Social Security Numbers = De Facto National ID Card

[Santa Baby]

In February 2003, the New York Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton announced that she would support a national identification card for US citizens claiming that she would support it as part of an overall effort to improve national security.

"Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country," Clinton warned. "And one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry and exit system so that if we're going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let's have a system that keeps track of them."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SbgiM7rhsmc&mode=related&search=

What a female dog!!!

Indeed!

[consort]

Ha, funny username, Santa Baby!

http://www.links2love.com/christmas_songs_santa_baby.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0piYwdPD29g

[recriminate]

Finally, we come to one of the most interesting and least known options, private contracting.

Private contracting (as distinguished from the IRS's regulation-ridden "independent contracting") is a term used by Charlie Adams, whose service, Contract America, was one of the pioneers in this field. There are now several companies offering similar services. Some are listed below, with contact information.

Here's how it works once you've been accepted by a private contracting firm. If you are already an independent contractor getting a 1099, you simply switch to contracting under this new arrangement. Your client will probably want a new copy of form W9, which (instead of showing your information) now shows the EIN of the contracting company and the fact that the contracting company is a corporation – not a sole proprietorship, a partnership, or an LLC controlled by you.

The contracting company invoices your clients. (Some may have you send the invoice, using their name and address.) Your clients pay the contracting company. Upon receiving the check, the contracting firm pays you, taking out a fee for itself. (Contract America, for instance, pays you 92% of the total and keeps 8% as their own fee. If you're lucky or persuasive, your client will cover the 8% fee.)

The beauty is that the contracting service doesn't file any paperwork on you. Also, because the service is a corporation and not a "pass-through" entity like an LLC or partnership (in which monies paid in go directly to the owners), nobody has to 1099 it. Charlie Adams reports that IRS-spooked businesses feel more secure dealing with a corporation for this type of transaction.

What if, instead of being a contractor, you're already an employee of a small business? With your employer's agreement, you resign your job, then sign on as a private contractor, with your payments going through the contracting agency. As Charlie Adams says, "If you're cashier #32 at Wal-Mart you can't persuade your employer to do this." But a small business person might see considerable advantage in it. For instance: your former employer (now your client) doesn't have to calculate, deduct, and disburse all those payroll taxes, and he doesn't have to match your Social Security or Medicare "contributions" because you're not making any such contributions. On the other hand, if you've previously been paid in cash under the table, the company hiring you now has the comfort, and the paper trail, of a recorded payment and should be willing to pay you more as a result.

Does the IRS approve of all this? Probably not. They don't respect the right of individuals to contract on their own terms, and they've taken it unto themselves to decide who can be an "independent contractor" and who must be a wage slave. Nevertheless, Contract America has been in business for approximately five years without so much as getting a letter from the IRS. I also interviewed a man who had been using another service, Accurate Consulting, for five years, and he reported he's had zero problems with the IRS under this arrangement, despite having had many IRS troubles in the past.

You must also understand that you won't be accruing any Social Security or unemployment "benefits" or any other perks. And the absence of a paper trail that makes you so happy today may come back to bite you two years from now if you decide you want to apply for a bank loan and need proof of income. Don't do this just to put a little extra money in your pocket because the long-term consequences can be profound. Do this only if you are philosophically committed to living free and making the necessary sacrifices in that cause.

Is this legal?

[largess]

In February 2003, the New York Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton announced that she would support a national identification card for US citizens claiming that she would support it as part of an overall effort to improve national security.

"Clearly, we have to make some tough decisions as a country," Clinton warned. "And one of them ought to be coming up with a much better entry and exit system so that if we're going to let people in for the work that otherwise would not be done, let's have a system that keeps track of them."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SbgiM7rhsmc&mode=related&search=

What a female dog!!!

Indeed!

Funny signature line, Santa!

[spellit]

wow, pretty interesting thread!

Your handle is also pretty interesting, EMC!

