For you democrat's...

[Clizby WampusCat]

Do you support the government receiving all of your banking transactions for the year?

Are you ok with a completely open border where we have no idea who is coming in?

Are you ok with the DOJ setting up a phone line so people can call to get someone investigated by the FBI from a school board meeting with no evidence it is a chronic problem.

All of these policies reduce your freedom and liberty. How much freedom will they have to take away before you will stand up Biden and his ilk? To save our freedoms we need you democrat's to start pushing back on these policies and overreaching power grabs by the government. If you don't, then they will soon come for something you disagree with and you will be power less to stop it. Trump was right when he said "they are not coming after me, they are coming after you, I am just in the way." He did not just mean conservatives, he meant all of us.

What freedoms do you think we should fight for?

 

[spiritfilledjm]

*insert slow clap here*

 

[iluvatar5150]

Do you support the government receiving all of your banking transactions for the year?

eh. I trust the banks less than the government. The banks already have that information and the government can already get that with a warrant. Either way, that's not what the new rule proposes. What it proposes is merely a total of the flow into and out of the account, not a reporting of each transaction.

Are you ok with a completely open border where we have no idea who is coming in?

No, though I'm okay with something a lot closer to than than to what we have now. Either way, nobody I'm aware of is proposing that.

Are you ok with the DOJ setting up a phone line so people can call to get someone investigated by the FBI from a school board meeting with no evidence it is a chronic problem.

AFAIK, you've always been able to call up any law enforcement agency and report a crime.

All of these policies reduce your freedom and liberty.

No, they don't. The bank reporting rule is a marginal infringement at best. Open borders represents more freedom, not less. And I have no idea what you're talking about with respect to the phone line.

How much freedom will they have to take away before you will stand up Biden and his ilk? To save our freedoms we need you democrat's to start pushing back on these policies and overreaching power grabs by the government. If you don't, then they will soon come for something you disagree with and you will be power less to stop it. Trump was right when he said "they are not coming after me, they are coming after you, I am just in the way." He did not just mean conservatives, he meant all of us.

What freedoms do you think we should fight for?

That's a good question, but one that's hard to answer when you don't accurately describe those freedoms or the threats to them.

 

[dogs4thewin]

eh. I trust the banks less than the government. The banks already have that information and the government can already get that with a warrant. Either way, that's not what the new rule proposes. What it proposes is merely a total of the flow into and out of the account, not a reporting of each transaction.



No, though I'm okay with something a lot closer to than than to what we have now. Either way, nobody I'm aware of is proposing that.



AFAIK, you've always been able to call up any law enforcement agency and report a crime.



No, they don't. The bank reporting rule is a marginal infringement at best. Open borders represents more freedom, not less. And I have no idea what you're talking about with respect to the phone line.



That's a good question, but one that's hard to answer when you don't accurately describe those freedoms or the threats to them.

There's a difference in reporting a crime and reporting something you disagree with. There is a difference in reporting people for true threats ( I" I am going to bomb this place) and reporting people for exposing things that should be exposed such as ( and I have heard about this example reporting because someone exposed grossly sexual content in bools in a school media center.

 

[pacomascarot]

Do you support the government receiving all of your banking transactions for the year?

You know what the Dems really like? They like using apostrophes in places where they aren't needed like in plurals as opposed to possessives!

Are you ok with a completely open border where we have no idea who is coming in?

The people we need to keep out of this mighty country are people who understand how English language is written.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

eh. I trust the banks less than the government. The banks already have that information and the government can already get that with a warrant. Either way, that's not what the new rule proposes. What it proposes is merely a total of the flow into and out of the account, not a reporting of each transaction.



No, though I'm okay with something a lot closer to than than to what we have now. Either way, nobody I'm aware of is proposing that.



AFAIK, you've always been able to call up any law enforcement agency and report a crime.



No, they don't. The bank reporting rule is a marginal infringement at best. Open borders represents more freedom, not less. And I have no idea what you're talking about with respect to the phone line.



That's a good question, but one that's hard to answer when you don't accurately describe those freedoms or the threats to them.

So, no, you won't be "pushing back on these policies and overreaching power grabs by the government" as the OP requested.

 

[iluvatar5150]

There's a difference in reporting a crime and reporting something you disagree with. There is a difference in reporting people for true threats ( I" I am going to bomb this place) and reporting people for exposing things that should be exposed such as ( and I have heard about this example reporting because someone exposed grossly sexual content in bools in a school media center.

That's nice. What does that have to do with a DOJ tip line?

