Arstechnica provided a decent analysis on this awhile back. Just think, this website is “communicating” outside the country any time a non-American connects, no? So couldn’t MM.com be monitored under FISA, given some type of blanket authority that says, “monitor all outgoing communication between AT&T points in Washington DC and foreign country”?

The article is here

For example, the government could not unilaterally “authorize” the “targeting” of a particular San Francisco resident’s international communications. However, it could “authorize” a dragnet surveillance program that intercepted the international communications of all San Francisco residents under the pretext that it was “targeting” any foreign terrorists who might happen to communicate with San Francisco residents.

This is particularly troubling when we remember that in 2002, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review held that FISA does not prohibit coordination between foreign intelligence gathering and domestic law enforcement. That suggests that the FBI could ask the NSA to tailor its filters to intercept evidence of Internet gambling, copyright infringement, or other ordinary crimes.

Barack Obama’s surrender on the FISA fight was a perfect example of giving in when fighting back could have accomplished so much more……. With a word, he could have roused his supporters and activists to fight this thing to the bitter end, and assured his place in history as an avatar of real change.

(In other words – “He coulda been a contender!”)

No liberals…. ‘bitter end’ is the place where you are now and, YES …. we ARE laughing at you!

I would have liked a provision in the bill that states that these rights can only be used for issues and crimes of national security and any information gathered on any non-violent crimes by these methods would be excluded

Unfortunately history is pretty clear on what government does with newly acquired powers, and using this as a guide – “it” might “someday” will be used against “law-abiding” all citizens.

While I agree with the general sentiment, that any powers we cede to our government we must fight to regain, I don’t think it applies to this situation. It’s like was said on the floor: unless you have a terrorist group on speed dial, you’ve nothing to worry about.

At least one empirical study, looking at actual historical data on tax rates, GDP, and revenue, placed the revenue-maximizing tax rate (the point at which another marginal tax rate increase would decrease tax revenue) as high as 80%. Paul Samuelson argues in his popular economic textbook that Reagan was correct in a very limited sense to view the intuition underlying the Laffer curve as accurate, because as a successful actor, Reagan was subject to marginal tax rates as high as 90% during World War II. The point is that in a progressive tax system, any given person’s perspective on the validity of the Laffer curve will be influenced by the marginal tax rate to which that person’s income is subject.

Here’s more you can eat with your morning avocado

Of course, right wing authoritarians “don’t even know” that Laffer himself has said on numerous occasions that his theory has been exaggerated and twisted for political purposes. Tax cuts do not in fact “pay for themselves”. Intellectual honesty is a beautiful thing. Try it on for size.

I base my statements on empirical data.
You know tax receipts from the Reagan era. Stupidity. Try less of it.

…Laffer himself has said on numerous occasions that his theory…

According to Wikipedia, regarding the Laffer Curve (I know…this source is looked upon with much scepticism.);

Laffer also does not claim to have invented the concept, attributing it to 14th century Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun and, more recently, to John Maynard Keynes.