National driver's license

[jsc]

How do we feel about a national drivers license in the USA?

 

[nikorr]

How do we feel about a national drivers license in the USA?

I agree to have one, it has more benefits than cons. At this point it is necessary.

And the argument how the Big Brother will........................ will not fly with me, BB already does.

 

[nikorr]

How do we feel about a national drivers license in the USA?

Well, what about you?

 

[chunkymonster]

How do we feel about a national drivers license in the USA?

We do not feel good about it. The requirements and controls are already implemented at the State level. If creating a national drivers license is to correct issues at the States level, then correct the problem at the State level. Don't create new problems by giving that control to the Feds as it would only circumvent State's and individual rights. Wouldn't a national drivers license just be a euphemism for a national ID card?

I agree to have one, it has more benefits than cons. At this point it is necessary. And the argument how the Big Brother will........................ will not fly with me, BB already does.

What benefits and cons are you referring to, specifically? What is wrong that precludes its necessity?

 

[amdfangirl]

Why not? Helps interstate migration.

It's like standardising the gauge of rails.

It might hurt briefly, but it works in the long run.

 

[chunkymonster]

Why not? Helps interstate migration.

It's like standardising the gauge of rails.

It might hurt briefly, but it works in the long run.

Helps interstate migration?! WTF are you talking about? In American, all Americans are FREE to move from one State to the next without any special dispensation or credentials to do so. Freedom of movement within the States is an inherent right of the people. Americans already move freely about the United States unencumbered by the need for national credentials; just get in your car, hop on the train, catch a ride on the bus and go wherever, whenever, and for whatever purpose your little heart desires.

We don't need a national drivers license to do what we already can do as a matter of fact.

 

[wanamingo]

maybe next time they wont turn me down in Texas for having a perfectly valid Vermont license.

 

[chunkymonster]

maybe next time they wont turn me down in Texas for having a perfectly valid Vermont license.

Turn you down...how exactly? Turned you down for what? Seriously now, what does "turn you down" mean? Please explain.

 

[wanamingo]

Lol take a chill pill chunky its just the internet.

The bar I went to didnt recognize my ID and for whatever reason didnt feel comfortable selling alcohol to someone with an ID they didnt know.

It was a crack on standardizing IDs.

*Cant blame them I had a fake Hawaii ID when i was underage simply for the fact that no one knew how to validate them*

 

[chunkymonster]

^ Oops...hahaha...sorry...it's sometimes hard to tell real comments from sarcasm...i'll take off my foil hat now...

Was the name on the Hawaii license McLovin?

 

[mjmjpfaff]

^ Oops...hahaha...sorry...it's sometimes hard to tell real comments from sarcasm...i'll take off my foil hat now...

Was the name on the Hawaii license McLovin?

haha good one. i agree with you btw the ntl. gov doesnt need any more power. they can hardly handle what they have now.

 

[jsc]

Well, what about you?

I am about 55/45 or 60/40 (at the most) pro.

chunky, we already have a national ID card. It's called a Social Security card - you know, that thing that says, "Not to be used for identification".

Any major financial transactions - you need it. If you are in the Armed Forces, it's your military service number. You need it to get a job.

 

[jsc]

Different states already have that problem.

 

[chunkymonster]

I am about 55/45 or 60/40 (at the most) pro.

chunky, we already have a national ID card. It's called a Social Security card - you know, that thing that says, "Not to be used for identification".

Any major financial transactions - you need it. If you are in the Armed Forces, it's your military service number. You need it to get a job.

Well, I'm not a huge fan of Social Security and the only reason we are forced to have a SS number is so the Feds can weigh taxes and feed the machine.

Given me my 7.2% back and let me invest it in my own future and retirement!

Different states already have that problem.

The problem resides where it should. Besides, the Feds have bigger issues to worry about, like fixing the economy!

I'm not saying, I'm just saying...

 

[l0ckd0wn]

No, I agree with monster. This is just another tool to further degrade state's rights. It is not neccessary.

For once I whole heartedly agree with you.

Well, I'm not a huge fan of Social Security and the only reason we are forced to have a SS number is so the Feds can weigh taxes and feed the machine.

Given me my 7.2% back and let me invest it in my own future and retirement!

The problem resides where it should. Besides, the Feds have bigger issues to worry about, like fixing the economy!

