On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 6:50:22 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/26/2022 8:33 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 07:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 6:22:56 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 3/26/2022 1:20 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:58:41 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 14:46:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:47:04 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:28:54 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:36:08 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:55:38 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >>>>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 6:16:22 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 07:47:38 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's right. The government interest derives from
> >>>>>>>>>>>> making clear property rights and support of minor children.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Really?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I ask as the first government requirement for a "license" dates to
> >>>>>>>>>>> several years before the 1775 war and the requirement for church
> >>>>>>>>>>> approval predates that. In England the requirement seems to date back
> >>>>>>>>>>> to at least the 16th or 17th century.
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> John B.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> My history is probably lacking, but it seems to me that in the 1700s or a tiny bit earlier, the civilized, industrial world, meaning Europe, became more law based and a little less on monarchs and dynasties. Written laws decided by a legislature. So the need for property rights instituted by marriage. Whereas before, the law was just the law of the land. Or the way its always been done. Tradition. Edict by the local priest. Such as when a man dies, everything goes to the first born son. Or to the dead man's brother. The widow was delegated to the next unmarried brother of the dead husband. Children were delegated to the dead man's sisters and brothers. That is the way it was done. No laws. No wife inheriting property. No wife keeping the farm and children. No wife owning the local pub or sawmill or grain mill. But then them damned intrusive governments butted in and made up laws to give the wife property. How Terrible!!!!!!! So we needed the government to
> >>>>>>>>> officially
> >>>>>>>>>> say the wife was married to the man.
> >>>>>>>>> My point was that you need a "license" to get married in the U.S.
> >>>>>>>>> license ~ noun
> >>>>>>>>> 1. a legal document giving official permission to do something
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In other countries where I've lived there is no requirement for a
> >>>>>>>>> "license"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In the USA we have these things, numbers, called a Social Security Number. A way for the Federal Government and other entities to keep track of every person. There are also Social Security Cards issued to some people. People who ask for them. But whether you have a Social Security Card or not is irrelevant. I do not have one. But every year I have to put my Social Security Number on the tax forms and give it to my credit card company and my stock investment company and bank and other places too. They do not care if I have an official government issued Social Security Card or not. All they want is the number. Which I presume they run through some database to prove its the correct number for me. Not sure on this or not. So your idea of having an official tangible paper "license" is nonsense. I do not know if anyone really cares if you have an official paper marriage "license" or not. Every form that asks whether you are married or not just takes your check mark as proof
> >>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>> not. No one ever asks you to show the paper marriage license. I am sure your official marriage status is recorded somewhere in the state or federal records somewhere. And somehow some lawyer can officially look up this official recording that you are married or not. That is all that matters. No one cares if you can produce the "license".
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Personally, I do not know if "licenses" are issued when you get married or not.Someone on here will have to answer that question. Do they have an official paper license saying they are married? But I am sure its recorded in the state and/or federal records that they are officially married.. The official government recording of marriage is what counts. Not the paper "license".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well yes and no. Some States have a waiting period. You go and pay for
> >>>>>>> the license but you have to wait for some period before you can
> >>>>>>> actually tie the knot.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes I have heard some states have a waiting period for marriage licenses. Days or weeks. Apparently its zero waiting period in Nevada. But that is irrelevant to the "license" aspect. Does a state officially issue a paper marriage license? City? County? Federal? Who gives you this piece of paper? Or is it just recorded that you are/want to get married. No "license" is issued. I am sure someone officially records it in the annuls of time that you are legally married.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As for Social Security, other countries issue their population with
> >>>>>>> identity cards.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You have been outside the USA for a long time John. Every Republican, neo Nazi, fascist, 2nd Amendment, Qanon would scream themselves hoarse if the USA ever considered issuing an official identity card. No no no no no.
