What is Digg?90 Comments
- robthej, on 07/07/2008, -0/+77this is super-shady - must be stopped!
- 1gunners4, on 07/07/2008, -0/+67Isn't being a Congressman without understanding the Constitution like being an physician without having an MD?
***** Fascists. - bstein80, on 07/07/2008, -1/+58The Senate is expected to hold a vote today. If the bill passes, it will go back to the House. The time to act is NOW!
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -0/+48Stomp his nosey ass into the ground. He wants to blackmail the nation.
- dsoleil, on 07/07/2008, -2/+44I wish we could "bury" the legislation. This is a democracy right? Tell Digg to start working on that.
- cc1263, on 07/07/2008, -0/+39The more and more I learn, the more and more depressed I get about the state of things. I'm 25 and a graduate student, and my future looks about as bright as a cell in Guantanamo. Our govt. is now only in the habit of taking freedom.
- nontoxyc, on 07/07/2008, -6/+34I'M SO SICK OF ALL THIS *****, INVASIONS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES ACROSS THE WORLD, THE COLLAPSE OF OUR CURRENCY, THE ONSET OF A DEPRESSION CAUSED BY FEDERAL OVERSPENDING, AND THEIR SOLUTION IS TO HAVE MORE MORE MORE CONTROL OVER US THE CITIZEN--***** THEM! THEY'RE NOT MY RULERS!
I'm going to protest at the DNC and then in DC. - jojensen, on 07/07/2008, -1/+28just do it!
- SuckMyDigg, on 07/07/2008, -0/+21I have written and called Grassley at least a dozen times. He has yet to ever say anything other than a general "tough luck, you're on the wrong side of the fence" back.
He's a jerk-off and he sure as ***** won't get my vote next election. - tkeeley, on 07/07/2008, -1/+21So if this is passed, in the coming year, it's conceivable that our YouTube views and some people's online activities will no longer be private. Yay.
- NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+19Grassley is one of those guys who seems to think that it's alright to violate that as long as it can fund something. But if you read the provision, the amount of money he's hoping to get on this is very minimal, especially when you look at what sort of slippery slope he is creating to get there.
- cc1263, on 07/07/2008, -2/+20We are ultimately powerless against the bureaucracy. They're already monitoring us anyway.
- cc1263, on 07/07/2008, -0/+15I wish there were more. The America I grew up loving and learning about has turned into something out of a George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, or Ayn Rand novel.
- NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+15Well there are still a few people who truly believe that 'limited government' is truly important to preserving the constitution, which is why it baffles me that Republican is behind this provision.
- Minarchian, on 07/07/2008, -3/+15It doesn't surprise me that a Republican is behind this tyrannical piece of legislation.
The Republicans have thrown out their limited government beliefs with George Bush. - cc1263, on 07/07/2008, -1/+13Kudos my friend, fight th3 good fight.
- kavutu, on 07/07/2008, -1/+12Sen GRASSLY needs MOWED!!!
- NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+11There are a few who have been trying to kill this provision, right off the top of my head, Senator Jim DeMint comes to mind. However, there is a slew of Republicans who still thought it was important to support this, even with this invasive provision.
I don't think they realize how angry people are going to be by this. - 1gunners4, on 07/07/2008, -0/+11Why? Then they multiply.
- kaelyiesta, on 07/07/2008, -1/+11No, this is not. This is a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. The men who designed this country despised democracies, where "in a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what’s for supper, while in a constitutional republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what’s for supper and the sheep are well armed."
If upheld, our constitution would deny these bits of legislation just fine. We just need to fight for what we already had. - NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+10What? This provision required Ebay, PayPal, Amazon, etc to report the transactions of companies that use their services to a certain amount. This then means that the government has the necessary information to go after these companies to collect taxes.
The problem is that these reported amounts are only one-sided, especially since they don't take into account the cost of shipping, acquisition, etc.
More importantly this creates a slippery slope that opens the door for even more required reporting. If the government sees this as a way for revenue, I wouldn't be shocked if they tried to lower the threshold to make it apply to all transactions. That means that baseball card you sold on Ebay, could now become subject to the government taxing you on it.
This doesn't even include the possible state taxation issues.
The issue is that Americans are required to report their sales already, the government doesn't need to play big brother and monitor that. They won't be able to see what it cost for the seller to buy the item. They wont be able to see how much it cost to ship. All they will see is one amount and use the figure when monitoring tax reports. - jstohler, on 07/07/2008, -0/+91-866-928-3035
- spongebue, on 07/08/2008, -0/+8"This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years."
So end the war in Iraq 10 days earlier instead and you'll save the same amount. - byrdgang, on 07/07/2008, -1/+9Wait...is there a source other than FreedomWorks? As soon as I saw this, I figured E.F.F. (Electronic Freedom Frontier) would have something on this. It doesn't. The FreedomWorks homepage links to a Yahoo article that, in reverse, cites FreedomWorks. Huh?
