaders for the USA?

            •  They're not supposed to... (none)
              ...dismiss it.  That's why we have teachers there to begin with.  I haven't listened to the audio so I don't really have an opinion on the subject yet, but saying that it's okay for a teach to have a political rant because students can dismiss it is pretty...well...ridiculous.

              Teachers are there to teach.  students are there to learn, not pick and chose what to believe in and what to dismiss.

              Join the We the People Project. National healthcare program designed by Americans for Americans.

              by DawnG on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:41:13 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Huh (none)
                Teachers are there to teach.  students are there to learn, not pick and chose what to believe in and what to dismiss.

                You say this as if it's a good thing. Regardless of what's right and wrong about this particular issue with this particular teacher, the system you describe is, in my opinion, bullshit.

                The type of "education" where students are given a bunch of facts to memorize and never given any of the skills necessary to think for themselves is one of the great disservices our public school system does our society. How about some mandatory philosophy/logic/rhetoric classes already? Starting in like, middle school?

                I think that the exact reason students should be in school is to "choose what to believe in and what to dismiss," not just take a bunch of multiple choice/true-false tests (a system that carries over into colleges and universities, I might add....heavy sigh).

                But as long as there continue to be plenty of supporters of sophistry, I guess that's what we're stuck with.

                Wasn't this thread about credit cards?

                -5.88, -6.00 When the ELGIs are defeated, the GWAT is over. -- Richard Clarke

                by Porfiry on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:15:13 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  that is not what I meant... (none)
                  Teachers are in a position of trust, to teach their subject to the best of their ability.  Just as you wouldn't want a teacher indoctrinating their students in religion (which some religious advocates argue "If the kids don't believe in X religion can just dismiss it"), you don't want teachers politically indoctrinating students as well.  Because they are paid to teach students in certain subjects and it should not be the students' responsibility to decide what is and is not worthy of knowing.  

                  I am not suggesting teachers shouldn't teach kids HOW to think (which in my experience they don't anyway), I'm saying teachers shouldn't teach kids WHAT to think.   And that's true no matter what ideology or belief system is involved.

                  It's not bullshit.  Besides, a good teacher can take facts and lead students to a conclusion without ever advocating for it one way or another. The socratic method is great for that.

                  Join the We the People Project. National healthcare program designed by Americans for Americans.

                  by DawnG on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:43:36 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  What an unthinking bore (none)
                this response is. You sound just like a Bushie.

                What in holy hell's bloody name is your definition of learning? And what is your definition of teaching?

                And what is your examined belief of what should be going on in a classroom? Lecturing? Involvement of dialogue between the class and the teacher? Rants by students who feel passionate about something? Rote learning? I'll tell you and you learn it? I mean you have simply not examined what a philosophy of education is comprised of.

                Your idea of a classroom is just simply boring which is why students hate school for the most part,the higher up they get. And history is the most hated subject.

                My 7th and 8th grade geography teacher had been in the war in the South Pacific. We had to draw by heart Japan,Australia,New Zealand,Hawaii,and the rest,including all railroads,crops,industries,populations etc and our exam was to reroduce it by memory on exam day.

                To this day I can see all these countries and know where they are. In 8th grade it was the United States. I still couldn't reproduce it today with all the states and their various specialties. I think now his passion was with the South Pacific and he was just doing the same thing with the US but the fire wasn't there.

                •  You are going to have to do... (none)
                  ...a hell of a lot better than imply I'm a Bushie to make your point.  That lazy logic of dismissal is just what the right does in their arguments, implying whoever disagrees with them is a "liberal" regardless of their past actions or beliefs.  It's bullshit when they do it, and it's no less bullshit when you do it.    

                  That being said, considering my the basic nature of my previous comment, you have extrapolated a whole level of meaning that quite frankly does not exist.

                  It is not the place of a teacher in a classroom to indoctrinate their students, whether religiously or politicly.  When the religious right argue for prayer in school, they say people who don't share beliefs can just put their head down on their desk or think to themselves while prayer is being done.  They in essence, say that anyone who doesn't pray like they do can just "dismiss it".  It is not the responsibility of students to decide what is and is not worthy of learning, it is the responsibility of the teacher to present material appropriate for learning.  

                  That is not to say the teacher can't create an environment of discussion in the classroom, but they should always encourage students to do their own research and come up with their own conclusions.  A really good teacher can even guide students to a specific conclusion without ever really advocating for one position or another.

                  To put it simply, being an educator should always be separate from being an advocate.  

                  Join the We the People Project. National healthcare program designed by Americans for Americans.

                  by DawnG on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:04:46 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I was in High School during Watergate (none)
                    Every single day, one teacher or another would have a few words, a rant or a diatribe about what was going on in Washington. We heard all sides from our various English, History, Pysch teachers. The only one who didn't say a word was Math. (Small HS in western Kansas).

                    At any rate, I don't think one teacher going on a rant is going to permanently or even temporarily damage any "child".  (High School students, of most ages in most states, can be, and are, judged as adults.)

                    All this "perfect professional" stuff is really annoying. People have a right to be angry. People have a right to raise a stink to high heavens.  If not at work, then where?  If not how, then when?  If not me, then whom?  

                    The alternative is to be "perfect professionals" about our opinions while our nation of laws is consumed and spit out by a cabal of Constitution burning radicals in Washington!

                    •  s/b (none)
                      If not at work, then where?  If not NOW, then when?  If not me, then whom?  
                    •  It won't damage a child... (none)
                      ...I agree.  But that doesn't make it proper.  But in politics, just like religion, a classroom is going to encompass various beliefs and no one should be asked to just suck it up.  Like I said. it's possible to engage in a discussion and guide a conclusion without actually promoting a specific agenda over another.

                      People do have the right to be angry, but people do not have the right to use their work place to prosthletize, politics or religion, people are equally sensitive of both topics these days.

                      For instance, a teacher can teach about the constitution and what freedoms it protects and open a discussion in how those freedoms are reflected in real life as opposed to how they are written on paper.  Let the students argue pros and cons and you'd be surprised what can come up.

                      Join the We the People Project. National healthcare program designed by Americans for Americans.

                      by DawnG on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:27:48 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  This is extremely naive (none)
                        As soon as you teach the Constitution in any serious way, you have to come to grips with its history as a changing text and as a pretext for changing interpretations.  The moment you open your mouth about its codification of slavery and exclusion of women from citizenship, you have stepped into the most political of subjects.  What should one do, present the dates of the 13th and 14th and 19th amendments?  Or should one speak of values and politics?  The latter, surely.

                        All higher-order teaching involves the presentation of information that is open to multiple interpretations.  Otherwise it would be rote learning.  Anything open to multiple interpretation is potentially political.

                        The sign of a good teacher is therefore not whether s/he is political but whether s/he models good thinking habits and offers facts that can be verified.  This teacher did so.

                      •  let's be "proper" ? (none)
                        This is the attitude that has gotten us in the mess we're in. Why not discuss important topics when you are with other people at work or any place else for that matter.

                        I have had some great discussions with my high school aged daughter based on things she heard from teachers at her school. She had an economics teacher who was obviously a republican. I didn't ask her to tape what he said so I could try to get rid of him.

                        You think that 10th graders are what? So stupid that they shouldn't be exposed to points of view different than their parents. Proper? Bullshit!

                        Infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at all times been the advocates of truth and justice... Robert Ingersol

                        by BMarshall on Sun Mar 05, 2006 at 10:06:03 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  protect the students? no, way! maybe the (2.50)
            little darlings need a heavy dose of reality. that is what life is about these days. they need to know that bush is selling their future for their profit. and giving this teacher a very hard time just proves what the teacher said is the damn truth.
        •  All over it (none)
          Malkin is all over this one.
        •  Kiss my ass Sean Allen. (none)
          Now run home and tell your daddy on me.  

          "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -- Galileo Galilei

          by Dittoz on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:42:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  If he is backed by a strong teacher's Union... (none)
          ...in his district he will be reinstated. I hope he and his union fight this all the way to the top.

          Infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at all times been the advocates of truth and justice... Robert Ingersol

          by BMarshall on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:11:46 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Funny thing is... he's not a member of the (none)
            teacher's union.  Hired his own lawyer though.
            •  The real creepy thing... (none)

              ... is the taping of his classroom.  I didn't follow the rationale in the first place.

              "It is only for the sake of those without hope that hope is given to us." -- Walter Benjamin

              by quaderni on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:30:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  He works in a private school? (none)
              To bad for him. If he doesn't have a legal contract protecting his rights, the lawyer will do nothing more than cost him money.

              Without a legal contract the employer has all of the rights.

              Infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at all times been the advocates of truth and justice... Robert Ingersol

              by BMarshall on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 03:54:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  homeland security... (4.00)
      did something similar to this to my wife. it wasn't even on a credit card, it was just a large deposit to her checking account (my having given her a few thousands of cash).

      after paying it in, we received a letter from Homeland Security requesting that she contact them immediately to offer an explanation of where the money came from. my wife's reaction, "they can fuck themselves. if they want to snoop, they can find out where it came from all on their own."

      •  We all need to do that (4.00)
        Carry a pocket copy of the US Constitution with you when you tell the HS folks to get lost.  They are truly Bushite scum when they dare to snoop and spy on us like that.

        We'll all be turned into "smurfers", depositing less than $5,000 at a time to avoid the Bushite scum machines minders.  What has happened to our supposedly free country?

        •  good point (4.00)
          my wife is in law school and knows her rights, but sometimes legal debate be damned, you just give these people the finger and carry on with your life. we've already suffered because of her activism. there's going to be one angry attorney out there practising from 2008!

          on the wider question of the intimidation, i have not dared to go to any protests etc and my wife does not even like me to post anything inflammatory on DKos, etc, as i am in the process of acquiring citizenship (and i know the UK, my home country would not stand up for me. they signed away the power to protect me if i am arrested in the US a few years back). you never can tell if you are on the no fly list either until you get to the airport (try phoning up and asking whether you are on a no-fly list - i am sure that counts as "suspicious" and gets you investigated, too).

          i am not trying to sound paranoid, but it is a fact that these practices are not abstract, they have a real impact on how comfortable people feel about exercising their "freedoms". as someone who came to america with a degree of sophistication regarding what to expect, i have still been shocked at the extent of Big Brother. i don't mean to sound rude, but i can't wait to leave, having tasted this. the immigration process itself has changed since i arrived, they built a new department of homeland security building where the DHS logo replaces the US flag and i was treated like a criminal when my eyes were scanned and fingerprints taken.

          it's all unwelcoming and the person who posted the picture of Buttle from the movie Brazil, i know just how he feels.

        •  It's down to $1000 and over (4.00)
          My bank held a check for much less than $5000 because "Homeland Security is monitoring every transaction over $1000." ::jaw dropped on floor:: Oh really? Are they monitoring everybody's paycheck who makes over $1000 in a pay period, or are those people too rich to be monitored?
          •  $1000 even must be safe (none)
            I just made a payment of exactly $1000.00 on a credit card that had roughly a $2000 balance, and nothing happened, the payment was credited within 72 hours of mailing it, and believe me when I say this bank would have used every trick in the book to wring another dime of interest out of me if they could have.  I'm going to close this card soon, it's my one credit card that isn't through a credit union and I'm getting out of the business of shelling out my money to for-profit banks, at least as much as I can.

            Also, it's been the case for many years that bank deposits of $10,000 or over have been reported to the government, but not to DHS, to the IRS, so they could look out for people hiding income.  

            •  I had the same experience as you did. (none)
              Except I did something highly unusual for me and paid 5 x what you paid.  I have never made a payment close to this large in my life.

              No problems whatsoever.

              "But sanctuary never comes without some kind of risk" - Bob Seger

              by YukonJack on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:48:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  however if you ran up thousands in bills (4.00)
            that would be fine. you know owe your soul to the company store!
      •  If I recieved a letter like that... (4.00)
        ...the reply envelope would simply contain a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, with the applicable sections highlighted.

        No other explanation.

        "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross" - Sinclair Lewis

        by Loboguara on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:20:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You and a like-minded group of friends (none)
        could raise a large sum of money and take turns transferring it between you.

        I wish I could say this is unbelievable, but it would take a lot more than that to surprise me now.  Maybe something like Bush admitting he made a mistake, or "taking responsibility" for something HE did and actually experiencing consequences.

        Jumping on the politicalcompass.org bandwagon: (-3.63, -3.03) - Does that make me part of the right wing here?

        by someone else on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:22:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  they're being inconsistent (none)
        Which makes me more uncomfortable.  I inherited a sizeable chunk of money, deposited it to my checking account, bank held it as per their rules (blah blah) but I never heard from Homeland Security.  

        Just because you're self-righteous doesn't mean you're not a hypocrite.

        by AMcG826 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:06:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  If you don't pay your bills (none)
      you have nothing to worry about...;)
  •  Amazing, isn't it? (4.00)
    Considering this, "Up until a few years ago I trusted the government not to abuse this power on a wholesale basis," I can honestly say I am glad you 'woke up':)

    The fact is, the Federal government, specifically the Executive branch, has overstepped it bounds and abused its powers for decades, long before the advent of GBW.  It is just that he, along with Cheney, Rove, and crew have taken the abuses to a new level.

    P.S.  Where is your tip jar?:)

    Life is not a 'dress rehearsal'!

    by wgard on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:08:37 PM PST

    •  In the style of booman (4.00)
      shot glass
      •  Well... surely there's some method to this madness (4.00)
        Perhaps all of the 9/11 terrorists made a last minute rush to square their visa and mastercard bills before crashing their planes, and Homeland Security spotted the trend?... ; )

        Seriously, I wonder if any attempt to pay off your debts now puts you on a Bu$hCo suicide watch list... after all, its so Un-American and antisocial to not have any debt... you'd have to be crazy...

        Dudehisattva... <div style="color: #0000a0;">"Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"&l

        by Dood Abides on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:04:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  People who pay their debts promptly... (4.00)
          ...hate America.

          Consider Clinton, who hates America and had a budget surplus.  Compare him to Bush, who loves America so much that he ran up a trillion dollar debt he has no intention of paying off.

          ...it always turns out that no one is in charge of the things that really matter.--Deborah Eisenberg, Twilight of the Superheroes

          by Plan9 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:13:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Suddenly I'm wondering (4.00)
            How many people I've inadvertently put on the watch list for advising them to pay down their credit cards.

            It's not that they don't know Jack. It's that they don't know him on a first-name basis. :)

            by cskendrick on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:47:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  That's very true (4.00)
             Consider what the credit card industry labels people who do not carry balances on their cards as, deadbeats. If you act responsably, you are an enemy of the system.
             
            •  They can't control non-debters like they want to (4.00)
              Remember, the Bankruptcy bill sets up the sharecropper society, where you will work for the banks for the rest of your life.