> >>>>> Yes I know. I find it rather humorous that while USians would, as you
> >>>>> say, scream loudly at the mere thought of a national I.D. card they
> >>>>> accept the need for a state issued Driver's License, containing
> >>>>> essentially the same data, as a necessity for identification (:-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Very true. Politicians and others scream and yell about socialism and communism and in the same breath yell about how they will protect Social Security for the old folks and even increase the payments. Or scream and yell about the evils of government controlled health care and in the next breath promise to give Medicare to the old folk voters.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My wife, Thai citizen, over 60 years of age, simply shows her national
> >>>>>>> I.D. card at the hospital for free medical care and for her old age
> >>>>>>> pension had to go to the local government office and give them her
> >>>>>>> bank account number and her pension is automatically deposited to her
> >>>>>>> bank each month.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In the USA you are eligible for socialized communist fascist health care at 62 or 65. Medicare. Funny how Republicans scream themselves silly about socialism for free food (food stamps) and housing shelters for the poor and unemployment money and Obama care, but happily with a smile on their face endorse SOCIALIZED Medicine for old people in their political advertisements. I would guess Medicare sends out a health card to all old people and the old people present this at the hospital. Just like your national ID card. I know Social Security in the USA has direct deposit of monthly SOCIALIZED payments to old people. Just give them your bank account numbers. No differences between Thailand or USA.
> >>>>> Imagine a political party campaigning on the platform of "No More
> >>>>> Government Waste"! "Get rid of all the communistic,socialistic,
> >>>>> payments like Medi-care/cade, Social Security, Aid to unwed mothers..
> >>>>> unemployment, and all other such folderol"! "From on, you work you get
> >>>>> paid!"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As an aside I have a good friend who grew up in Communist Hungary and
> >>>>> says that it was a much better system. There was no unemployment,
> >>>>> everyone had a job, free medical care, free education thru collage.
> >>>>> Paid vacation and so on.
> >>> I agree with you. It's schizophrenic 'logic'.
> >>>
> >>> Driving through Chicago the other evening I listened to
> >>> interviews from the Statehouse in Springfield as legislators
> >>> from both parties boasted that, since Fentanyl ODs alone
> >>> killed more people than homicide last year, their new laws
> >>> would impose mandatory minimums and long sentences for that
> >>> trade.
> >>>
> >>> Spinning the dial I also learned that Cook County
> >>> prosecutors and judges are very active in arranging early
> >>> release for imprisoned dope dealers 'doing hard time for
> >>> mere drug offenses' and, like Mr Seaton, monomaniacally
> >>> calling that end every ill in this world 'racism'.
> >>
> >> To cover this again - I calculated how much I would earn on the money I deposited in social security and with a very low interest rate I will not break even until I am 92 years old. So exactly what is socialist or communist about a system that supposedly only returns to you forced savings?
> >
> > Tom, that is how a socialistic system works. First they grab your
> > money in taxes and next they give it back when you need it.
> >
> > In the case of the U.S. Social Security I believe the original theory
> > was that it would actually make money as in many, maybe most, cases
> > the participants would pay in more then they would draw out.
> >
> >
> The 'Social Security' scheme was actuarily impossible as
> first designed and became exponentially worse as various
> subsequent Congresses expanded payouts while leaving
> revenues unrealistically small. What could go wrong?
>
> https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/443465-social-security-just-ran-a-9-trillion-deficit-and-nobody-noticed
>
> Note that even a democrat party Congress was unwilling to go
> as far as Roosevelt wanted until Stalin's agent in the White
> House, Harry Hopkins, provided the crucial breakthrough,
> "Let's call it insurance! Nobody understands insurance!".
> And so it was.
>
> The anodyne version here:
> https://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
>
> A more circumspect view:
> https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/05/05/96_trillion_in_unfunded_us_medicare_and_social_security_benefits_775259.html#!
>
> I wish you well personally, Mr Slocumb, but this system is
> set for an inevitable implosion.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Of course it is. Originally you didn't get paid until age 65 and the average lifespan was 55. This actually made sense since it paid you to live cleanly - no alcohol, tobacco or drugs to excess. It turned into the basis of the modern medical system and not the other way around. People aren't stupid.. The question isn't if it is going to implode but when. SS is one of the reasons so many illegals are coming into the US and not because they have a better future. If they had SS in their own countries they would stay and eliminate the corruption there.