I'm not saying, I'm just saying...

Now I agree with where you are coming from, but on the position of Social Security, if you give the individual the option to put money away for retirement, they won't. This isn't a defense of Social Security as it and the 401k should be rehashed, but it does address the issue of education on a topic that most Americans do feel a large amount of personal responsibility is needed. I know that had I been more clear on how important it was to start saving money for my elder years earlier off in my life, I would have started saving more at 18-21 and not started so late at 25 (not that it is overly late, or that the markets really would have helped, but it's neither here nor there).

I know this for anecdotal reasons as well as from pure observation of anyone under the age of 21. When we were young, all of us, I can safely say that retirement was not one of our major priorities. If it was for you, you are probably a minority or had something that shaped you into caring. For the rest of the population, it's a second thought rather than having an extra $20-40/paycheck on whatever you need/desire.

 

[Newcrow]

It is a good idea but they need to limit the age of the data that this Nazi agency can accept based on the severity of the offense. For instance, my SC driver's license will be revoked because of an unpaid reinstatement fee in Illinois for driving on an expired driver's permit. This happened in 1982 when I was 18 years old. I am now almost 50 and have had an IL driver's license for years while I lived in IL. IL DMV stated that I received the bill late because my name was misspelled on my driver's permit; yet the same number on my permit was the same on my IL license. I used the same social number, etc. I even paid parking tickets and those reached me without problem. I thought the DMV uses more than a person's name. I have to pay to save my license. Similar people tell the same story. I suggest that everyone physically write politicians and government agencies and request that there also be a nation-wide statue of limitation on minor offenses. What the heck are minor offenses doing in this registry? This is another government money racket.

 

[musical marv]

How do we feel about a national drivers license in the USA?

That is a good idea.We can see what is really happening than with these drivers.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Why not? Helps interstate migration.

It's like standardising the gauge of rails.

It might hurt briefly, but it works in the long run.

Drivers' licenses being issues by the states have absolutely no effect on interstate migration. All 50 states have reciprocal agreements to honor other states' drivers' licenses. Driving rules for noncommercial operators are very, very similar in all of the states and commercial operators are all governed by the DOT and FMCSA anyway.

As far as a national driver's license being used for identification purposes- that would not add anything new that we don't already have. We all already have at least one unique federal ID with the Social Security number/card that every U.S. citizen has and for the past 30-40 years has gotten at birth. Many of us have passports which are all federally issued as well. There are some federal standards that must be followed with regards to states' drivers' licenses- most notably the Real ID Act that requires you to have two forms of government-issued identification in order to get a license and that you must surrender any still-valid driver's licenses when you get a new one. A state driver's license and a Social Security number *is* our national ID.

I am about 55/45 or 60/40 (at the most) pro.

chunky, we already have a national ID card. It's called a Social Security card - you know, that thing that says, "Not to be used for identification".

Any major financial transactions - you need it. If you are in the Armed Forces, it's your military service number. You need it to get a job.

Well, I'm not a huge fan of Social Security and the only reason we are forced to have a SS number is so the Feds can weigh taxes and feed the machine.

The Social Security card isn't by itself valid ID since there is no photo on it. However it coupled with another photo ID such as a driver's license is very much used for identification since it establishes your name/DOB, that you are a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, and most importantly that the IRS knows about you. Every time you make any account changes at a bank, apply for a job, etc. everybody has to see your physical driver's license but just asks for your SSN.

Given me my 7.2% back and let me invest it in my own future and retirement

!

The actual amount that is paid for Social Security taxes is 12.4%. You have 6.2% taken from your paycheck and your employer pays another 6.2%. That "employer match" is really just another 6.2% from your paycheck but it's taken out before you can "see" it. If you are not a waged W2 employee, you pay the full 12.4% yourself. Medicare is 1.45% from your paycheck and your employer also "matches" this. Your total payroll taxes from the Feds are thus 15.3%.

I consider it all a tax since I am under 45 and highly unlikely to see even a cent of it come back to me. I just lump it in with the ~30% federal income tax, 6% state income tax, property taxes, and other assessed taxes that consume over half of my paycheck. That's not even counting sales, use, and excise taxes, license fees, etc. My retirement plan consists of trying to save what little I have left after taxes and student loan payments in a 401(k) and working into my mid to late 70s. That may sound severe but somebody can't expect to retire at a "normal" age when they don't get to start their real job until they are 30 and have a good-sized mortgage's worth of student loans at an ~8% interest rate to try to pay off.