              People who pay their credit cards are trying to escape from enslavement. Alito has been positioned to deliver this era's Dred Scott decision ensuring that the entire country becomes the new antebellum South, but with class replacing race as the separator.

              Anyone who seeks to escape enslavement is a threat.

          •  Of Course it's Unamerican ! (4.00)
            YOU are taking money RIGHT out of the Pockets of Hardworking Credit Card Companies who deserve it more than you?

            I mean what do we have to do to get through to you people?  

            Did you think we started Denying credit to people with a perfect history of paying off their bills on a whim?

            Did you suppose that we started cahrging annual fees exclusively to those ingrates who never carry a balance just for fun?

            Didn't you notice that we bought and entire congress for the sole purpose of making the Bankruptcy systemimpossible for  you to use?

            Did you presume that we started offering "credit cards with a built in savings account" because we liked you?
            (And The fact that you John Q. Public can't figure out what's stupid about increasing your 12% interest credit card balance so you can put some money in a 2% interest savings account Makes all of us here at Big Credit laugh so hard milk shoots out of our nose {which is strange cause we're drinking scotch})

            WE are the New Company Store and You WILL owe us your Soul sooner or later, so why don't you give in now and save Us the trouble of outlawing cash altogether and then siccing the DHS on your hippie ass.

            Knowledge is power Power Corrupts Study Hard Be Evil

            by Magorn on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:48:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  On the radio (4.00)
            On the radio (XM, Air America) the other day, I heard from someone -- a caller I think, or maybe it was a guest -- say that if you pay your credit card off in full every month, credit card companies (privately) label you a 'deadbeat', but if you carry a balance from month to month to month like most people, they call you a 'spinner'.

            Did you catch that?  If you pay up, you're a deadbeat.  If you keep channeling them interest, you're a 'spinner', which sounds just as dorogatory.  Made me think of the 'batteries' in The Matrix.

            President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale. -AG

            by Stymnus on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:32:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  The problem is the Drug War, actually (4.00)
          I went to purchase one of those Mastercard Gift Cards as a present and the bank demanded my social security number. Apparently there was/is a problem of people laundering cash through those things.

          I can imagine similar things happening to credit cards, in general. It's not really too difficult to open a credit card under someone else's name and then launder money through it nowadays.

        •  re: Method to the Madness (none)
          It goes back to the Cold War. When trying to catch moles, people selling secrets to the Russians, one of the things they look for is suddent, unexplained wealth. What this sounds like is, if you suddenly pay off a lot more of your credit card than usual or deposit a much bigger check than usual, that transaction gets flagged.

          The problem here is that they've set the bar so low, they're basically getting garbage data: maybe someone who sold an old car for cash or got some help from the parents with bills, maybe even seasonal or self employed workers who have an irregular stream of income.

          •  Don't you just know (none)
            that some way, somehow, this information about "unexplained deposits" is going to make its way to the Internal Revenue Service and trigger audits based on this money's representing "unreported income."

            (-5.25, -7.95) "Self-respect is a question of recognizing that anything worth having has a price." - Joan Didion

            by SueDe on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 07:41:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Oh the trust was not complete (4.00)
      I recognized that the government was capable of evil things.  It just seems that this one is particularly vicious towards its own people.
  •  Maybe I'll default (none)
    Will they do anything then?!

    Probably...sigh

  •  cash or barter (4.00)
    is the only way to go for most things. Otherwise someone somewhere, knows how much you have, buy, spend, what you enjoy, spent it it on or who.  That has always just struck me wrong. Who really needs to know that much about me ? I'm just another grain of sand.

    -8.63 -7.28 When Bush is in your face, may the wind be at your back.

    by OneCrankyDom on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:16:56 PM PST

  •  Good afternoon, Mr Buttle! (4.00)

    -7.00,-7.74 "He is a bad version of us! No more money for him."

    by subtropolis on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:33:42 PM PST

  •  Shot in the foot (4.00)
    You know who this will affect the worst don't you? People who work for the government and need a security clearance. Being listed as "suspect" for trying to get your finances in better order (and they just get a basic civil service paycheck, so it's not wealth) If you work for DHS, say civil service or enlisted in the Coast Guard, having some kind of suspicious activity listed could screw up your security clearance to just do your job.

    Republicans sure know how to reduce gov waste, don't they? snark

    I want my real president - Al Gore!

    by teresab on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:34:32 PM PST

    •  That was the weirdest thing (4.00)
      about my security clearance. They said that my financial check was the shortest they had seen. It was only 1 page. That's what being a married woman will get you. Everything, including MY car loan for MY car was kept listed under my husbands name. Apparantly I really don't have any credit record.

      We were thinking about paying off our mortage. Now I'm a little scared to do that. Feh.

      •  They've been investigating me ever since (4.00)
        I transferred a large amount from one checking account to another in order to pay off my mortgage. Any time I write a big check I get a facsimile of the check back in my bank statement, instead of the original. This even happened to a $43 check made out to a Mennonite farmer from whom I bought some organic meat. (All the rest of my mundane checks were to recognizable entities like elec co.)

        I've been paying cash, and haven't used my credit card in 10 months which is probably also noteworthy.

        •  You're probably seeing this: (none)
          Recent law changes have allowed banks to pretty much do away with keeping original checks these days.
          •  I haven't received an original check back (none)
            in a bank statement in years.  Two of the banks I use print little copies of cleared checks on the statement pages.  Two others don't send back anything at all - if I want copies of cleared checks I have to log onto their internet banking site and print out copies of the checks on my own printer.  And they're just available on the site for 6 months.  If I need a copy of a check older than that, I have to request it from the bank and pay them a service charge for looking it up and printing it.

            (-5.25, -7.95) "Self-respect is a question of recognizing that anything worth having has a price." - Joan Didion

            by SueDe on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:33:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Most of us (4.00)
    breathe a sigh of relief when we're able to pay off a larger balance on our credit card debt.  Seems now we have to hold our breaths wondering what happens next.

    "Ancoro Imparo." ("I am still learning.") - Michelangelo, Age 87

    by Dreaming of Better Days on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:41:46 PM PST

    •  Psyops? (4.00)
      Try and convince us not to pay off our cards????

      Whoops, my tinfoil blew away...

      As soon as the government approves it, its no longer immoral.

      by lapin on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:46:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sure that is an element (4.00)
        Some Republican wunderkind probably thought that one up. I think these laws were thought up to catch drug dealers. But the chance of them catching a terrorist or drug lord that way are nil. But they know stories like this will percolate into the collective consiousness and the result will be higher profit for the banking industry.

        In the wave of home refinancings over the last 5 years I am sure many credit cards were paid off. Did this delay happen in all of them or did this particular bank decide to hide behind this law to milk a few more bucks off their customers? As it is, they have decided to charge interest up to the time they get around to crediting your account, not when they receive your payment. And that same law, if I recall correctly, allowed them to ignore the postmark as a time stamp all could agree on. I once argued about this with a mortgage company and sent them a fedex that they had to sign for. Sure enough they did not credit my payment for several days after they signed for it. It pushed the payment past the late date and they charged me a late fee and interest thru when they credited it.

        •  I quit using credit cards (4.00)
          because I think they are nothing but a form of legalized usury. They make money by screwing the consumer any and every way they can possibly get away with--and under Bush, that's a lot.
          •  That's only half the story (none)
            Businesses also only get 97 or 98 cents on the dollar when customers pay by credit cards. Consequently, prices are a few percent higher for everyone than they would be in a world with no credit cards.

            But the flip side of credit card use is that, when used wisely, they're essentially a thirty day free loan. A consumer that pays off their balance every month can keep their cash sitting in their savings account all month earning interest before writing a single check at the end  of the month. Not to mention that many cards offer rebates of various sorts so that the consumer is only paying 99 or 97 cents on the dollar.

            The retailers, though, are still getting screwed.

            •  but you are considered a deadbeat (none)
              as noted above, if you pay off the balance at the end of the month. You can't win for loosing.

              Let's get some Democracy for America

              by murphy on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:25:31 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, you're not considered to be a deadbeat (none)
                What gets attention is when patterns appear to change. Banks are required to report suspicious activity without being told just what suspicious activity entails. This story is about a JC Penny branded credit card (which is most likely really a GE Capital card). I've had similiar things happen to me with a Chase card.

                The solution is twofold. Move to a better vendor. Write your congresscritter to change the law.

                I voted with my pocketbook and moved to a different card vendor. I've yet to have any problems.

                I've also written to all my congresscritters to voice my displeasure, but I don't think Steve Chabot, Mike DeWine and George Voinovich are going to change their minds on the PATRIOT act and other ``security'' regulations.

              •  definitions can be fun (none)
                to most of us, a deadbeat fails to make good on a loan, pays bills late, etc.

                to a credit-card operation, a deadbeat is a cardholder who does not create interest/fees revenue because they pay off their balance every month ... being a deadbeat to these guys is a good thing in most circumstances ... they'll still show you love if you use the card, since they take a slice from the merchants ...

                BushIsWeak.com ... somebody really ought to register this domain name ...

                by wystler on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:49:59 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Bingo! We have a winner here! (none)
          This has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, and everything to do with giving a little love to the credit card companies in exchange for their generous political contributions to Republicans. The hold lets them charge a few days more interest on large balances.
        •  These laws... (none)
          Are actually designed to catch money launderers, embezzelers, and tax cheats.  Believe it or not, a lot of the people these laws catch are those within the banking and financial industry themselves.

          These laws have been on the books since the 80's, but, like every administration, the enforcement is different.  And, as usual, nothing on the books stops the multi-billion dollar corporations from skating from their taxes by having a mailbox in the Grand Caymans.

  •  Does Lou Dobbs know about this? (4.00)
    Olbermann? Throw the bums out. All of them.
    •  Why would Lou Dobbs care? (none)
      This doesn't involve offshoring or illegal immigrants.
      •  Fuck you. (none)
        Lou Dobbs is my fucking hero.

        I am SO sick of you self righteous "I am so morally superior to those awful conservatives" liberals accusing him of racism.

        Dobbs is absolutely correct that massive unregulated immigration will hurt American workers and depress wages.

        People here at Kos, in their zeal to accuse anyone and everyone of being racist, dishonestly overlook that fact and claim that anyone concerned about immigration is a racist.

        Some people are racist, but that doesn't mean moving half the population of Mexico to the US is a good idea, just because it would upset some racists.

        You didn't actually say Dobbs is a racist, but I'm really touchy about that.

        As far as you say he doesn't care... bullshit. Dobbs has always stood up for individual freedoms and Constitutional issues.

        If you actually watched his show, you'd know he takes on all sorts of tough issues that both conservative and liberal media are afraid to address.

        I mean, he's got the UAE on his ass, and he told them all to fuck off. The man has no fear.

  •  So, we are suppose to stay in debt? (4.00)
    I suppose to make THEM (the USA Government look good?

    Another outrage-My kidney doctor finally convinced me to try to quit smoking, so she gave me a prescription-a legal prescription for wellbutrin- well, the company will not honor the prescription for smoking cessation. They want my doctor to say its for depression and then they will fill the prescription. I'm not FUCKING DEPRESSED! This is MEDCO of UnitedHealthCare that Home Depot gives their employees and family-well they don't give it, they deduct the 'service' from his paycheck.

    THEY want us sick, addicted and in debt.

    roseeriter

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

    by roseeriter on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 11:57:06 PM PST

    •  you left out pregnant (4.00)
      A large family is a preoccupied family.

      Chaos, fear, dread. My work here is done.

      by madhaus on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 12:01:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  When I quit smoking (4.00)
      my doctor told me that he could prescribe Wellbutrin or Xyban.  They are identical.  When you call it Wellbutrin, it is for depression and the insurance company has to pay for it.  When you call it Xyban, it is for smoking cessation and they don't have to pay for it.  IMO this is one of the prime examples of how underhanded the insurance company pigs are.  
      IF you have him prescribe it for depression it stays on your "permanent record" and believe me, you have one where your health records are concerned.

      "Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar." Edward R. Murrow

      by justrock on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 04:40:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Works both ways (none)
      I took Wellbutrin several years ago for depression. Every six weeks or so, I would get a letter from the insurance company demanding that the doctor certify that it WAS for depression and not to quit smoking or otherwise they wouldn't pay. (United, go figure.) Why the hell didn't they just contact the doctor directly? They trust ME more than the doctor? More bureaucratic bullshit.

      All those stupid records are another reason I quit taking it -- despite the fact that I have felt the need to be heavily medicated every day for the past five years or so...since about November 2000.

  •  omfg (4.00)
    this happened to me right before the 2004 election. I kid you not.

    I had been making donations on-line like crazy to various candidates in october of 2004. I must have donated more than $500 in that month.

    because I kept hitting my credit limit I made a bunch of payments and paid my balance way down.

    I tried to charge another donation on-line and it wouldnt go through.

    I called the credit card company, and they couldn't figure out why. yes my balance was low, but my card was on some kind of unspecified "hold". they could not explain why. I talked to managers - the only thing one person would say was that I had made "too many payments."  I couldn't believe it. I remember thinking it was insane that your card would be put on hold for paying it off too fast.

    They told me it would be two more weeks until the hold would be off. (coincidentally, a few days after the election :) I asked if I could make a compaint. and they gave me some name of a government agency - I think the treasaury dept who investigates this stuff. I called and did a phone report about it. The person at the treasury dept said it sounded strange but I never followed up with a whole paper inquiry.

    I felt kind of paranoid. that somehow some conservative manager had seen all those donations to the DSCC and Kerry, etc, and had put the hold on. but I dismissed that thought.

    wow. maybe I'm on some kind of homeland security list. Offenses:

    • too many donations to suspect organizations
    • paid her bill too fast

    -6.13,-6.33 America's Security is not for sale

    by biscobosco on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 12:02:58 AM PST

    •  one thing I left out (4.00)
      because I dont like to be in debt, I only have one mastercard. so when it was put on hold, it made me effectively unable to make any more donations. so I was really upset.