[²]

There are an estimated 9 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. In order to work and obtain credit, they need Social Security numbers — something they cannot obtain legitimately because of their illegal immigrant status. But a fake number isn't hard to get. There's a very good black market that has fostered this. You can buy a Social Security card on the street for $20. Fake cards are produced and sold by organized crime groups, which generate Social Security numbers and sell them to illegal immigrants with their own names on the card. The numbers, however, often belong to real people.

That is one reason why Hillary came out against granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, although she was for it before she was against it, before she was for it, before she was against it, so to speak!

[see ya]

I guess nobody thought how important the issue of Social Security Numbers and the like is until Obama's passport files snooping was reported,

Obama's records were accessed without permission on three separate occasions — Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14. It is not clear whether the employees saw anything other than the basic personal data such as name, citizenship, age, Social Security number and place of birth, which is required when a person fills out a passport application. Aside from the file, the information could allow critics to dig deeper into the candidates' private lives. While the file includes date and place of birth, address at time of application and the countries the person has traveled to, the most important detail would be their Social Security number, which can be used to pull credit reports and other personal information.

The violations were detected by internal State Department computer checks because certain records, including those of high-profile people, are "flagged" with a computer tag that tips off supervisors when someone tries to view the records without a proper reason. The system, which focuses on politicians and celebrities, was put in place in recent years, after the State Department was embroiled in a scandal involving the access of the passport records of then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton in 1992. The FBI launched an investigation after the State Department reported that someone had ripped out pages from his passport file from the late 1960s and '70s. The department concluded that a search of Clinton's passport records was an attempt to influence the presidential election, reportedly by trying to show that Clinton tried to seek citizenship in another country to avoid the draft. Clinton was running against President George H.W. Bush. Then-State Department Inspector General Sherman Funk found no evidence the White House ordered department staffers to dig for political dirt in Clinton's passport files. However, Funk said the White House probably knew it was happening.

Here it is a discussion of the controversy:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/20/obama.passport/#cnnSTCVideo

[cabull]

The boundaries between your right to privacy and the law may soon be getting a little more blurred. In the near future, if the Bush Administration gets its way, anyone who is arrested by a law enforcement agent will be required to submit a personal DNA sample. The federal government has proposed the plan for taking all detainees DNA in an effort they claim will reduce the number of violent crimes committed in the United States. The proponents of this policy allege that collecting DNA samples from individuals who have been arrested can potentially keep violent offenders off of the streets so they cannot commit more crimes. According to a study conducted in 2005, 53 murders and rapes may have been prevented in Chicago if a DNA sample had been collected during a prior arrest.

While it is important to keep violent criminals from destroying more lives, there is a flip side to the policy. Opponents of this law are concerned that innocent citizens could be subject to criminal monitoring. They are also worried that the DNA collected during an arrest could be held indefinitely. This would mean that the individual's genetic information would be accessible. DNA samples are not like fingerprints. Fingerprints represent the physical attributes of fingers and are used only to identify people. DNA contains much more information. A DNA sample can not only pinpoint someone's identity – it also contains information on approximately 4,000 types of diseases and genetic conditions. There is no telling what this information can be used for in the wrong hands. The ACLU worries that once innocent people’s DNA is put into a huge database, it would be very hard to have this information removed if they are not charged or convicted of a crime.

If you haven’t already lost enough sleep lately, ponder THIS little twist. Think of 1.5 million DUI arrests per year and DNA being collected and "databased" for all of them. If acquitted, do you get an order of ERASURE of DNA records? George Orwell was right about Big Government taking over our lives, but he was incorrect about the date when he named the book "1984." The current policy seems to run headlong into privacy issues that are protected by the Constitution. Plus, the overreaching created by such new legislation could easily rewrite this frightening version of a Government out of control.

[johncoths]

I guess how do non citizens without permission to work get a Social Security number? And one thing more is why are Social Security numbers used as identification numbers on Medicare cards?


_________________
Security Systems

[gzl]

I guess how do non citizens without permission to work get a Social Security number? And one thing more is why are Social Security numbers used as identification numbers on Medicare cards?

I have a question: Why are you effwits breathing my air?