Expatriation: A Key to recovering State Nationality.

[SKYGZR]

This "number" thing is is actually the formal "Root" of all problem(s) with this supposed "society". "Numbering" is nothing more than tracking, plain and simple. Since "employers" (not getting into the actual meanings of "employers")..one can find that out by being "intelligent",
are THE MAJOR PROBLEM associated with this "issue", the "employee" must begin to re-think the alternatives.

There are many ways to be creative, and circumvent this "number" association.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
Social Security Administration issues Social Security Cards. To knowledge, the respective system deals with a kind of maritime insurance. Equity/admiralty.

[Shoonra, you did quite a job at getting networkrangr going around in circles.]

#1 A social security number is an account number.
#2 A social security card just might be a federal birth certificate.
#3 From what I gather the name on a social security card is that of a trust or corporation.
#4 Companies that wont hire you without an SSN can be sued to the point that you might not even need to work anyways.
#5 The social security account to knowledge can be liened, garnished or the like and can even be claimed as part of a security interest. [Hint: one you can claim a security interest in the ss account and assign that security interest to a trust even if one never recites the account any value underlying the account could still be accessed.]
#6 All social security accounts are part of a single account that the SSA has with the United States Department of the Treasury or something along those lines.
#7 Its an insurance policy. Wagering/ponzi style.
#8 Shoonra is very amusing:

> Social security number like fingerprints. That is bovine-ejectment at its finest. If you believe that then perhaps you would believe that a bank account number, library card number or the number on a ticket to a hockey game are like your fingerprints too?

> That fact that there is expectation for the card to be signed for it to be valid is evidence enough that its a contract. It is a bond/bill subject to acceptance. How you sign the card is very important. [You can write or type: without prejudice on the face of the card as indicated earlier along the thread]

***

If one can comprehend how one can stand 100 feet from the Sears Tower [near downtown Chicago] and not be in the United States, then a lot of the fog that types like Shoonra propagate can be cleared away.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.

Originally Posted by Shoonra
There's a substantial piece of evidence that pretty much nullifies any attempt by you to renounce your US citizenship: You try to do while still in the US.

And you can do that from, say right near the Sears Tower and not be in the United States.

Originally Posted by Shoonra
Your mere presence in this country shows a desire to keep, not abandon, your status as a US citizen. That's one reason that the law requires you to first leave the US and renounce your citizenship when your in a foreign country.

Is the United States really a country?

Sophistry Originally Posted by Shoonra People don't get to choose their SSN numbers and they don't get to choose their own birthplaces or birthdates. But they only have to bring up their SSN numbers on certain limited occasions.

People choose their birthplace all the time at least in a sense. Immigrants might have the place of birth of the place where they swear their oath of allegience. Shoorna you should know better. I've schooled you better than that. =]

Also, a social security number assigned can be changed.


***
While the subject of Old Age Surivivors, tontine or ponzi schemes is at hand:

In the account of what is being done in the United States is found the germ of three entirely distinct methods of making such provision, each of which has been much more developed and on a much larger scale in other countries : —

1. By a "service pension," freely granted by employers or by the state to workingmen who, having fulfilled the conditions, reach a certain age. When such pensions are paid by the state, they are " service pensions," even though not granted when the income from other sources exceeds a certain amount, for in that case it is assumed that the state has already indirectly supplied the support for old age.

2. By a " compulsory " system of contribution to a pension fund. Such compulsion is exercised sometimes by employers or by municipalities or other departments of the state. Usually the employer or the state or both also make contributions in the last- mentioned form. This is a well-known branch of the "social insurance" of Germany. Such funds are, upon actuarial investigation, usually found to be insolvent, that is, not to contain sufficient amounts, so that together with future contributions and interest they will finance out. This technical insolvency may not be important if state or national compulsion is behind the insurance.

3. By encouraging the purchase of old age annuities. This is usually done by the employer or the state or both offering a subsidy in the form of paying a portion of the contributions, guaranteeing a higher rate of interest than could otherwise be secured, assuming responsibility for the custody and investment of the funds, without charging for expenses, or by a combination of two or more of these. This, being voluntary, works in a haphazard manner, and under it experience shows that no provision is made for those for whom provision is most needed.

From a 1912 book titled "Old Age Dependency In the United States". Interestingly enough, one of the first things the book discussess is the issue of a State making provisions for the care of war veterans. [related term" State Insurance.]

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.

Civil War Pensions: America's First "Social Security" Program

Although Social Security did not really arrive in America until 1935, there was one important precursor, that offered something we could recognize as a social security program, to one special segment of the American population. Following the Civil War, there were hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans, and hundreds of thousands of disabled veterans. In fact, immediately following the Civil War a much higher proportion of the population was disabled or survivors of deceased breadwinners than at any time in America's history. This led to the development of a generous pension program, with interesting similarities to later developments in Social Security. (The first national pension program for soldiers was actually passed in early 1776, prior even to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Throughout America's ante-bellum period pensions of limited types were paid to veterans of America's various wars. But it was with the creation of Civil War pensions that a full-fledged pension system developed in America for the first time.)