      (well I borrowed my moms card for a few :)

      -6.13,-6.33 America's Security is not for sale

      by biscobosco on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 12:07:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Only <b>ONE</b> Credit card?! (4.00)
        It's positively un-American! That in and of itself is enough to launch a HS probe into you, your family, friends and co-workers.  You're lucky you're not in Gitmo already.
        •  multiple credit cards (4.00)
          I've got 3 credit cards that I use (and pay off completely each month).  One card gets me 10% cash back on all grocery and gas station purchases, and 5% on everything else. I use it primarily at grocery stores and gas stations.  Another card gets me about 5% cash back.  The third gets me about 2% cash back, but I use that primarily for online payments (to keep any risk from spreading to the other cards).  I put ALL my purchases on credit cards, even fast food, and even any bill (like the phone/cell) that allows it.  I think I actually use less than $200 in cold hard cash every year.  Last year I got probably close to $500 in credit card 'cash back' (which I apply to my payment every once in awhile).   Instead of letting credit card companies rip YOU off, why not use them?  The key is to never charge more than you can pay off completely every month.  Once you start paying less than the total due, you are SCREWED.
          •  It seems like a saving (4.00)
            I follow your logic, but consider that having businesses taking only credit card payments would increase their costs by the additional merchant discount rate they pay for the processing of transactions. This cost gets transfered to everyone at the counter in higher prices. If no one used cards, profitability would be greater and price pressures lower. There have been class action lawsuits by the food/grocery industry against the credit card industry for excessive rates. Part of their claim is that it causes higher prices for everyone including people that don't own or use cards. It's like an unfair tax.
             The cost of all this processing gets redirected to the customer. I believe it translates to at least 3% of additional costs to your grocery bill. In the bigger equation that's what needs to be considered. You are probably correct in stating that you can pocket some cash back. The card companies factor in a percentage of people they know will carry a balance.
             I think we need to stay away from cards as much as possible simply for the reason that each and every year a larger fraction of what we purchase is going directly to card companies and banks as fees. We may end up with a scenario not unlike the box of cereal analogy, where the cost of the box (processing) is an important part of the final product.
             To these people it's all about getting us to be credit only customers. Once that is in place, there's no guarantee the perks will still be in place. Fees and rates are only going up for the
            businesses. We pay directly and inderectly. It makes the equation much harde to understand.

             

        •  Gitmo for you!! (none)
          Definitely "Un-American", Cat-Killer Frist/McCarthey will be investigating you for sure.  Since just one credit card is a certain sign of "un-american" activities, you'll be sent to Gitmo while this is all sorted out.  And think of the money you'll save by not hiring a lawyer- no trial for you!
    •  which is why some use paypal (none)
      you can transfer small amounts there from your regular bank account and then go through paypal for at least some of your donations. If you can have $5-10 transferred per payday, you have a little bit to donate here and there.

      It's not entirely satisfactory, but has worked for me.

      Let's get some Democracy for America

      by murphy on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:30:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I actually had this happen (none)
      in the 1990s.  I was buying inventory for a business and knew I would hit the credit limit.  So I sent an extra check in to provide some room under the limit.  Turns out that the limit was not just total debt, but a monthly limit on spending.  So my card got rejected.  Man, was I pissed.  Luckily they were willing to raise my limit and it worked out.  
      •  right - that is understandable (none)
        but this is a different situation. the reason they gave was not a total monthly limit on spending. it was that I had made too many payments in a month

        I remember the reason clearly because it seemed so absurd. "let me get this straight - you think I am a bad credit risk because I pay off my bills too fast?" riiiight...

        -6.13,-6.33 America's Security is not for sale

        by biscobosco on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:36:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Like a "Sliders" episode (4.00)
    This reminds me of an episode of the sci-fi series Sliders. The main characters landed in a parallel world in which everyone lived and worked in a giant mall, and people would get in trouble if they weren't carrying enough debt.

    Mariva's Guide: Stuff for the mind, for passing time, for sharing, for yourself, for fun.

    by mariva on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 12:20:54 AM PST

  •  Totally right (4.00)
    I can tell you that the same thing happened when we sold our house in order to move out of the country.

    The story is told in greater detail in my wife's new book diaried here but basically after escrow had transferred the funds to our account, our bank would not wire them out until we provided them with all kinds of papers such as photocopies of US passports, etc.

    When I asked they blamed it all on new regulations from Homeland Security. Everything you do with your money must now be investigated.

    I know we're on a list now. Not that I care.

  •  this is literally... (4.00)
    ...one of the most absurd things I've ever read.  It doesn't make sense.  Granted...it's a quarter till 2 AM and I'm half-asleep, but...I don't think this would make sense to me even if I was completely awake.  It's not as if it's not coherent, it just...

    Seriously, what the fuck?  You can be flagged for paying off your debts too quickly?  That's literally ridiculous.  Because someome makes a big payment to clear their debts, clearly they're about to go explode themselves or try to off someone else?  Is this the logic they're using?  That's some seriously hardcore jumping to conclusions they're doing, there.

    The diarist wrote:
    We are not free citizens.  Everything is being watched.  Every day they give us more reasons to quit the electronic system, go cash whenever possible.

    I agree with that, and everything is getting consistently and constantly scarier by the day.  It seems like every day, or every other day, we find out some other way in which this administration and its minions like the DHS have been trampling upon one right or another that we've taken for granted previously.  And the degree to which nothing has been done about anything they've done to us amazes me.

    Maybe it's the insomnia talking, but I'm really starting to wonder if we're running out of options for standing up for ourselves now...

    "More a question than a curse, how could Hell be any worse?" - Bad Religion - Los Angeles is Burning -- -6.88/-7.49

    by Fraction Jackson on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 12:49:25 AM PST

    •  "...about to go explode themselves..." (none)
      Hmmm... it would seem to me that someone who had that in mind, and intended to harm American interests in any way he could, certainly wouldn't worry about paying off his debts.

      On the contrary. If anything, the opposite might be true: the last, run-up days could be filled with high living, overspending, running up the debt, and not paying anything off at all. Why should he worry about a "clean" credit record, considering where he would be a short time later?

      "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

      by Donna in Rome on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:17:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I guess that depends (none)
        on your image of what motivates suicide bombers.

        If we think of them as anti-social, homicidal, nihilistic maniacs -- the way they are typically portrayed in the press -- then your questions are relevant.

        If, however, we see them as idealistic, connected utopians, willing to sacrifice even their own lives for the greater glory of god, then it would be perfectly logical for them to want to leave this life with all their affairs in order.

        The evidence suggests the latter motivation is closer to the truth.

        •  You ARE kidding, right? (none)
          How do you square that statement with Mohammed Atta's gambing binge before 9/11?

          Or the fact that Muslim extremists see Western culture as a pit of materialism, which credit card debt is a symbol?

          Come to think of it, I can't think of any religion that stresses "makes sure you pay your bills, lest you be judged in Heaven."  ;)

          I agree, though: it is too easy to just dismiss terrorists as homicidal nihilists.  But, I think concluding that paying off Western credit card companies would be important to somebody intending to destroy the West is illogical.

          Which makes this diary even more disturbing!!!

  •  Besides the outrage (4.00)
    and besides the intrusion on one's privacy, seems like Homeland Security and the credit card company would be liable for any additional interest you had to pay on the outstanding balance until the hold was released. Take them both to small claims court and demand answers and documents. Use them in a class action suit. Contact the ACLU.

    The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud. -Coco Chanel

    by Overseas on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:00:08 AM PST

  •  that is absurd... (none)
    Almost any banking transaction can be looked at as suspcious.  I can think of a few of my monthly banking transactions that fall within suspcious activities.  And with a nut like W in office they check everything, but how much toliet paper we buy.
    •  No, TP would be a big one... (none)
      ...'cuz "they" would be afraid of mass tp-ing of their offices.

      And they certainly wouldn't want anyone to stock up for when the economy tanks, and their private investment in tp companies would pay off handsomely as KBR charges up to $500 per roll...

      Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
        Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
      Tempest even in reason's seat.

      by GreyHawk on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:22:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, toilet paper purchase is in database. (none)
      Every time that you use card to get the "preferred customer sale price" at a grocery store your purchases are tracked... Krogers and Randalls are two that I use. This has made me consider paying cash and shopping at some of the smaller stores that don't have this policy.
      Our local liquor store chain has this deal, too. To get the best price you have to pay cash or debit card and  present your customer card for scanning.
      Many more like Petsmart and Petco.
      Too numerous to mention.
      •  We shop at Trader Joe's (none)
        where you get low prices without using a loyalty card, and purchase our TP (and other items we don't get at TJ's) at Target.

        We don't have a credit card, either. Originally, it was because we're really bad with money and didn't want to put ourselves in a position to rack up big debt, but with this story, I'm awfully glad we don't have one. I loathe and despise our bank, and if I wasn't too lazy to get money orders for all our bills (and if we were better with money), I'd close out our bank account and deal only in cash.

        •  Is there a credit union (none)
          in your area? Regulations for membership have been greatly eased in the last few years, and they generally have better rates and service, not to mention less fancy real estate to support and (I think) possibly fewer gummint regs to trip you up.

          The degree to which you resist injustice is the degree to which you are free. -- Utah Phillips

          by Mnemosyne on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:08:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't know about that (none)
            I recently looked into changing to a Credit Union after seeing discussions like this on DKos. I looked at six different CUs listed on the Credit Unions of Washington Web site. The paperwork they want you to fill out seems a LOT more intrusive than that required by any regular bank (WaMu, Bank of America). It's as if they want to check your credit rating before they ALLOW you to give them your money.

            Bullshit on that.

            And I don't care if you say the bank checks you out too -- at least they aren't so fucking blatant about getting all up in your business to do business with them.

            Credit unions also have limited ATM networks, and I do ALL of my banking by ATM. Driving five miles to get to their building every time I need cash isn't feasible -- I don't have a car.

            And some credit unions don't adjust your credit report when you pay off their loans. I paid off two car loans through a federal employees credit union, and when I asked what gives, they said it is not their practice to list such loans on customers' credit reports when they are paid off, only when they are defaulted on. So, all that good credit I racked up was for naught.

            All banks seem to suck equally.

      •  Albertson's lets you (none)
        check a box saying that you don't want them to track you personally, and you don't have to give your name, address, or any other info. It still lets them track buy patterns of people; however if you pay with a card, they might be able to correlate.
        •  Don't trust any of the "loyalty cards" (none)
          I always tell the cashier "No" when they ask for that number, just buy nothing that is offered with the discount- it is probably relabeled and out of date in many cases.

          Trader Joe's is the way to go, if only it was closer to where we live.

      •  Actually, Bush wants to make sure (4.00)
        nobody buys all of the toilet paper as he needs the most because he is so full of shit!!!!
      •  Why give them real info? (4.00)
        Why not just give the grocery stores a fake name, address and telephone number?  Let them track all your purchases to John Smith, 123 Main Street, Anytown, USA.  (555) 555-1111.

        "In war: resolution. In defeat: defiance. In victory: magnanimity. In peace: goodwill." - Churchill

        by William S Martin on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 04:49:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I get airline miles with one grocery card. n/t (none)
        •  Damn Right (none)
          I, too, give out false details when stores ask for zip codes etc for tracking purposes.  I suggest that next time you are asked you give a fictitious name (preferably a middle-eastern name)and then give them the White House address (without calling it the White House - just 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington D.C.  That should give the snoops something to get their teeth into!
          Also when you receive those annoying junk mailings of credit card applications - fill them in with Dubya's details and address just for a laugh.

          The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

          by brit librarian on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:44:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  May be for Fraud Prevention (none)
            if you are paying with a credit card, especially if you are in a state different from where you live, the Zip may be used to, online, check it against the address of your CC statement. If it doesn't match, the charge is rejected.

            BTW, this doesn't mean that's it's not also used for tracking what you buy.

      •  You can game that system (none)
        Borrow somebody else's card for five minutes, photocopy it, make a sticker out of the bar code and put it on a blank card. A couple years ago some guy made headlines by putting up a web site where anyone could download images of his card's barcode as an experiment to see if they could bork up the data.
        •  Safeway, (none)
          at least up here, allows you to enter a phone number instead of sliding your card. I use '503-612-9262', it's some guy named 'Terri Newman', and I know this because a friend of mine gave me the number as well.
      •  I always lie on those cards (none)
        I have a Kroger's card, etc., and I just make up fakes names, addresses and phone numbers when I fill out the forms. They've never commented on the discrepancy.
      •  Our creative responsibilities.... (none)
        I typically don't shop at places that have this sort of system, but when I'm travelling or visiting relatives, sometimes it happens. But if they are going to have such as system, well, they have to take the chaff with the wheat....

        I make a point to fill out a new form and just do a little stream-of-consciousness form filling. And then pay with cash.... I'm always surprised, with the stream-of-consciousness, who I end up being and where I'm from! Of course, I'm pretty easily entertained.

        Finally, make a point to throw away the plastic bits they want you to put on your keychain or in your wallet...

  •  Who is taking an interest? (none)
    Does the credit card company continue to charge for late fees and penalties from the time the transaction is forcibly suspended until the suspension is lifted?  Is there money to be made by turning you in to Homeland Security?  You don't have to go very far to find a conflict of interests in that.
  •  Jesus. (none)
    My mother died on November 25.  She left a life insurance policy that was big enough to pay off 13 credit cards, each of which had a balance of over $1,000 (and one of them was in the same range as the Soehnges' card).  I wonder what kind of investigation we're going to end up getting...

    We're leaving the country today to go laze on the beach in the Dominican Republic for spring break.  Wonder if we'll get close scrutiny at the airport.

    Now for the policy side of this.  The banking industry knows that there are too many CTRs being filed and that most of them are for transactions that are completely innocuous.  Senators Shelby and Sarbanes (chair and ranking member on the Banking Committee) also know this, and some changes are in the works.

    The last time people listened to a talking bush, they wandered 40 years in the desert.

    by DC Pol Sci on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:38:04 AM PST

    •  CTRs are not SARs (m) (4.00)
      CTRs are Cash Transaction Reports while SARs are Suspicious Transaction Reports. There is no judgment involved in in filing a CTR. anything $10,000 or more gets filed. Period. See my post below for more info on filing SARs.

      What Senators Shelby and Sarbanes are probably looking at is over-filing of SARs, which has been happening. I am a bit skeptical with this because this is an easy way for banks to cover their behinds. They file anything and everythig without investigating. The banks have complained loudly about some of the hefty fines imposed by FinCEN but, if you read the documentation on the caes, it IS clear that they were deserved.

      •  SARs (4.00)
        The regulators auditing standards can critique an institution either for submitting too many SARs or too few.  You're right that the number of SARs is skyrocketing.  Trying to get something meaningful out of them is like trying to take a drink from a firehose.  I haven't found any examples of even one case where a bank filed an SAR on something other than an obvious crime and that led to the conviction of anybody for anything at all.

        Here's the big part of the story that nobody has mentioned yet.  What is going on is banks are required to profile their customers and file SARs about transactions that are suspicious only because they are out of profile.  The regulators proposed federal regulations to require banks to do this in 1998.  The proposed regulations were shouted down by the public and withdrawn.  The FDIC got 250,000 public comments and out of those only 106 thought the regulations were a good idea.

        Now, post 9/11 the regulators are requiring the same profiling, but they didn't go back and propose the regs again.  There isn't anything in the Patriot Act requiring customer profiling.  Instead the regulators just put the same expectations in their Examination Manual, without going through any public process or giving the public any opportunity to object.