The EFF is pretty reliable on this kind of stuff. Don't sweat yourself until this actually hits them or another organization known for protecting Internet rights. - SilverStandard, on 07/08/2008, -0/+7The two parties are two faces of the same coin, my friend. Democrats in Congress not acting equals quiet consent.
- NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7I agree with that, partially. However, this is a provision that has no place being in the housing bailout bill, and if we can even get it pulled from the bill to be brought up later for debate, we'll be able to hold those who voted on this more accountable, simply because it removes the typical response of saying that they had to support the housing bill.
- cc1263, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7@ johoshua "Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction." Honestly, are you sure about that(no sarcasm intended)?
- pin0chet, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6Agreed. As a former Iowan, I'm disgraced we have two of the worst Senators in America. Harkin and Grassley both seem to hate freedom and love expanding government. They're both getting pretty old, though, so hopefully we have a chance for some new blood in the U.S. Senate soon. Unfortunately, given Iowa politics, I doubt anybody who cares about limited government and individual liberties will have a shot at getting elected.
- Shadwell, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6Don't jump on Grassley's ass. Chris Dodd is supporting this bill too. This is a bi-partisan effort to get the government's nose where it doesn't belong.
- NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6At the same time you can't prove that they wont. They don't have the best track record for doing what is in the best interest of the people, so why even give them some slack to get this going?
Even beyond all that, I would hope you would agree that a bill like this has no place being put into the housing bailout bill. If anything, this should be pulled out and debated, and addressed separately. It almost seems that they don't want to debate it, because the people won't like it.
If they would pull it from this bill and put it up on the floor separately, I dont think think there would be as many problems simply because it would be debated and on the record. - tcpip4lyfe, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6I lived in downtown CR during the flood (still homeless because of it). It was second worst flood in history and the 4th worst natural disaster. You'd think both of our senators would maybe want to come down and look at the damage and lobby for some more aid or at the very least, try and show a little leadership because frankly our city is ***** and the council has no idea what to do. I haven't heard anything from either one of them. When it's election time I'll remember this. What a joke of a man.
- cc1263, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7Viacom already can
- dlk289, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6I'm from Iowa and this is embarrassing that my state is represented by this someone like this. If people are going to buy a combination of items that may lead to illegal activity they would use cash, duh! It would be nice if my senator was trying to persuade congress for money to help fix my state, which was ruined by floods, instead of invading my privacy.
- NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6That would be nice. Just hope people don't mistake that as a plea to bury this post.
But yeah, Digg Democracy... oh I could only imagine how that crazy that would be. - NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -1/+6EFF is focusing on the FISA stuff right now, but I'm sure they are on the same page.
- Hiltonizer, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5Ugh... unfortunately I believe you completely.
I know both parties are really one-and-the-same... but aren't the republicans supposed to at least PRETEND to protect us from this liberal *****? - Hiltonizer, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5What amazes me is that people still think either party give a *****.
- pin0chet, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5It's about taxes. The idea is if the Feds know what you're buying, then it's easier for states to collect "use" taxes. If this bill passes, say goodbye to tax-free Amazon purchases. The feds will tell your home state every dime you spent online, and your state's revenue dep't will be after you to remit 7% or whatever back to them on all your online sales.
- stienster, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5anything shoved onto a bill with a completely seperate agenda, should automatically be voted down. That would stop the BS!
- bluesman3535, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4Gives 'Vote For Pig" a whole new meaning! snort snort
- Hiltonizer, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4but.... ending the war any earlier wouldn't infringe on our right to privacy.
- moethelawn, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4Right on! *points to my name*
(I'm from Iowa and I won't vote for him if this legislation is successful) - vault, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5Bush is actually planning to veto this AFAIK, though not really for this specific reason.
- NoBailouts, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4The both need to go down.
- pin0chet, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121417819688495525 ...
Wall Street Journal on June 23, 2008:
"Meanwhile, the free-market activist group FreedomWorks points to a provision of the Senate's housing tax package that would require payment settlement entities, such as eBay and Amazon, to report customer transactions over a certain threshold to the IRS. This would be done as an offset to pay for the housing tax breaks. The Center for Democracy and Technology, a liberal policy group, has testified that a similar proposal "raises serious privacy and data security concerns that are especially significant in the small business context." - vault, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Funny how you left out this sentence: "This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years."
It's a tax hike for small business while we're in the midst of a recession, while credit is extremely tight. The government needs to back off and leave them alone. It's a scam suspiciously buried in a housing bill, and apart from that brings up a number of privacy considerations as well. - Hiltonizer, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3epic pun, I salute you.
- cc1263, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3@NoBailouts Just curious, where do you stand on FISA?
- NoBailouts, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3I think it still needed a lot of work.
-
Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our upcoming 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is