 

[iluvatar5150]

So, no, you won't be "pushing back on these policies and overreaching power grabs by the government" as the OP requested.

The OP has failed to establish his claim that these constitute "overreaching power grabs."

Again, I'll point out that open borders is an example of the government exercising less power and less control, not more.

 

[dogs4thewin]

eh. I trust the banks less than the government. The banks already have that information and the government can already get that with a warrant. Either way, that's not what the new rule proposes. What it proposes is merely a total of the flow into and out of the account, not a reporting of each transaction.



No, though I'm okay with something a lot closer to than than to what we have now. Either way, nobody I'm aware of is proposing that.



AFAIK, you've always been able to call up any law enforcement agency and report a crime.



No, they don't. The bank reporting rule is a marginal infringement at best. Open borders represents more freedom, not less. And I have no idea what you're talking about with respect to the phone line.



That's a good question, but one that's hard to answer when you don't accurately describe those freedoms or the threats to them.

As to the bank issue, yes a bank can report if they suspect ( within reason) that someone has dirty money, but they have to have a good reason to believe that. Moreover, $600 is FAR from a lot of money in a single transaction that could be a house payment, a tax refund, various ligate business expenses that is NOT a lot to transfer at one time.

 

[dogs4thewin]

The OP has failed to establish his claim that these constitute "overreaching power grabs."

Again, I'll point out that open borders is an example of the government exercising less power and less control, not more.

The fact that you can report people to law enforcement with next proof other than I disagree with what they said.

 

[iluvatar5150]

As to the bank issue, yes a bank can report if they suspect ( within reason) that someone has dirty money, but they have to have a good reason to believe that. Moreover, $600 is FAR from a lot of money in a single transaction that could be a house payment, a tax refund, various ligate business expenses that is NOT a lot to transfer at one time.

The reporting rule isn't about the size of single transactions.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The fact that you can report people to law enforcement with next proof other than I disagree with what they said.

You can already do that. You've been able to do that as long as law enforcement has existed. What's new here? The OP didn't describe any new policy and neither have you.

ETA: Is it this? Is this what you guys are complaining about?
Justice Department Addresses Violent Threats Against School Officials and Teachers

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Moreover, $600 is FAR from a lot of money in a single transaction that could be a house payment, a tax refund, various ligate business expenses that is NOT a lot to transfer at one time.

But this is because people suspect they are really targeting "Side Hustle" income.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

Again, I'll point out that open borders is an example of the government exercising less power and less control, not more.

Claptrap.

The use of power here is selective. Less power, less control over the invaders; more power, more control over the citizenry...by way of the invaders. Flood and dilute--and now, infect--is a military tactic of our enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Claptrap.

The use of power here is selective. Less power, less control over the invaders; more power, more control over the citizenry...by way of the invaders. Flood and dilute--and now, infect--is a military tactic of our enemies, foreign and domestic.

What a weird philosophy on government. In virtually every other context, less government oversight is seen by libertarians as an increase in freedom regardless of whether or not that oversight is deployed as a bulwark against other, non-governmental forces (e.g. big business) that would inhibit freedoms in other ways. But apparently when it's foreigners who would supposedly inhibit our freedoms, government doing less is still government doing more.

 

[Desk trauma]

What freedoms do you think we should fight for?

Ones that are actually under threat.

 

[Tigger45]

*insert slow clap here*

 

[dogs4thewin]

But this is because people suspect they are really targeting "Side Hustle" income.

but as long as that side hustle is legal what difference does it make? Unless they have proof or at least reason to very strongly suspect that the income is coming from an illegal source it is none of their business.

 

[iluvatar5150]

but as long as that side hustle is legal what difference does it make? Unless they have proof or at least reason to very strongly suspect that the income is coming from an illegal source it is none of their business.

Income still has to be reported for tax purposes when it's from a legal source. The goal, as far as I'm aware, isn't to root out illegal income streams, but rather to find income that people aren't reporting.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

but as long as that side hustle is legal what difference does it make? Unless they have proof or at least reason to very strongly suspect that the income is coming from an illegal source it is none of their business.

Oh easy. It violates their campaign pledge to only raise taxes on the rich.

They are looking to go after all the 1099 type contractors who might be making a living from tax reporting loop holes to pay for their Green New Deal / Build Back Better plan that from what I can tell only rewards illegal aliens and people who have companies in Green Energy sectors of the economy, or own lots of stock in those companies.


By the way it is completely naïve to think this is all innocent! The IRS has a history of being weaponized to go after various administrations political enemies.