        The FFIEC online examination manual can be found here.  They call customer profiling customer due dilligence but the point is the bank is supposed to know what kind of transactions are usual for any customer and therefore report anything which is unusual.

        Of course the other part of all this is that SARs are supposed to be secret.  The bank can't tell a customer that he or she has been reported to the government.  The part of this story I found surprising was that the customer found out it a report had been filed.

        Will somebody PLEASE give George a BJ so we can impeach him? -5.25, -4.51

        by Tod on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:40:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A couple comments: (4.00)
          I haven't found any examples of even one case where a bank filed an SAR on something other than an obvious crime and that led to the conviction of anybody for anything at all

          This has been one of the main criticisms that the banks have mentioned. They want some kind of assurance that their hard work money spent on preparing SARs is paying off. Regulators and DOJ personnel will tell you that they do not reveal this information - it can tip off other cirminals or endanger prosecutions other investigations or prosecutions. I can understand both sides and I believe that there has been some talk about how to resolve this issue.

          What is going on is banks are required to profile their customers and file SARs about transactions that are suspicious only because they are out of profile

          There is no requirement to "profile" customers per se. What is required is be doneis an ML risk analysis of customers and categorizing them into High, Medium and Low risk depending on many factors such as type of transactions made, whether or not is a cash intensive business etc.

          All Customers require Due Diligence - this is known as Know Your Customer practices (KYC) and has been in place for many years prior to 9-11. I've been teaching KYC practices since the late 80's. I think it is very reasonable for regulators to make sure that banks know who are their customers.

          Those customers that score in the higher risk categories require what is called Enhanced Due Diligence, which is basically a more closely monitoring of their accounts.

          BTW, as someone pointed below, AML practices and Fraud prevention practices are quite similar. By analyzing suspicious or unusual behavior, your bank can help you prevent identity theft, for example.

          I was also very surprised that the customer was told about the filing of a SAR. Not only is this against regulations but, perhaps more importantly for our discussion, customer information regarding AML and SARs is considered to be highly confidential. It is not to be shared with people outside the AML offices within the bank (except for maybe the account officer or branch manager) not to mention outside the bank. Employees caught doing providing this type of information could face firing.

          •  A rose by any other name. (none)
            I do a lot of civil litiagation regarding banks and the BSA/KYC rules come up a lot.  Prior to 1998 the Bank Secrecy Act required banks to "Know Your Customer" but there were no regulations and banks were really just required to "Identify" their customers - that is, look at a drivers license.

            What the withdrawn 1998 regs did that was new was require banks to develop customer profiles, even though the regulators never call them that, and therefore identify transactions as suspicious because they fall outside of that profile, like paying off a credit card.  To me, withdrawing the regulations in the face of overwhelming public opposition and then imposing the same requirements through the back door of the examination manual seems pretty shady.

            I've heard regulators suggest that banks should capture maker information on inclearing checks and report customers as suspicious if they get too many checks from out of town.

            Will somebody PLEASE give George a BJ so we can impeach him? -5.25, -4.51

            by Tod on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:04:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  By the way (none)
            The sorting of customers into risk categories is pretty much a scam because if you look at the categories you see that almost everybody with a pulse is defined as high risk.  The whole point of risk sorting is to identify that small subset that deserves the most attention.  If you say that everybody deserves the most attention then you haven't accomplished anything.

            Will somebody PLEASE give George a BJ so we can impeach him? -5.25, -4.51

            by Tod on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:12:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But that's not what the regulators ask (none)
              Sorting everyone into a high risk bucket is NOT considered AML Best Practices. I agree with you on this.

              Unfortunately for everyone, both banks and regulators/examiner are sorely lacking in their AML skills. They have been hiring but it is a relatively new practice so qualified resources are scarce.

              I have to go back and do some research on the 1998 proposed legislation and see if I can find some of the responses the FDIC got. My gut tells me that most came from the banking industry. Also, I have to find the exact wording in the PATRIOT Act (not easy task, LOL) but I do believe that it does give the regulators leeway in what to ask for - this is the danger it's biggest danger!  

              I believe that  the new CIP rules - strenghtening the KYC rules requiring more than looking at a driver's license was needed... but, then again, I have worked most of my career in the Latin America market where this was always required so I am biased.

              And never foret, 9/11 changed everything </snark>

              BTW, thanks for engaging me in this discussion, I don't often have an opportunity to discuss with other people that are so knowledgeable in the subject (read second paragraph above, LOL). :-)

              •  What I use. (4.00)
                When I explain this to juries I use a press release from the Comptroller of the Currency withdrawing the proposed regs and exerpts from the Federal Register.  See Vol. 64, No. 59, page 14845 (March 29, 1999).  In the notice of withdrawal the FDIC explained that they got 254,394 public comments and only 105 public commenters were in favor of the proposed regulation.  
                "The overwhelming majority of commenters were individual, private citizens who voiced very strong opposition to the proposal as an invasion of personal privacy."

                There are similar entries for the other regulators but the FDIC got by far the most public comments.

                Will somebody PLEASE give George a BJ so we can impeach him? -5.25, -4.51

                by Tod on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:51:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  And (none)
                I couldn't find it quickly, but the regulators promulgated a list of "high risk businesses".  What I remember is that it included EVERYBODY who sold at retail.  There were a lot of smaller subsets like flower shops and travel agents and I can see where regulators might tell the industry that they are seeing a lot of a particular kind of business serving as a front for criminal activity, but that all gets washed away when the next category on the same list tells the banks they have to include everybody who sells anything retail as a high risk business.

                Will somebody PLEASE give George a BJ so we can impeach him? -5.25, -4.51

                by Tod on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:56:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Let me know if you find it (none)
                  as I said, many AML regulators do not know what they are doing - which is quite, quite dangerous!
                  •  OCC (none)
                    It's in the Comptroller's Handbook for the Bank Secrecy Act, see pp. 32-33.  There are some specific categories that could be meaningful, but they get wiped out by the inclusion of a really broad category:
                    "Cash-intensive businesses, such as convenience stores, restaruants, retail stores, and parking garages"

                    Note that, as a lawyer, I'm also a high risk business.

                    Will somebody PLEASE give George a BJ so we can impeach him? -5.25, -4.51

                    by Tod on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 09:46:54 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  oy! (none)
      13 cards, all over 1k with one over 5k!?

      That was a serious, extremely heavy interest load.  I'm glad you don't have to live with that burben anymore.

      My condolences on the death of your mother.  I know she's in a good place.

    •  I paid a thousand dollars a month for (none)
      about a year on my credit card with no problem. Youll probably be fine.

      If there's one thing I've learned, it's that life is one crushing defeat after another until you just wish Flanders was dead.

      by ablington on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:04:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's nothing new, really (4.00)
    That kind of thing has been going on for years. First it was to fight "money laundering", now it's used for all sorts of excuses. The government really has its eye on your banking activities.

    And using cash is OK unless you use TOO MUCH cash. If you want to pay cash for a used car, for instance. Anything over $10,000 is reported as possible money laundering or drug related activity.

    In Las Vegas when you rent a house or apartment, the application with all your personal info on it is sent to the police department to make sure you aren't a criminal or on some kind of watch list. I find that an egregious invasion of privacy.

    All those idiots who say "I haven't done anything wrong, so it doesn't bother me if the guvmint checks me out" need to get their priorities straight. I say, I haven't done anything wrong so it isn't any of the guvmint's gosh darned business!

    "A despot doesn't fear eloquent writers preaching freedom - he fears a drunken poet who may crack a joke that will take hold." - E. B. White

    by tigerdog on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:42:46 AM PST

  •  Calm down people! (4.00)
    What we have here is an overzealous interpretation of the rules by the credit card company. The credit card company's claim that it has to be reported is complete and utter bullshit and a clear clase of CYA.

    All International Standards (FATF, EU Directives, etc)) in the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Fight (AML/CTF) requires (most) financial institutions to report suspicious transactions. While they are guidelines, the judgment of what requires filing a Suspicious Activity report (SAR) is left over to the financial institutions.

    So, what constitutes suspicious behavior? Most countries include guidelines in their regulations (the lengthy BSA document referred to by the diarist is an example). Using common sense, though, suspicious transaction is unusual behavior. This includes what is referred to as "historical" behavior - so, in the case diared above, the customer paying off the credit card is not his/her usual behavior so a red flag is triggered.

    I'd like to repeat, because this is important:  a red flag DOES NOT trigger filing of a SAR as was told to the customer. It only triggers an internal (i.e. only by financial institution) review of the account, especially with the amount involved in this story. Depending on the findings, however, a red flag may trigger continued monitoring of the account, based on the financial institution's policies.

    One thing is certain, paying off loans (any kind) is one of the typologies already identified for laundering money and financing terrorism. This, BTW PRE-DATES Patriot Act - as does much of the information found in the BSA document mentioned before. What has changed after PATRIOT Act is the increased enforcement of the laws.

    Parting poings:

    Always question the motives behind a bank telling anyone that it was required for them to file a SAR. First of all, it consitutes "tipping" (letting the customer know that they have filed a SAR on them/their transaction - a big NO-NO. Second, many financial institutions have been lobbying congress for less regulatins because, guess what, implementing all this costs them money.

    I think our time is better spent criticizing the aspects of the PATRIOT Act that merit criticizing. The PATRIOT Act's impact on the improvement and enforcement of AML/CTF laws WORLDWIDE is unqestionable. So, lets move on and fight the fights that merit fighting.

    •  Paying off debts (4.00)
      We put everything on the credit card and then pay off the entire balance each month in full and nothing like this has ever happened to us. And our balances get up there, especially around the holidays. But maybe since we've always done this, it's not suspicious enough to report.
      •  That's exactly right (m) (none)
        you always do this so it's not unusual.
        •  We paid off a $6000 (none)
          Providian Visa bill in one fell swoop last year and it went right through, and they thanked me on the phone and said, "Keep up the good work."  Hmmmm...then I went on to make small charges on the card right after.  (We make sure we keep it down now so we can pay it off every month.)

          But we had carried that balance for nearly a year.   Of course the interest on it just kept us in that swamp bog of paying and not getting the principal down.  Never again....

          But I appreciate both the heads-up clue in this diary post, and your clarifying information.  Forewarned is forearmed.

          The "post 9-11 world"....what a convenient fiction...(remember how so many of the 9/11 hijackers were listed in the phone book under their own names?  And were plainly and openly in flight school learning only how to take off big jets, not land 'em?  Yeah, we need so much more extra surveillance to keep track of these types...But don't get me started...I'm hoping for a good weekend, for a change...)

    •  paying off debts? (4.00)
      One thing is certain, paying off loans (any kind) is one of the typologies already identified for laundering money and financing terrorism.

      You seem to know a lot about the subject, so could you explain why this is true?

      I can understand why a large transfer of any kind would raise a flag and trigger an investigation into where the money came from, but why would paying off a loan be particularly suspicious? You're just giving money to the credit card company / bank.

      •  I'll try (4.00)
        BTW, sorry for dissappearing on you, I do have a job ;-)

        There is a lot more to money laundering than large amounts of $$ moved around :-) and money launderers have gotten more and more sophisticated to be able to continue to do their "job" <rolling eyes> in the face of ever changing legislation and more sophisticated detection systmes.

        Just a little bit of definition: Money laundering is the attempt to disguise the origin of money derived from crime. An intermediate step to money laundering is called "layering". The more "layers" a launderer puts between the origin of the money and the destination, the more difficult it is to discover the laundering. Pre-payment of loans can be yet another layer.

        Pre-payment of loans is supicious simply because the majority of people pay their loans when they are due.  The people that do not need a loan don't get one. The people that do, well, pay it when they have to! I don't have numbers at my fingertips but the percentage of people that pre-pay loans is not large - not counting pre-payment of mortgages due to re-financing or purchase of another house, btw.

        I hope this helps!

        •  HA! (none)
          so helpful ... when one considers congressional and federal reform, er, activities to date.

          money launderers have gotten more and more sophisticated to be able to continue to do their "job" <rolling eyes> in the face of ever changing legislation and more sophisticated detection systmes

          i am just trying to post my first diary on the broadband loans and grants wagon train rolling through USDA. who would believe how much money's gone missing there ...

          who'd want to follow it ...

          Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

          by MarketTrustee on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:17:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  thanks (none)
          Pretty obvious, now that I think about it.
    •  Good point (4.00)
      But, it feels different now because of the fact the government has so much more power than they did before 9/11.

      Bushco, putting the mock in democracy.

      by Southern Bell on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:57:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No kidding! :-) (none)
        Try explaining to this to non-US banks and why they should complay with AML/CTF rules in the PATRIOT Act (answer: they risk their US banks closing their correspoding banking accounts)

        Not an easy job but someone's gotta do it ;-)

    •  Right on the money, Truza! (4.00)
      I'm glad you read and responded before I did, as you did an excellent job of explaining, and I'm lazy :)

      As someone who worked in the financial industry for a while, I have to say that the anti-money-laundering regulations are a pain sometimes, but it's important that we have them.  These regulations go hand in hand with fraud discovery, too, because if your bank or broker is required to monitor suspicious transactions anyway, it's more likely to catch when someone's stolen your login information and is trying to wire all your funds to the Bahamas, for example. The general public has no idea the kinds of stuff that goes on, that has to be guarded against, especially now that identity theft is a lot more commonplace.

  •  Thanks for the heads up--I just got approval for a (none)
    consolidation loan to pay off my car and my Visa, which carries about the same balance as the schoolteacher's in the article.  Wonder if I'll see the same thing...???  And, I can't help but wonder if this happens to people who have never donated to a liberal organization.  I won't be a good case study for that--I heart the ACLU.

    Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber--Plato

    by techiechick on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 03:03:48 AM PST

  •  So when we fix it and get our country back (none)
    to what it's supposed to be, you know with privacy & civil rights fully in tact, it'll be these very criminals who'll exploit every single loophole in the system to make our lives just as much a living hell as we're in today. Because when you take away their power they'll bleed nothing but revenge.
  •  It is called Regulation Z. (none)
    It happened to me when I tried to pay off a credit card "too fast."
    I was not aware that I had been reported to Homeland Security...just that the issuer could not process the payments without a waiting period.
    Will be researching this some more.
    It did seem outrageous at the time (two months ago)and I have been paying cash more and using the cards much less now.
    •  Should define "too fast." (none)
      I attempted to make two payments within a week.
      Chase put a hold on the second check and gave Regulation Z as the reason.
      It was not the amount of the payments (significantly larger than usual) nor the fact that the card would be paid off as a result that triggered Regulation Z but because the payments were made too close to one another.
      •  that's interesting (none)
        b/c I've been toying with the idea of making smaller, weekly payments in addition to my monthly payment to drive my principle down. It seems pretty easy to do now that account payments can be made online. Your experience makes me all the more skeptical of the motivation here - I doubt citicorp gives much of a damn about "homeland security" -- but the idea that people might crawl their way out of interest rate hell probably terrifies them.
        •  Citicorp is a hazard to homeland security (none)
          They have links to both Al Qaeda and Bu$h.  The corporate terrorists at Citigroup doesn't care who dies as a result of their actions.  