The Civil War Pension program began shortly after the start of the War, with the first legislation in 1862 providing for benefits linked to disabilities "incurred as a direct consequence of . . .military duty." Widows and orphans could receive pensions equal in amount to that which would have been payable to their deceased solider if he had been disabled. In 1890 the link with service-connected disability was broken, and any disabled Civil War veteran qualified for benefits. In 1906, old-age was made a sufficient qualification for benefits. So that by 1910, Civil War veterans and their survivors enjoyed a program of disability, survivors and old-age benefits similar in some ways to the later Social Security programs. By 1910, over 90% of the remaining Civil War veterans were receiving benefits under this program, although they constituted barely .6% of the total U.S. population of that era. Civil War pensions were also an asset that attracted young wives to elderly veterans whose pensions they could inherit as the widow of a war veteran. Indeed, there were still surviving widows of Civil War veterans receiving Civil War pensions as late as 1999!

In the aggregate, military pensions were an important source of economic security in the early years of the nation. In 1893, for example, the $165 million spent on military pensions was the largest single expenditure ever made by the federal government. In 1894 military pensions accounted for 37% of the entire federal budget. (The Civil War pension system was not without its critics.)

But these figures based on the federal budget exaggerate the role of military pensions in providing overall economic security since the federal government's share of the economy was much smaller in earlier times. Also, there were features of the system which meant that many veterans did not receive any benefits. For example, former Confederate soldiers and their families were barred from receiving Civil War pensions. So in 1910 the per capita average military pension expenditure for residents of Ohio was $3.36 and for Indiana it was $3.90. By contrast, the per capita average for the Southern states was less than 50 cents (it was 17 cents in South Carolina).

Despite the fact that America had a "social security" program in the form of Civil War pensions since 1862, this precedent did not extend itself to the general society. The expansion of these types of benefit programs to the general population, under Social Security, would have to await additional social and historical developments.

Old Age in Colonial America

Although the need for economic security affects all ages and classes of society, one particularly acute aspect of this need is the problem of old age and the possibility of retirement after a long life of labor. Retirement, a feature of life we now take so much for granted, was not always readily available, and it was a struggle to develop adequate systems of retirement.

One of the first people to propose a scheme for retirement security that is recognizable as a forerunner of modern social insurance was Revolutionary War figure Thomas Paine. His last great pamphlet, published in the winter of 1795, was a controversial call for the establishment of a public system of economic security for the new nation. Entitled, Agrarian Justice, it called for the creation of a system whereby those inheriting property would pay a 10% inheritance tax to create a special fund out of which a one-time stipend of 15 pounds sterling would be paid to each citizen upon attaining age 21, to give them a start in life, and annual benefits of 10 pounds sterling to be paid to every person age 50 and older, to guard against poverty in old-age.

The Social Insurance Movement
The Social Security program that would eventually be adopted in late 1935 relied for its core principles on the concept of "social insurance." Social insurance was a respectable and serious intellectual tradition that began in Europe in the 19th century and was an expression of a European social welfare tradition. It was first adopted in Germany in 1889 at the urging of the famous Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. Indeed, by the time America adopted social insurance in 1935, there were 34 nations already operating some form of social insurance program(about 20 of these were contributory programs like Social Security). Philosophically, social insurance emphasized government-sponsored efforts to provide for the economic security of its citizens. The tradition of social insurance would come to be seen as the reasonable, practical alternative to the radical calls to action represented by Townsend, Long, Sinclair and the others.

[netwrkranger]

fulltitle wrote:
[Shoonra, you did quite a job at getting networkrangr going around in circles.]

Not really =D. I knew where I was going with my line of questioning. I just wanted to see how much Shoonra would choose to reveal. The primary gist of my questioning was property rights v. equitable interests.

Regards,
netwrkranger

[netwrkranger]

Fulltitle posted:

One of the first people to propose a scheme for retirement security that is recognizable as a forerunner of modern social insurance was Revolutionary War figure Thomas Paine. His last great pamphlet, published in the winter of 1795, was a controversial call for the establishment of a public system of economic security for the new nation. Entitled, Agrarian Justice, it called for the creation of a system whereby those inheriting property would pay a 10% inheritance tax to create a special fund out of which a one-time stipend of 15 pounds sterling would be paid to each citizen upon attaining age 21, to give them a start in life, and annual benefits of 10 pounds sterling to be paid to every person age 50 and older, to guard against poverty in old-age.

Wow. That is a sharp contradiction from the Thomas Paine I've read about. Typically, Thomas Paine is the poster boy for anti-federalism and limited government. Quite the dichotomy from his usual platform, in my opinion. Cool info.

Regards,
netwrkranger

[aksis]

I was talking with a friend of mine the other night, Shannon. Shannon is studying to be a nurse, and to earn some school credit she worked as an intern at a hospital.

She confirmed that she didn't get "paid" a wage for this service (which I am pretty sure is common practice with interns in most fields), but I was unsure if she revived any "benefits", and, if so, what they were.

So I asked Shannon if she got any "benefits" (like health care, for example), she mentioned that she did get a discount at the hospital cafeteria and the gift shop, but no medical benefits.

It got me thinking about the UNITED STATES, and while it may not pay the people holding the Office of "Citizen", who, interning in hopes of holding higher Offices that do pay or entering into other paying positions in the political corporation[s], defiantly have a better benefits package then the hospital interns.

Citizenship has it's privileges... I wonder if that is where AMERICAN EXPRESS got the idea for the slogan "Membership has its privileges?" (and why AMERICAN EXPRESS could not secure the registration of that trademark in the US - [link], but they were able to do it in the UK - [link])

Magnanimously,

Christopher Theodore: Rhodes

P.S.

Why were people discussing a Republic and Democracy like they are 2 different systems and in opposition to one another?

A Democracy is a type of Republic, as opposed to the other type of Republic, an Aristrocracy.