 

[musical marv]

No, I agree with monster. This is just another tool to further degrade state's rights. It is not neccessary.

Why are always against government intervention when it is good sometimes?

 

[MU_Engineer]

Why are always against government intervention when it is good sometimes?

We are not always against government intervention. We want the feds to be much more involved with enforcing immigration law, for example (see Arizona SB1070.) The issue is that the government has gotten to be so large that it is not really all that responsive to the electorate any more, instead usually using its massive clout to promote its own self-interest.

 

[chunkymonster]

In a country born out of Federalism, what is this recent trend to seemingly all of a sudden nationalize things that were once known and accepted to be wholly within the purview and powers of the States?

Is this desire to nationalize everything issue (gay marriage, gun control, the right to work, voter ID, etc) the influence of progressive political ideology where the Central Government is the end all be all to legislating every aspect of the States and individual citizens lives?

What's next, a national dog leash law because some progressive got angry because the neighbors dog pissed on his prize rhododendrons?

This is a bad trend and needs to be reversed.

Lastly, what's with these year or more old threads suddenly coming back to life?

 

[gropouce]

I read you all.
I admit, i don't understand every words that you said, but i don't get why it would be so bad to have a national driving license.
I don't know in details how it works for you to have this license, If someone gets arrested drunk at the wheel of his car in Vermont, is he still allowed to drive in this state?
If he has no such right, does he have the right to drive in a neighboring state?

 

[riser]

I read you all.
I admit, i don't understand every words that you said, but i don't get why it would be so bad to have a national driving license.
I don't know in details how it works for you to have this license, If someone gets arrested drunk at the wheel of his car in Vermont, is he still allowed to drive in this state?
If he has no such right, does he have the right to drive in a neighboring state?

Driving is a privilege granted, not a right. Each State sets their own laws, their own speed limits, and any requirement for driving. Each State is different and the driver license is your basic certification that you passed the required test for that State. Each State recognizes the other State's driver's license. States set the fines, the punishment, etc, for offenses. It is a State level feature and a revenue generator as each State uses those funds to repair roads and bridges.
At a national level though, the money becomes blurred. At the State level, the money drivers pay remains in the State for those roads.
Basically, it was designed for money and to generate revenue to maintain roads.

 

[MU_Engineer]

In a country born out of Federalism, what is this recent trend to seemingly all of a sudden nationalize things that were once known and accepted to be wholly within the purview and powers of the States?

Is this desire to nationalize everything issue (gay marriage, gun control, the right to work, voter ID, etc) the influence of progressive political ideology where the Central Government is the end all be all to legislating every aspect of the States and individual citizens lives?

The federal legislators love the massive amount of individual power that a big national government gives them over the former setup where the states made most of the laws. The overly religious folks and the liberals also don't like the fact that some states won't voluntarily fall in line with their ideology. High-tax, high-regulation states like California and Illinois with massive deficits hate that states like Texas and South Dakota have no state income tax and little regulation and businesses are leaving the former states to go to the latter. The bible thumpers hate that California made gay marriage legal. Etc. etc. ad nauseum. It all reeks of "we know better than you, we will force you to give up your ignorant ways in favor of our enlightened path- like it or not."

What's next, a national dog leash law because some progressive got angry because the neighbors dog pissed on his prize rhododendrons?

Don't give them any ideas...

This is a bad trend and needs to be reversed.

Absolutely...but good luck, this goes against the trend of what's been happening in the last 150 years and all of the entrenched interests that wish to see it continue (read: pretty much all of the federal government and its lackeys.)

 

[musical marv]

Well, what about you?

I am about 55/45 or 60/40 (at the most) pro.

chunky, we already have a national ID card. It's called a Social Security card - you know, that thing that says, "Not to be used for identification".

Any major financial transactions - you need it. If you are in the Armed Forces, it's your military service number. You need it to get a job.

Everywhere in the world they sometimes ask for your SS card to get proper identification.They are screwed up sometimes by stating this.Even in some countries they have photo ID on their SS cards which is really helpful. We should this in the states.