          We're just saying that Citibank's parent company Citigroup is the largest banking conglomerate in the world. They've transcended national boundaries, and they're not on "our" side: Citigroup was implicated and fined by the Treasury Department in 2003 for financial connections and "dealing in property" with groups like al Qaeda and Hamas. They also made shady money propping up WorldCom and Enron through the bankruptcies that devastated the companies' U.S. workers.

          So then, they're on "their" side? Not quite: Citi is the number-one investor in fossil fuel development and has major defense investments as well, meaning they're a major war profiteer in the Middle East, which explains why they've become a target of Arab rage. Other standing allegations include investment in ecologically unsound oil drilling and rainforest mining, "predatory lending" in low-income urban areas and investment scandals connected to CEO Sanford Weill.  http://www.nypress.com/...

          Hopefully some karma is in store.  

          Boycott Citibank/Citicards. They are corporate thieves and terrorists.

          by tri on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:01:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  See my comment to Jackemoe (none)
        Your bank is fucking with you!Regulation Z is the "Truth in Lending" regulation and I see nothing in there to allow this. In fact, Reg Z was designed to protect consumers (with the help of bank lobbyists, no doubt, <rolling eyes>)

        Next time it happens, please ask them to show you the part of the regulation that says this and I suggest you keep track and consider reporting them (Chase again!) to your consumer protection agency.

        I'm sorry this happened to you!

  •  Warning (none)
    On three instances in the past two months my daughter has had to call and watch very carefully balance transfers in paying smaller cards to get the balance onto a single card.
    These transactions "magically" don't go through or go throught "late".  If you are not watching, they will scoff up the money.
  •  This has always been the case. (4.00)
    I am an IT worker, computer programmer, and I have worked in the credit card processing industry.  What has happened here is nothing unusual even before 911.  Its actually just as simple as a transaction of more than $5,000 that set the flag off.  Before homeland security such flags were reported to the FBI.  Before '96 I believe the threshold was $10,000.  The reason is not so much for terrorism as credit card fraud.  It's not the payoff of the card in this case, but the movement of funds more than $5,000, really nothing more than that.  The hold is as much as 10 days if it is done, or at minimum a 'conscious' monitoring of the next several transactions.  What probably happened is this person was using a new card to pay off the old card, and the withdrawal on the new card looked like identity theft or fraud.  There are even cases where a bank may discontinue the card.  This has saved the banking industry, and consumers! billions.  

    Most people are idiots... But don't tell them. It'll spoil all the fun for those of us who aren't.

    by d3n4l1 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 04:28:24 AM PST

    •  Was not aware that threshold had lowered. (none)
      It used to be 10K.
      Wells Fargo tries to put a hold of up to two weeks on the funds.
      You can get the hold removed early (which I have done if the check is definitely 'good') is but it is a pain and in my experience you have to be persistant.
       
      •  Limit is now $5,000 (none)
        That is posted at my bank.  So the "smurfers" will deposit $4,800 or so, and require more gas to get around to all the banks.

        Next step will be to lower the limit to $2,500, hey, the Bushite scum have all those fancy computers with PLENTY of data processing power, so why not suck it all up and let John Poindexter do the data mining?

        Anyone who doesn't think that the Bushite scum are spying on virtually everyone is living in a state of denial.  The only way to be truly out of their sights is to go all cash and barter, but of course that will also trigger special scrutiny and cross-checking vs. your driver's license, etc- spending too little will be seen as suspicious by the Bushite scum.

    •  Our card was flagged (none)
      when I bought a computer. The odd thing was how we found out. We were just trying to pay our bill and couldn't log on. It was cleared up instantly and we weren't reported to DHS.
  •  The next question.... (none)
    If they are investigating how you paid off your credit, but they haven't contacted you to ASK how you paid off your credit, then what, exactly, are they looking AT?

    Clearly, there are more invasions into our privacy than wiretaps.  Isn't this search without probably cause?

  •  this is actually happening to me now (4.00)
    I am running a google adwords ad campaign for my company and our Amex corporate card (for some reason) won't accept Google charges (for now, until we straighten it out with Amex) as they perceive the frequent, daily charges as somehow fraudulent.

    Google charges your credit card DAILY for any activity you generate and only after a 3-4 month billing history will they consider switching you to invoice billing (after a credit review an application)

    SO, I use my Chase visa credit card which has a somewhat high limit over $30k.

    ANYWAY, I had been charging about $2k per day to my chase card but as any law-abiding citizen would do, the time came to PAY MY CREDIT CARD BILL so that I had a free balance to CHARGE MORE.

    Seems normal.

    I sent in a payment of %5k, following by 2 more payments of $10k each.  The $5k payment went through but my ENTIRE ACCOUNT was shut down (along with my google campaign since the charges they were trying to make were DECLINED by chase because my account was CLOSED)

    So after yelling to everyong up the customer service chain, (i always thought it had to do with the gop/corporate industrial complex and their strangle hold on everything about you) they said that EVEN IF my payments come through, are cleared by my bank and pay my card off, they STILL cannot release my credit, ALL OF IT, until they review my account due to the large payments.

    Nevermind that they DID NOT SHUT my card off DURING these transactions which got me to a large balance in the first place.

    Nope.  As the author states, IT IS OK TO GET INTO DEBT.

    It's when you try to pay it down that you're suddenly working for the taliban and you're shut down.

    They are STILL engaging in this and it has come to the point where I must CALL CHASE AND MY BANK SIMULTANEOUSLY on a conference call so that they can talk to each other and verify my payment is from them.

    I only keep this chase card because I have no other way to keep my google campaign going until i qualify for invoice billing so until them, it's GOP/corporate hell.

    I cannot wait for these fuckers to disappear.

    •  Again, this is the bank's fault (4.00)
      please read my post above.

      I'm sorry your bank fucked you over something that is clearly due to their inefficient process.

      I suggest you call another bank, explain the situation and change banks. Then make sure that Chase knows why you are not banking with them anymore. I know, it's PITA, but it's the only way to show these fuckers that they MUST balance customer service with their regulatory environment.

      This makes me FURIOUS! So furious, in fact, that I'd recommend you contact your consumer protection agency too!

  •  Wow. (none)
    Okay, I've read the comments that say it's nothing new, so I'm not quite so alarmed now.  Hubby and I just paid off all of our credit card debt last month, and the balances were high enough that it would attract this type of attention.  Since we've made no attempts to use the cards since (and don't plan to), I'm not sure if it's had any effect on our accounts.

    But I'm sure it's something the yahoos running the country could figure out how to abuse, if they haven't already, so I'll admit I'm still slightly worried about this.  Then again, I've been perpetually worried since the 2000 election anyway.

  •  Date of application (none)
    Does the card company charge another interest fee if the payment if frozen beyond the next billing date?  Late fees?

    If they are able to charge additional fees because HS is sitting on the money, that would REALLY piss me off.

  •  Could it be any scarier? (none)
     The sad answer is a resounding yes, apparently? When will the republican party wake-up to what they have done to this country? When?
    •  never, the Rich are happy (none)
      The top 1% that run the Repubs are quite happy, all they want from the lower classes is quiet subservience, so they will not do anything until the lower class mobs cause them some inconvenience.

      Look at the rise of gated communities, how are these all that different from the lordly manors of the King George II days?  Not much, the lords are living large in their mansions, the only concern is that they keep a steady supply of willing serfs to do their dirty work and wait on them hand and foot- look at Senator Graham's(R, Bushite Scum)concern about the illegals at his golf course.  Time for a "Guest Worker" program to ensure that there is a permanent underclass to shine his shoes.

  •  I am fortunately able to pay my credit (none)
    card balance every month. I guess my husband and I are a threat to national security. (We also paid off our mortgage, so you better watch out.) As a matter of fact, I have another credit card that I use only occasionally and always pay off promptly. I got a nasty letter from the credit card carrier telling my  interest rate was going UP because I don't use the card enough.

    Cheney lied--you can see it in his eyes.

    by lecsmith on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 04:48:03 AM PST

  •  This Does Not Apply to... (none)

    "[T]hat I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake."

    by Heronymous Cowherd on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 04:57:18 AM PST

  •  Amazing timing, Lapin! (4.00)
    I was planning to pay off Mr. Skwimmer's Visa today after almost 2 months of business travel.  I can't do it in one chunk and I can't do it in two successive payments?  Kiss off, Homeland Security!  Go 'protect' someone else.  

    "An inglorious peace is better than a dishonest war." - Mark Twain

    by skwimmer on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:24:55 AM PST

  •  Not really anything new... (none)
    Folks,

    Since we're reality based, I'll just temper this thread a bit by saying that when I worked in banking ~15 years ago, these rules were in place.  

    If someone deposited 5K, it was at the teller's discretion to have the depositor fill out gov. forms or not. Anything above 10K was mandatory.

    I suspect that with respect to these CC issues, it's the amounts being applied to the debt (large chunks), not the action of paying off a card...

    My 2 cents.

    --Bush lied, thousands died

    by indyjones48 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:37:39 AM PST

    •  and my guess (4.00)
      is that any excuse a CC company can find to hold a payment while interest is being racked up, they'll take.

      Though it's not like they aren't watching closely. My card was compromised (since I shred everything I'm guessing it was at a vendor's end), and they called to ask if I had made a particular charge. Waiting for the paperwork on fraud and the most recent statement to parse out, and not looking forward to it at all.

  •  Sounds fishy, but in another way. (4.00)
    Sounds like the creditor is using the pretense of a DHS audit, under cover of the older Bank Secrecy Act, to delay paydown of the debt and get as long a bump in free float as possible.

    Oh...and accrue a wee bit more interest income in the bargain.

    This may be grounds for an SEC audit.

    Or the attentions of one Elliot Spitzer.

    It's not that they don't know Jack. It's that they don't know him on a first-name basis. :)

    by cskendrick on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:42:22 AM PST

    •  Yeah yeah (4.00)
      I know SEC doesn't have specific bank oversight.

      But publicly traded companies are most vulnerable to publicity.

      It's not that they don't know Jack. It's that they don't know him on a first-name basis. :)

      by cskendrick on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:44:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Teeheehee! (none)
        I can't even begin to tell you how many times I ave heard this without the following explanation. As I'm sure you know, it's the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency)

        Thanks for making me smile ;-)

  •  Damn (none)
    Lately, every time I hear something that a couple of years I would have considered to be outrageous, I would just say "I figured that."  Now I'm just kinda shocked.  But more at myself for not expecting something like this to happen.
  •  Scope Creep (none)
    This sounds to me like the scope of DHS has officially creeped.  They are using the new flexibility in the law to go after people that move large sums of money.  Like drug dealers.  Does the DHS mandate allow them to do that?  If not, this may be early evidence that the provisions are not just about "terror" anymore - that the scope of the program is creeping into DEA territory.  Ye ole slippery slope, my friends.

    Meet me in Cognito, baby

    by out grrl on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:00:26 AM PST

    •  i think HIPPA is the tip (none)
      of domestic surveillance legal and network infrastructure (which explains in some very very sad way why shrub LLP believes there's no need to "change" public law.) combined with Bank Secrecy, fed authority to personal info is deep.

      Since 2001, Congress has enacted quite a bit of language (1) to specify digital rights, i.e. disenfranchise individual ownership of "data" content -- e.g. Privacy Act emendments (2003) (2) promulgate inter-agency reproduction, derivatives, and distribution of content to other "entities" (e.g. fed vendors); (3) extend the reach and pertinence of "data" collected by regulatory bodies (CMMS IT coordinator tells all about the coming of national health EDI) ; and (4) eviscerate states' laws that broadly protect informed consent  or contradict federal mandate.

      recently, CDC opened its proposal 42 CFR parts 70 and 71 to public comment, re: the regulation of interstate and international travel. The emendments provide CDC new and ambiguous authority to enlist non-medical personnel in "data" collection and indefinite detention of individuals.

      i saved one comment by University of Pittsburg here. it's a brief, scary objection to CDC's plan re: public health policy. but, heh, that's not the point of 70/71, is it?

      Article II and "total information awareness" is.
      say, bye-bye to your (4th amend) standing.

      Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

      by MarketTrustee on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:02:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is not likely that sort of inquirey. (none)
    The HIPPA and Patriot Act provisions for banking were designated for anti terrorism use.  The fact is that Justice has long wanted these types of laws to investigate all sorts of crimes such as money laundering and they don't give squat about the cost to the citizens privacy.  BushCo is using many of the tools at their disposal to whatever purpose they want.

    A bank employee or the new REQUIRED software can flag these transactions.  Primarily they use link analysis and continually refined demographics on YOUR standard transaction versus that of persons like you to decide what gets flagged.  

    All you can do is be a pain in the ass to your elected officials and I would highly suggest contacting your local news and providing them all of the details as well as giving the bank negative coverage.  

    You should also not be liable for a late payment in this case either.

    Good luck, and may you not land on the specially designated nationals list.

    BushCo Policy... If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention. -3.25 -2.26

    by Habanero on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:03:40 AM PST

  •  might I just say... (4.00)
    ...oh. my. fucking. god. Every single day there is some new outrage from Bush and posse. Will it never end?

    So DHS is monitoring our money. NSA/FBI/CIA/TIA are monitoring our phones, faxes, emails, instant messages, web postings and who knows what else. Pretty soon we'll be just like Winston, required to present ourselves in front of the TV.

    Maybe its because I have PMS so I apologize in advance for this outburst, but here's a great big FUCK YOU to all the monitors. I left elementary school a long time ago.

    •  And...don't forget (none)
      Diebold is monitoring your ATM transactions complete with video footage!  Sorry to take your PMS up a notch!
      •  hee! (none)
        That reminds me of, I think it was a Frazier episode, where Elaine took money out of the ATM and was picking her nose while she was waiting for the money to dispense. It didn't dispense. So she had to go in the bank and see the bank manager to get her money, who of course had to view the security tape.

        Too bad Diebold doesn't value votes as much as it does money.

  •  Real terrorists (4.00)
    Real terrorists, on seeing that their check was frozen, would know that the government was on to them.

    If you work for a bank, please note the revised procedure in your manual: Notify Homeland Security, but do not block the flow of the funds or do anything out of the ordinary. Homeland Security will take the next steps: tapping their phones, conducting a secret search of their home without presenting a warrant, and similarly investigating their relatives and friends.

  •  Now, won't conservatives be as appalled at this as (none)
    ... liberals?

    This is government intrusion taken to an extreme level.

    Wouldn't the folks at redstate hate this shit, too?

    I know a lot of those idiots defended warrantless domestic spying, but, at some point, the libertarian conservatives have to peel away from Bush.

    This latest lunacy has to drive some conservatives `round the bend.

    Visit Satiric Mutt -- my contribution to the written cholesterol now clogging the arteries of the Internet.

    by Bob Johnson on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:33:13 AM PST

  •  Money transfers (4.00)
    When we bought our house in Amsterdam, I transfered a sum of money quite a bit larger than the one mentioned here.  Obviously, it was an international money transfer (to a Dutch bank).  My investment consultant indicated to me that it would be flagged thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act.

    The transfer took over a week to approve.  I wish the FBI had just showed up at my door.  At least I could have offered them cookies.

    I'd link to this, but it's on a secure page.

    When I log into my Schwab account, there's a link at the bottom of the page, in about 6 point font that says "USA Patriot Act".  Since the account page is secure, I can't link to it, but here's an excerpt.

    USA PATRIOT Act

        How does the USA PATRIOT Act change how Schwab does business?

    Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and its affiliates are subject to the USA PATRIOT Act (the "Act"), which was passed as a result of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. U.S. financial institutions now must, among other things, verify the identity of all new clients, with exceptions for certain types of accounts, as defined in the Act. Verifying identity requires more than simply asking for information from a prospective client.

    Institutions must ask for certain information, and must also verify the information provided through the use of available data and/or documents. The law also requires firms to monitor and report to the government suspicious activity in clients' accounts. The Act amends the Bank Secrecy Act, to which Schwab, as a bank holding company, was already subject.

    [snip]

    While we take great care in attempting to know our clients' individual investment goals and objectives today, this new law requires us to take additional steps to verify the identity of persons opening new accounts, including:

    • Verifying the identity of prospective clients.
    • Consulting applicable government agency lists of known or suspected criminals, terrorists and terrorist organizations to check if someone trying to open or maintain an account is on any such list.
    • Conducting, in certain circumstances, additional due diligence when accounts are opened, including requesting information about the source of funds deposited into such accounts.

    All of us at Charles Schwab hope you understand and support this new federal regulation.

    <sigh, rolling eyes>

    •  Hate to burst your bubble (4.00)
      but your investment bank was floating your money for a week and not having to pay you interest or make your money available.  It only takes a minute to search (online) the terrorist list. Verifying identity is simply Taxpayer ID + Photo ID. We handle similar money transfers...they are all handled instantaneously via. wire transfers anywhere in the world but we've found increasingly that the banks float the $ for as long as they can.  It's big business with lots of extra $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for them.
      •  I hate to agree but OWTH (none)
        is right.

        The note you quote applies to opening / maintenance of accounts.

        All Schwabb had to do to your transfer was verify that your nmae was not on the terrorist list - this takes seconds if automated, not much longer if manual. Furthermore, your advisor was fully aware of the reasons for the transfer so, even if  aflag was raised, the investigation process should have taken a couple hours at most.

        nothing else in PATRIOT Act applies to the transfer as you have menitoned it.

        Chances are the delay you experienced was with the Dutch bank though - did they know you, where they expecting the transfer etc.

        Banks pissed me off immensely because many are using the PATRIOT Act to justtify their inefficiencies, ineptitude and greed (i.e. getting float on our money).

        •  Sorry, wrong choice of words! (none)
          not implying that you live in a bubble, only that ALL of us are being taken by these banks/investment companies who argue that the transaction can take considerable time because of the U.S. Patriot Act.  Baloney!
    •  Why I hate my bank (none)
      Ten years ago, when I moved to the Northeastern state where I live now from another state, I sold my car and had a $2,000 cashier's check. I hadn't been depositing many checks by ATM and couldn't figure out how to feed it into my account.

      Even though I went to a branch of the same bank that I had been using in the other state and I had a valid driver's license for my old state, the manager at the new branch refused to acknowledge that I was me and help me deposit the check into my account, or even to put the check in a safe deposit box for safekeeping.

      I had to rummage through my stuff to find my passport just to deposit the silly check.

      So, a lot of this red tape is new, but I think a lot of bigger, more bureaucratic banks must have been following similar annoying "know your customer" rules for quite awhile.

  •  They have nothing else to look at (none)
    Remember that these guys are making the big bucks promising they can identify terrorists by data mining.  The money to be made in contracts and in expanding your government empire is staggering.  

    But what good is it?  It's absurd to think that you can identify the dozen terrorists that may or may not be in the US by tracking anyone who says certain words on the phone and uses a credit card.  That's why the FBI gave up tracking the NSA's "leads" after a few thousand false signals.  

    You may have been scewed, but Homeland Security gets its money.  

  •  Fuck. (none)
    It will soon be time to start building barricades in the streets.

    "I'm having trouble with my boy." -- George H. W. Bush, 2004

    by Shiborg on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:40:58 AM PST

  •  nothing (none)
    nothing realy new here, anytime you do any transaction over 10,000 bucks the government is notified.  This is just the latest tweak.

    freedom?  heh, not in this country, that ship sailed a long time ago.

    •  I was under the impression... (none)
      ...that such notifications involve anything more than $10,000 cash.

      If I come into a bank with $10,000 cash I have to fill out a form (I used to have to do the daily deposits where I worked) and the IRS would be notified for tax purposes.

      I was not under the impression that ALL transactions over $10,000 were flagged.  Plus this is not anywhere near $10,000.  This is "unusual payment".  much more broad.

      Join the We the People Project. National healthcare program designed by Americans for Americans.

      by DawnG on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:58:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  umm...so thousands of people... (none)
    ...flush with income tax refunds will not be able to pay off their credit cards so they can get their heads above water.

    Right?

    Land of opportunity my ass.  Land of indentured servitude morelike it.

    Join the We the People Project. National healthcare program designed by Americans for Americans.

    by DawnG on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:53:45 AM PST

  •  You want paranoia? (a cautionary tale!) (3.50)
    Think about this: your credit rating is increasingly used for everything from job apps to insurance eligibility - why not security worthiness?   The same largely unaccountable companies that are controlling your credit information are probably being used to gather information about you "legally" to contribute to our security agencies meta-databases.

    If you've ever had to deal with any of the credit reporting agencies, you know how unresponsive and arbitrary these companies can be.  Now that same level of mindless bureaucracy is being used in (SECRET) ways to affect our lives on levels we can only suspect - and can never challenge (because it's SECRET).

    I had the experience of one small credit card arbitrarily changing its interest rate, and then another.  Not suspecting anything - I just paid them off.  Then one other card (which seemed to change names about once a year) went WAY up (from 8% to 23%) and I started to get suspicious.  After a little investigation, I discovered this new "bank" was not really a bank, but only a "bank of record" second-tier credit provider.  Since I've never had any late payments, been over limit, or even made a minimum payment on any cards - I was a little shocked and requested copies of all my credit reports.  To my surprise, much of the information I received was wildly inaccurate and had been reflecting negatively on me for years without my knowledge.  

    I highly recommend getting copies of your reports at annualcreditreport.com - you are allowed to get copies of all three agencies for free, once a year - or at any time if you have been denied credit.  (Be careful, because this site is the only legit one sponsored by the agencies and referred to by FTC - many similar sounding sites are sometimes fronts for selling you "credit services" - whatever that is...).

    I discovered that ONE of the agencies had not bothered to close out close out old accounts during bank "name changes" - which had the effect of one card showing as FIVE.  WalMart (figures!) took the liberty of opening an account in my name (twice) by their purchase of an unused (and defunct) Wards account (watch for "decline offers" in the mail!).  Using a small gift certificate ($10) I received in the mail had automatically signed me up for an account I never used - but it was still there after 20 years.  In yet another case, a correction of a sales tax payment error by the State Controllers Office had been mistakenly recorded as an outstanding Tax Lien!  

    After 3 weeks of full time phone calls, research, and letter-writing (BTW, Certified Mail only!) I finally got most of the errors corrected.  They screw up and it hits you instantly - then they get 6 weeks to fix it.  Nice.

    Thinking this would fix things - I was shocked when yet another of the few cards I had remaining had a sudden rate hike.  Turns out that closing accounts - even erroneous accounts - can trigger credit/fraud alerts!  And there's nothing you can do about them - they don't care why the account was closed - all they care is that you closed something.

    It also doesn't matter if you fix errors - they fall back on the "We made our decision based on the information that was on file at the time" statement and there's no way to un-do those decisions.  I actually had one creditor that raised hteir rates - re-justify their decision based on the fact that I had closed too many (non-existent!) accounts.

    And remember one more thing: we are all now subject to evaluation based on our "Credit Score".  This is a magic number - no one will tell you how it's calculated (it's secret) - no one will tell you how to improve it (that's secret, too) - and there's no way to challenge it (it's too new, so it's not regulated!).  The only reason we have the ability to challenge errors on our records at all is because of regulatory oversight created by Congress because of past abuses.  "Credit Scores" seem to be something in need of regulation - but somehow I don't see that happening.

    Oh, here's yet another item; I got a whiff of some new "meta" credit reporting agencies that seem to be pop up here and there in my research. (Innovis?)  I can't seem to find much out about these companies - but there sure seem to be a lot of inter-related "shells".  All this is exhausting - I gave up trying to fix it.  But then ... I suppose that's what they count on.

    •  Well (none)
      Credit is used for job background investigation, especially if you work in an industry that requires you to have a security clearance. Rightly or wrong large amounts of debt are a security concern because companies and the government worry that such folks are vulnerable to coercion and to espionage.
      •  My main concern in not that Credit is used, (none)
        but that things like "Credit Scores" are so broadly (and increasingly) coming into play and that the accountability of companies generating them is low.  These scores are not standardized and vary from agency to agency based on non-disclosed and differing standards.  You cannot challenge them because (as far as I can tell), they exist outside of any regulated environment.

        You can fix credit report errors (eventually) and you can pay down debt.  "Credit Scores" seem to be another matter altogether ... and that makes me nervous.

        •  I understand (none)
          what you are saying. I am not necessarily defending the practice, but financial troubles are a security risk for companies that do work with sensitive information. I can understand why the financial industry, for example, wouldn't want to hire someone with money problems. Their logic is probably, "if the prospective employee cannot handle his own finances, how could he can he be expected to take care of assets that belong to the company and to the client"?
    •  Tell me more about this "Credit Score"? (none)
      Where can I read about it?

      I have a banking background and the only credit scoring I know of is been internal banking calculations to help a credit risk officer in the approval process of a loan - but I'm not in credit!

      •  As far as I can tell (4.00)
        Every reporting agency (Experian, Equifax, Trans Union) gets to make up their own "Credit Score".  Now that regulators have constrained the charges made for obtaining credit reports, you must pay an additional fee to discover your magic Credit Score (all we are is "incremental revenue opportunities"...).  I couldn't find much documentation at the time - but I was pre-occupied with fixing obvious errors.  It was just a side annoyance at the time.

        In addition, all the agencies seem intent on selling you their own monthly fee-based "Credit Protection Services" so they can charge you to monitor the changes they make to your file (!).

        The scary thing is: the credit reporting agencies primary allegiance is to the credit providers.  They have no real incentive to keep absolutely accurate records, because small "clerical" errors can translate into higher returns for the people that pay their fees.  (Especially in time-constrained things like mortgages and car purchases...) Admittedly, some agencies (TranUnion) seem more accurate, more often than others (Equifax) - but that's subjective.  Bottom line, though - is that this inaccurate and difficult to correct information may now become part of an un-touchable permanent security database about all of us.

        Think the "Fair Credit Reporting Act" will apply to Homeland Security?

        •  Bwahahaha! (none)
          You get a 4 for your question!

          I get what you meant now.

          I despise lobbyists!

        •  there's a 4th one now (none)
          read this

          http://www.bankrate.com/...

          Note that it started in early 2001, and the company is based in Houston.

          Sorry, is my tinfoil too tight ?

          Let's get some Democracy for America

          by murphy on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:35:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah - They don't show up in "the big 3" (none)
            and you can't get a free report out of them, but I got a whiff of them when I was researching.  Check out the link near the end of my (overly) long comment (sorry, this is one of the "don't get started" things...) - they've changed names/hands a bunch of times in the last few years.

            I found another scary thing; a couple of the credit agencies sub-contract out services to smaller companies that are even less responsive.  I had to make requests for corrections on Equifax to one address, then get corrections for name and address errors to another address (CSC Services, in El Paso - with NO phone).  Sigh.

            •  CSC (none)
              csc owns my credit file and after i paid off a card to a questionable collection agency, i found it impossible to get resolution with csc (the disputes mailing address apparently changes and is a po box so you can't send it certified mail).  having paid off this card nearly 2 years ago, it still shows on my credit report the same as it did then, meanwhile i paid two grand...and now it's past the statute of limitations so i'm sure i'll eventually have to pay this again (gag me).

              you can rearrange my face but you can't rearrange my mind -8.63,-7.28

              by mediaprisoner on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:30:18 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You can send registered mail to a PO Box (none)
                and that's how you should always communicate with someone who might claim they didn't receive something (Reg. is like $2.50 very easy to track on www.usps.com). What I learned you have to do with Credit Bureaus is:
                • make simple requests (i.e.: "take this off")
                • briefly tell them why ("it's wrong")
                • don't explain anything (they don't care)
                • be persistant (the hard part...)

                If the creditor cannot verify that something is a valid debt - my understanding is that they are required by law to remove it from your record.  The catch is that you have to do it precisely the right way (traceable certified/registered letter, etc.) or it gets "lost".  Anything said over the phone - no matter how nice the clerk is - has no weight.  Sometimes you will have to contact the original creditor to correct persistant errors they are reporting - and that's where you start losing some leverage.

                Another thing to watch: they propogate from each other.  If you kill something on one service - immediately follow up on all three or it could show up later!  It took me 15 years to finally get rid of a bogus tax lien (haven't check lately ... it may be back!)

    •  Credit reports (none)
      I think many people are under the impression that your credit score is so important there is a lot of effort put into making sure it's accurate. Wrong, especially when it comes to individual creditors' reporting to the credit bureaus.

      Once free credit reports came into effect last year I looked at mine and was astonished at the amount of erroneous and out of date information. There were several credit cards I hadn't used in years, including a department store card I stopped using in 1994, that showed up as open and active accounts.

      So, even if you stop using a card and the company stops issuing you new ones they still don't go to the effort to report the account as closed. After all, why would they? It costs them something and they don't really care what shows up on your credit report after you're no longer their customer.

    •  TechBob: (none)
      Your annualcredit link doesn't work.
      .
      •  It used to... (none)
        Now I'm feeling even more paranoid.  The site to get your "free" credit reports is gone.  I even went to the FTC site the referred it:
        http://www.ftc.gov/...

        and the link doesn't work from their either. The weird thing is a Google search will let you look at the cache - so it was there.  Maybe they're having server problems?

        Things that make you go "Hmm..."

  •  so (none)
    all those folks who refi'd their mortgages to pay off their cards were reported to HS ? WTF ?

    They must have been VERY busy with b.s. these past few years ! Or exactly when did this crap start ? Do we know ?

    Let's get some Democracy for America

    by murphy on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 06:57:37 AM PST

  •  Well (none)
    For the most part, if you move money in EXCESS of $10,000, banks are required to notify the IRS and other government agencies. They are required to "file suspicious reports". But I have never heard it be done for amounts of money below $10,000. This is new.
  •  Wait -- is this a problem? (none)
    I just thought of something.  We sold some real estate to get the money to pay off our credit card bills.  We have money left over, and one of the things hubby and I would like to do is travel.  So we were thinking of a trip to Ireland.

    I don't have a passport. Never had one.  Could never afford to travel anywhere.

    The bills were paid off a month ago; this may be silly, and maybe I'm just being paranoid now,  but how will it look if I just paid off -- okay, I'll admit it, I had about $25K in credit card debt -- so how would it look if I just paid off that $25K, and then within weeks of that, I apply for a passport?  

    I don't believe I'm even wondering about this.  

    •  Take off the tin foil hat :-) (4.00)
      Please read my post about on this subject. Cahnes are very likely that your transaction was not reported. If a red flag was raised, I am sure that the investigating officer was able to ascertain that the money came form a sale of real estate - which makes the payment of the credit card a logical thing to do.

      Most criminals have their passports ready to go and use them before their suspicious transactions are detected ;-)

      •  What? "Take off the tin foil hat"? (none)
        Before I paid everything off, the last thing I charged was my brand new tin foil hat.  You better believe I'm gonna keep wearing it, after all the interest I paid on it!

        All right, I'm done now.  Thanks for the reality check. :)

      •  The Real Estate Transaction was reported (none)
        to the IRS, ie.  1099.
        •  I don't think FinCEN is allowed to (none)
          talk to the IRS. I think it's at the time of referral to the DOJ that the info can be shared between agencies.

          But I'm not as up to date as I'd like on this.

          I get your point though! Even if a SAR was filed and even if FinCEN referred it DOJ, it would most likely stop there.

          •  Oooh... (none)
            (Don't worry, I'm still calm -- I'm just finding it kind of amusing now.)

            I was wondering how the credit card companies would have known about the property sale.  So what may have happened, if I understand this right, is this:  a credit card company may have said, "Wow, what a freaky payment," and might not have found proof of the property sale; it would have gotten kicked over to the DOJ, who would have said, "They just sold property, we saw the 1099."  And that's the end of it.

            Does that sound right?

            •  You must be pulling my leg! (none)
              ;-)

              the seemingly simple process you described takes months, even years... - you didn't think that the banks, FinCEN and the DOJ are efficient, did you? ;-)

              BTW, if your payment got flagged, the CC company may have contacted your bank who may have confirmed that you had a deposit coming from a RE transaction.

              At least this is how  it's supposed to work in the minds of the PATRIOT Act writers ;-)

              Once, at a conference 2 years ago, I witnessed the funniest comedy act when a panel of representatives from DOJ, FinCEN, OCC, NY State prosecutors and NY State Bank Examiners contradicted each other right and left for 30  minutes. An Atendee ask the question: Are you guys planning on getting together to discuss the obvious disagreements within the agencies? The answer? Dead silence for about 45 seconds until the audience burst out laughing :-)

              •  Ah... (none)
                so the answer to "Does this sound right" is, as I suspected, "no."  That's why I asked -- the way I (mis)understood you, it sounded, well, weird.  

                And... umm... I'm not sure I want to think about anything that goes on in the minds of the PATRIOT Act writers, okay?  Thanks. ;-)

  •  A test (none)
    I have built up too much credit card debt myself. My wife and I have very little debt but at the moment because of a property we are selling and improvements on it we have made we have this bill. We are taking a home equity line of credit on our primary residence to pay off the credit card bill and will pay that off as soon as the property sells. I am going to track my payment very carefully and see what happens and will report back.
    •  You might consider (4.00)
      having the credit card debt paid off directly from the proceeds of the home equity loan, in other words have the bank show it on your settlement statement as a debit and even have them (rather than yourselves) send the payoff to the credit card company.  This way you'll have a paper trail and if they receive the check from your bank most likely no red flag.  
  •  i watched last night on cspan a meeting (none)
    about the ethics committee for the house. i was quite impressed with rep slaughter. she is quite something. i was just stunned to see the head of a lobbying organization actually claim that it was the norm for the lobbists to write legislation and that it had been done for years. i noticed this morning that one of the ideas put forth regarding an independent unit to overlook ethics especially in the house was rejected. did we actually expect pigs at the trouth to voluntarily leave? we are going to have to retake congress. and then make damn sure, that these dems do our will and not theirs.
  •  I'm wondering (none)
    if this is a little scam the bank figured out it could do. They are always looking for ways that they can hold on to your money for longer so that they can make more money.  They are allowed to hold checks for---what?---5 days before cashing them.  Using Homeland Security as an excuse gives them an indefinite window where they can continue to collect interest on your money.

    I'm not saying that Bushco didn't put this in the Homeland Security rules.  But I doubt that all banks have been applying it because if they had many, many people would have experienced this.

    If this kind of crap happened to me, I'd write to the Federal Reserve. They've actually been pretty good about helping consumers (with problems when their debit cards are stolen for example: Banks don't always pay you back your money and the Fed doesn't like that behavior.) I don't know if they would be able to do anything but it would be worth a try.

    •  An out of state check (4.00)
      won't be credited for 10-14 days even though today everything is done electronically.  A scam yes!  Also, the banks always post debits to your accounts first and, lastly, credits.  
      •  plus (none)
        plus they can charge you for "drawing on uncollected funds" if you've deposited a check but they haven't collected the money yet.  

        The only time you will ever see a "bank error" in your favor is if you are playing Monopoly.

  •  I'd want more information (none)
    I would definitely want more information from them, but I have to say that banks have been tracking larger transactions forever.  It used to be $10K deposits, then $5k deposits.  If it is down to $1K as someone said above, that seems a bit ridiculous, but please remember that a large influx of cash into someone's bank account is an unusual activity and not one that most people would encounter regularly.  There ARE good reasons for keeping track of things like this because large cash deposits in a more credit/direct deposit/debit-based economy ARE unusual.

    I know this is about a credit card payment, which is odd, but the source of a large cash payment like that could be suspect if out of the ordinary for that account.

    I'm not saying it is a good thing, I'm just saying that if you are printing money in your basement or dealing drugs or laundering money for the mob or terrorists or whoever, things like this are in place to stop that kind of activity.  And that is a good thing.  The fact that we regular people can get caught up in the net occasionally is not so good, but following the money is the best way to stop these kinds of activities.  

    I don't mind when I get a call from my credit card company asking about a transaction that I make that is unusual for my general activity.  In fact, I'm glad they are keeping an eye on things in case my card or number is stolen.

    I'm just saying, I think we need to keep things like this in perspective.

    Closed minds should come with closed mouths.

    by Pennsylvanian on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:09:04 AM PST

    •  Checks are considered cash (none)
      So if you sell a car or boat for over $1000 and deposit the money, that should be considered suspicious? I agree I like it when I occasionally get asked about an odd transaction, but getting a letter from DHS about a simple $1000+ deposit is over the top. Over $10,000 is OK.

      "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter." Dr. ML King, from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963.

      by bewert on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:30:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Must not be mandatory (none)
        I have had multiple deposits of over $1K that did not come from a payroll deposit over the last few years.  I have also paid off credit card balances over $1K in one transaction.  I have never gotten a letter, my accounts frozen or anything at all.

        The threshhold may be $1K but it must not be mandatory to report/inquire, or I would have heard something.  Perhaps mandatory reporting kicks in at a larger amount but optional reporting or random reporting happens for deposits between $1K and $4.99K for people who are trying to work the system?  I'm sure some of it has to do with human work and some with computers flagging things automatically.

        Believe me, I'm not saying I am all gung ho about this, but it has its place.  There are GOOD reasons for these types of money tracking laws.

        Closed minds should come with closed mouths.

        by Pennsylvanian on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:48:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  That banking act... (none)
    can be a real pain in the ass.

    Mom rents to folks from Canada. She's known them for a while now. They pay up front with a money order before they even leave Canada.

    Since that act, the money order, which always cleared...no problem...is now required to be held for up to X number of days. Plus I think she was mutterning about how they've tacked on a charge for processing.

    "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

    by kredwyn on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:29:42 AM PST

  •  absolutely amazing (none)
    The credit card companies are using back end artificial intelligence algorithms to predict your behavior.  While they talk about fraud detection, they are also determining what kind of interest rate hike you'll accept.   Then we have insurance companies trying to claim that your credit score predicts "something" loosely affiliated with your ability to drive a car correctly.  

    So now they have managed to link up a "call the police on 'em" hotline if one tries to pay down their debt.

    Prison, where the errant consumer becomes an enemy combatant surely cannot be far away.

    http://www.noslaves.com http://forum.noslaves.com

    by BobOak on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:43:36 AM PST

  •  Yesterday's Cheney scold (none)
    This times very badly with Cheney talking about how people need to save. A lot of us(thankfully not me) can't even pay our credit cards off, much less save.

    I know when I paid off a low-interest credit card after a half-yearly bonus, I got a letter from the credit card company that was framed in pseudofriendly business-speak but had NOTHING resembling language that would dictate I actually paid off my debts. They just assumed I switched it somewhere else. Consumers get trapped by this sort of language, that you can't pay off your debts, but with the government in on the action that is BS.

    I remember joking with a coworker that I turned someone in to Homeland Security because Bush said "spend spend spend" after 9/11 and this guy on the bus talked about paying off his cards and I ratted him out. But this is not funny. Thanks for posting this.

  •  Ramifications go further (none)
    You pay interest outstanding balance.
    Your credit card interest rate goes up because you had an unpaid bill.
    There are numerous fees for delay of payment.  
    Your credit rating takes a hit if you are 30 days late.

    As a financially responsible person, you are punished.  

    Just what the credit companies want.

    •  Now you're talking crazy (none)
      When an account is frozen for a security check, they don't start racking up interest and late fees and ruin people's credit ratings.

      An account that is FROZEN, is just that.

      Come on people.  Keep it in perspective.

      Closed minds should come with closed mouths.

      by Pennsylvanian on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:03:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Homeland Security Department" (none)
    Is starting to sound a lot like Robespierre's Committee of Public Safety.....

    I HATE REPUBLICANS, HATE HATE HATE THEM!!!!!!!!! UGHHHHH [-5.50, -4.69]

    by michael1104 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:48:32 AM PST

  •  How does that relate to national security? (none)
    Considering Congress (including Biden) approved the hand-out to credit card companies by altering the Bankruptcy rules, Homeland Security will be seeing less and less credit card pay-off's in the coming years.

    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

    by Five of Diamonds on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:52:01 AM PST

  •  this isn't the only thing (none)
    homeland security will be notified if you go to an exchange to get foreign currency.  I tried to do this several years back, because my bank was slow .. and the man at the foreign exchange "store" said he had to report everything to homeland security.

    ...  & I was trying to get that evil currency Euros.

    so, in the end ... just relied on my debit cards & traveler checks.

  •  Ack! That may have happened to me (none)
    When I got my tax refund this year I put most of it toward credit cards.  I sent in a $200 payment on a card where I normally just do $40 a month.  The payment cleared right away but it took forever for my available balance to change.

    The country we carry in our hearts is waiting. - Bruce Springsteen

    by kaelamantis on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:11:44 AM PST

  •  The "Deadbeat" issue (none)
    What exactly does it mean, in real terms, to be labeled a "deadbeat" by the credit card companies? I have a number of cards but my husband and I use just one and pay the balance in full every month. So I guess we're "deadbeats." But I mean...fine, you've called me a name, but what does that mean to the way they do business with us or in any other way that I would care about?

    The Democratic Party needs new leadership. This means you.

    by leenie in va on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:12:38 AM PST

    •  they don't make any money off you (none)
      that's why they lable you a deadbeat.  you use their credit, but don't let them charge you for it.  serves them right.

      Just because you're self-righteous doesn't mean you're not a hypocrite.

      by AMcG826 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:23:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know, (none)
        but once they label you as that, then what? Why should I care what they call me...or does it have no real effect?

        The Democratic Party needs new leadership. This means you.

        by leenie in va on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:16:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I doubt (4.00)
          that it has much effect.  What are they going to do, deny you further credit when your credit record is excellent?  They're gambling that you will borrow more and maybe one day won't be able to pay in full and then they'll make money.  It's pathetic that they call their customers names, but they're in business to make money, so it's understandable that they don't like it when you deny them that ability.

          Just because you're self-righteous doesn't mean you're not a hypocrite.

          by AMcG826 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:10:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  well... (none)
            I call my bank a lot of names too.  I don't think it's quite fair to refer to people (like me) who pay off their credit cards each month as deadbeats.  The banks are still making money because of the service charges that the stores have to pay.  
  •  this is vague (none)
    A couple of years ago, I inherited some money and paid off a sizeable credit card bill.  I didn't notice any impact like this couple encountered.  

    But I am wondering....does anyone know of a site that details the changes to the banking laws under the Patriot Act?  I've done some searching more than once and haven't found anything that was written for anyone other than banking lawyers.  Has anyone described these changes so the average American could understand them?  

    Just because you're self-righteous doesn't mean you're not a hypocrite.

    by AMcG826 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:26:14 AM PST

  •  I think this is hilarous!!! (none)

    Wanna protest the system? Let's ALL pay off our credit cards now! It would cause such a GLUT in the system. We could send the them a giant middle finger as Homeland Security comes crashing to a halt to investigate all of us. It would be a riot!

    :):):)

  •  Hi, lapin, (none)
    Sorry your topic got sideswiped by another, but if you still have the patience to read this far, you might want to check on the Bank Privacy Act, recent changes to which were referenced in your original link. This act became law in 1978 and has been changed many times since then. You noted the Bank Secrecy Act of 1996, which preceded not only 9/11 but the existence of the Department of Homeland Security. The Bank Secrecy Act focuses on the activities of banks and possible money-laundering activities. It has been amended by the Patriot Act, but if I am reading correctly, it does not relate to the Privacy Act, which has to do with individuals or consumers such as the man described in your link. At any rate, I think you might want to check on this, as I'm pretty sure the Bank Secrecy Act and the Bank Privacy Act are two different sets of laws.

    Thanks for your important diary.  

    "That story is not worth the paper it's rotten on."--Dorothy Parker

    by martyc35 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 09:52:07 AM PST

    •  Ditto that! (4.00)
      I hate when threads get hijacked at the top.  Some egotistical types wanting attention?  Trolls flying under radar?  Attention-deficit types like many?  Seems innocuous enough, but I don't have time to read through, and sometimes I'm just going as fast as I can, and it takes awhile before I realize the topic I clicked in to read about ain't there anymore.

      If we don't want dKos to turn into a massive distraction from solving actual problems of the Buschist era, we need to all take responsibility...

      If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State...

      by HenryDavid on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:40:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I write under a first name that differs (none)
    from the one on my driver's license.  Last name is the same.  It's a pen name, but it's also the name everyone calls me (I just never felt like throwing away money to change it legally).  When we moved here, I tried to open and AKA account, as most authors do.  The Patriot Act requires some arcane proof that I have a pen name. Event he bank wasn't sure exactly what was needed.

    Fortunately the old account we have had for years at a credit union still has that name on the account.

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:34:36 AM PST

  •  Remember, it's the congress critters that pass (none)
    this bullcrap.  Not that Bush wouldn't do it anyway even if the law wasn't already on the books.  

    Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

    by LionelEHutz on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:39:31 AM PST

  •  Breaking News: US government irretrievably broken. (none)
    Well, OK, not yet, actually...but it sure seems to be hell-bent, speeding at maximum velocity, towards the junkheap.  

    I don't think this is evil.  I think this is pure, unalloyed incompetence at the federal, state, and local levels.  However, the results make that distinction, much of the time, completely irrelevant.

  •  Breaking News: US government irretrievably broken. (none)
    Well, OK, not yet, actually...but it sure seems to be hell-bent, speeding towards the junkheap.  

    I don't think this is evil.  I think this is pure, unalloyed incompetence at the federal, state, and local levels.

  •  The report tells you how to avoid the problem (none)
    If you read down to the section on SAR, you can 1) request an exemption or 2) make a payment of less than the reported limit of $5000 to avoid triggering the inquiry. This has less to do with HSA than Drug Enforcement, which is looking for evidence of laundering. But you need to read the Fed minutes sometime to get an idea of how many ideas the government has to control your cash. scary.

    "...in the future everything is chrome. Sponge Bob Square Pants

    by agent double o soul on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 10:56:38 AM PST

  •  vp075 is running around giving 1s (none)
    to people he/she/it might disagree with, but i notice he/she/it doesn't make comments or do diaries.  is dear little vp075 a troll? i do know he is a real chicken.
  •  Slippery Slope (none)
    This stuff started with the sham money laundering laws that were alleged to be necessary to fight the bogus War on Drugs. We started down that slippery slope then. Who could be against money laundering laws, right? Well, this is what it looks like at the bottom of the slippery slope. "Gee, we never thought THAT would happen!"

    A pessimist sees a glass half empty. I see a paper cup with holes punched in it.

    by Paper Cup on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:21:42 AM PST

  •  Has anyone else had this happen? (none)
    I know a lot of people have paid off their credit cards, has anyone else had this happen? I wonder if the bank is lying.

    You can't get away with the crunch, 'cuz the crunch always gives you away

    by dnamj on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:29:12 AM PST

  •  Has anyone else had this happen? (none)
    I know a lot of people have paid off their credit cards, has anyone else had this happen? I wonder if the bank is lying. Hear me out please.

    They may just say that in order to deposit the check and let it earn interest for a few days, while at the same time charging interest in the debt for a few days, too.

    Multiply that by 500,000 constomers, and you've got serious money to be made.

    This sounds like a banking scam to me, rather than big brother.

    You can't get away with the crunch, 'cuz the crunch always gives you away

    by dnamj on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:30:58 AM PST

    •  Everythings that the big banks do is a scam (none)
      They are corporate terrorists and are enacting class warfare against you, me, and everybody else who isn't rich.  

      I would recommend taking your money out of the bank and putting it in a credit union.  

      Boycott Citibank/Citicards. They are corporate thieves and terrorists.

      by tri on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:15:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  you're misreading (none)
      The customer sent a check in.  They examined their available credit online to determine if the payment had been credited, didn't see a change and called the bank.  While the check has been credited to their account, a corresponding amount of available credit had not been freed up.  Nothing was said about additional interest fees or late fees.  

      This is similar to when you renat a car and the company gets an authorization of say, $500, which ties up $500 of available credit.  

      Just because you're self-righteous doesn't mean you're not a hypocrite.

      by AMcG826 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:08:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  THIS IS SO MOTHERFUCKING FUCKED (none)
    that I can barely stand it.  I hear something like this and I fill with unqualified, unvarnished rage...there is NO EXCUSE FOR THIS.  None.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  It's disgusting, utterly demeaning and completely inappropriate, because - and let me get this straight - I have to fear paying a fucking bill off because the fucking Homeland Security fuckfaces are fucking gonna get up in my fucking grill and start asking question about fucking terrorism financing?  What the fucking FUCK?  I'm sorry, but no, no, no, all day long NO.  

    What would Tom Paine do?  You don't wanna know, unless you're cool with the following images: pitchforks, flames and...well, fill in the blanks...

  •  I think I get it... (none)
    ...when you pay off your balance, you interfere with the long-term goals of a major corporation to rape you with high-interest rates.  Anyone who interferes with the ability of corporations to screw average citizens clearly is un-American, and therefore, not to be trusted.

    See?  It's not the least bit paranoid or capricious.

    To quote the B-52's: Now doesn't that make you feel a lot better?

    "...the big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart." -- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

    by Roddy McCorley on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 11:46:51 AM PST

  •  It's hard to believe (none)
    that a revolution ever got off the ground in this country in 1776.  
    •  You have to look to who the revolutionaries (none)
      were.  Rich white guys with business interests sick of paying taxes to King George.  There were after freedom to do business as they pleased.

      As soon as the government approves it, its no longer immoral.

      by lapin on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 08:11:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm wondering if I got put on a watch list (none)
    I recently paid off my car, a whopping $7K.  I wonder if that put me on a terrorist watch list.

    Furthermore, three years ago I wracked up credit card debt of about $7000 to $8000.  I was in-between jobs.  When I got a new job I then preceeded to pay off the credit card debt really quickly.  I paid it off within a year, once month paying off as much as $2k.

    This diary is really disturbing.

  •  I hate Bush but (2.66)
    I am not sure this is the big deal everyone is making it out to be. Before you troll rate me finish reading please.

    It has long been law that if you deposit over $10k and a while back it was lowered to $5k into a bank, they report it to the IRS.

    One could easily make the case that paying out over those amounts to a financial institution, like a credit card company would trigger similar reporting.

    Nowhere do I see that it was the paying off that did it, I DO see an amount, $6,522, that is over the $5k trigger amount.

    I could be wrong but before everyone starts screaming about this, someone should research what EXACTLY triggered this.

    •  The problem is they're monitoring everything (none)
      It's not just one thing or another - it's the extent to which our government in an allegedly free and democratic country, is undertaking to monitor and track its OWN citizens.  This is unprecedented in history - the technology was unavailable before.  Moreover, much if not most of this tracking is secret so you not only don't know it's being done - you only find out when it hits you like a brick upside the head when you're just going about trying to get business done - like trying to get on a plane for your vacation and they tell you you're on the no fly list.  

      The other problem aside from the sheer scope of this spying and data mining, is that there apparently are little or no appeals processes to either determine what has happened or to appeal errors or injustices.

      We are not prisoners and our government should not be our warden.  Or our nanny.   This must stop.

    •  WTF triggered it??? (none)
      The corporate terrorists and fascists that have overthrown our government and turned into class warfare against the poor and what is left of the middle class.    

      Boycott Citibank/Citicards. They are corporate thieves and terrorists.

      by tri on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:13:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  idiots (4.00)
      Thanks for the zero rating, the only one I have gotten by some punk who can't think.  Sorry to have dared to question something.

      As if the right is the only one with jack booted thugs and knuckle dragging idiots.

  •  I had the same thing happen to me.... (none)
    I am sitting here with my jaw dropped wide open.

    The EXACT same thing happened to me.
    I travel for a living, and I switched to using the JC Penney Mastercard as my "business" card (at my accountant's suggestion). I ran up 7000 in charges the first month, got my expense check, paid the bill, check cleared my bank. Went to check into a hotel..sorry, not enough credit on your card.

    Called Penney's (offshore) help desk, was told that even though MY check had cleared THEIR bank, they would not release the credit line for an additional two weeks.

    Quit using Penneys Mastercard then and there.

    BTW, Penneys is the ONLY card that's happened to me with.

  •  Relevant (none)
    libertarian activist organization

    Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights

    Just because we can, that doesn't mean we should.

    by Simplify on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 01:09:54 PM PST

  •  Geez (none)
    I just transfered a large balance to a 0% account for 12 mos. so I could pay it off without continued bleeding.  It did seem to take a long time for the credit available to reflect the payment - I'm going to go home today and check the timing more closely now.

    I've been laid off and over the next couple months I'm looking at paying off a 401K loan in  one lump sum (the only way you are allowed to repay outside of payroll deduction, but without a payroll...), cash out of some stock options, and wrangle some or all of that transfer - there may even be an opportunity to unload on my remaining student loan debt.

    All these undesirable activities; I better just whip out the AMEX and start slurging - they couldn't have an issue with something named 'American', no?

    "These are the times that try men's [and women's] souls." - The Crisis, December 23, 1776

    by TPaine on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 02:33:30 PM PST

  •  To all the banking experts reading this thread (none)
    Particularly those who have commented so vociferously regarding the expenditure on the Patriot Act instead of SARs as it concerns paying off cr. cd. balances. This is the scenario - A friend of mine was doing business with a small town bank in New England. She had direct deposit with the bank and there was a single instance of that deposit not having shown up in her account. The bank told her it was "lost" and then proceeded to charge her for it. She didn't pay that charge and I don't have the amount that was charged because this incident occurred five years ago. But the end result has resurfaced because she recently attempted to open a savings account at another bank in the same state and was told that she couldn't because of the incident that occured with the direct deposit five years previously. Every time she attempts to resolve this issue, she gets nowhere. Essentially the bank assessed a fee in connection with the missing direct desposit, she refused to pay it, and it has been following her ever since. Recently, the bank in question has told her that it no longer has any "files" associated with this event because the bank has been bought and sold and consolidated by other entities that it couldn't hope to ever find anything associated with this event. In the meantime, she continues to be red flagged by this incident and isn't even able ot open a savings account at another bank in her own name. Anyone have any suggestions whatsoever how to go about resolving this matter?

    Pain is temporary and sorrow is fleeting, but hope, determination and courage in the face of adversity are forever.

    by Zen Warrior on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 04:06:53 PM PST

Leslie in CA, Devin, Bob Johnson, wozzle, No One No Where, Grassroots Mom, paradox, easong, DeminNewJ, Terri, Marek, SteveLCo, Aeolus, Nathan in MD, oofer, vtdem, Phoenix Woman, skyesNYC, SarahLee, teacherken, chassler, gogol, Ivan, AlanF, Hornito, Kimberly Stone, lrhoke, Raybin, Unstable Isotope, saraswati, wytcld, Bob Love, lazbumm, gorlim, sphealey, Lahdee, Sprinkles, TechBob, FaeryWalsh, Wintermute, jacobo, bramish, meg, Victor, DCDemocrat, scottmaui, rhubarb, bawbie, Mnemosyne, ThirstyGator, MakeChessNotWar, gecko, americanforliberty, Hal C, ilona, Carnacki, exNYinTX, jancw, Jerome a Paris, DaneJaneiro, zeitshabba, Cecrops Tangaroa, memberofthejury, Plan9, RubDMC, bara, vinifera, fabacube, monkeybiz, Mr Teem, kwinz, bronte17, Joe Sixpack, Slacker Gal, JR Monsterfodder, Dazy, macdust, wonkydonkey, ProfessorX, bonddad, SamSinister, nyceve, ecostar, Ti Jean, susakinovember, MD patriot, Janie, eyeinhand, OCD, agentcooper, HippyWitch, Time Waits for no Woman, biscobosco, Akapl, KBnNC, timeflier, wanderindiana, PBnJ, phillies, cookiebear, mrblifil, Kerry Conservative, chimpy, roses, Prove Our Democracy with Paper Ballots, bobinson, javelina, punkmonk, peraspera, oslo, peeder, qphilo, PoliSigh, skwimmer, Fe, Bearpaw, superba, not lois, Spindizzy, thingamabob, matt2525, kcc, bikko100, sele, Alohaleezy, WeatherDem, kredwyn, Eric Blair, sockpuppet, marko, oldjohnbrown, draftchrisheinz, missliberties, Republic Not Empire, kenjib, roseeriter, RedStateDem, tooblue, baxxor, cosette, Persimmon, Penny Century, 42, nika7k, MmeVoltaire, Magorn, HollywoodOz, lecsmith, Timbuk3, lcrp, 313to212, Dood Abides, Democratic Hawk, Bluebirder, One bite at a time, proudtinfoilhat, potato, MyPOV, AllisonInSeattle, nasarius, davybaby, Curt Matlock, retired, schuylkill, DrReason, Deward Hastings, TexasLefty, moggie12, bablhous, kd texan, BigBite, solesse413, Dave in RI, guyermo, BDA in VA, donailin, NorthDakotaDemocrat, sawgrass727, tami33, rapala, John3, Skennet Boch, joanneleon, Fabian, mediaprisoner, Bluesee, Tarindel, 3goldens, liberal atheist, tri, BluejayRN, el dorado gal, Elise, hiredman, LarisaW, lenore68, WildRice, subtropolis, Chinton, ignorant bystander, wizardkitten, someone else, Ari Mistral, clammyc, Valtin, basquebob, karpinsky, Nordic, TigerMom, Brooke In Seattle, techiechick, Ranting Roland, Nastja Polisci, YucatanMan, Dire Radiant, Jared Lash, reflectionsv37, Monkey In Chief, Mz Kleen, zackmann, truebeliever, singing bridge, John DE, GreyHawk, Zen Warrior, skralyx, Kayakbiker, Overseas, Skid, Phil S 33, BobOak, abbeysbooks, illyia, RElland, RickE, Jonathan House, spunhard, Cannabis, neroden, serrano, shrimppop, Joes Steven, word is bond, Cory Bantic, Shiborg, Spathiphyllum, hcc in VA, Paper Cup, Ian H, Mehitabel9, RiaD, milkmit, Strawberrybitch, muttcats, occams hatchet, andreuccio, twoducks, methodishca, PoppyRocks, RabidBadger, PatsBard, awakenow, djwohls, tonyahky, Ellicatt, Buffalo50, compbear, Wary, blueoasis, TalkieToaster, Lashe, VegasLiberalStevo, imabluemerkin, DSPS owl, NearlyNormal, Augustine, Fraction Jackson, myzenthing, vivian darkbloom, a small quiet voice, profh, Dreaming of Better Days

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site