Texas driver's license to jump up to a whopping $100 or more

Bob Ward > quipped:


>>So the only way we could get my wife a checking account was with a forged
>>utility bill, about 6 weeks after we moved. -Dave
>>
>
>No, that is the way that you CHOSE to do it, but if the electric bill
>had been in her name on your first visit, all the melodrama would have
>been avoided.
>
>The fact that you chose to make things more difficult doesn't mean
>that there was no other way to do it.


I have to agree. Why bother even being married if he's going to keep
everything separate? Being roommates would save a LOT of time and
trouble.

>
> No, that is the way that you CHOSE to do it, but if the electric bill
> had been in her name on your first visit, all the melodrama would have
> been avoided.
>
> The fact that you chose to make things more difficult doesn't mean
> that there was no other way to do it.
>

OK, you missed the point, obviously. Simply opening a checking account
takes more investigation than a top secret security clearance would have
required, pre-911. This extra bull**** does NOTHING to help national
security. Illegal aliens just use the check cashing places to buy money
orders to mail home to la familia. The extra security punishes legal,
law-abiding citizens. Why should I have to put two names on a fricking
utility bill? It's not like the electric company is going to reject a check
from my wife, if she sends them one and her name isn't on the
nvoice. -Dave

Bob Ward wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:54:27 -0400, "Mike T." > wrote:
>
> >>> I don't remember the problem with your wife getting a checking
> >>> account.
> >>
> >> Yes, I'd like to hear this one. We've never had any trouble
> >> getting a checking account.
> >>
> >
> >OK, it went like this. We've always had our finances somewhat separate.
> >She earns her money, and decides what to spend it on. I earn enough money
> >that I can handle all the household stuff with money left over, so I just
> >pay all the bills (mortgage, utilities, etc.). So we keep two checking
> >accounts, and various savings accounts, etc. It's just easier for us. She
> >doesn't need to consult me before buying something, and I don't care anyway
> >(she has her own money). Plus it's easier to keep the checkbook(s)
> >balanced, as neither one of us is trying to keep track of someone else's
> >transactions.
> >
> >When we moved a couple years ago, we moved into an area where our bank (the
> >one we used for checking) had no branches or ATMs. No big deal, went online
> >to research the banks in our new state and found one that looked like it
> >would work for us. Immediately after moving, we both went to the local
> >branch to sign up for checking accounts. This was a bank neither one of us
> >had ever dealt with, and we had no accounts there.
> >
> >We had to fill out some forms, and furnish identifying documents. Those
> >documents included something showing our local address. My name was
> >"primary" on my checking account, her name was "primary" on her checking
> >account. BOTH of our names were to be listed on the checks for both
> >accounts. We were both on the signature card for both accounts. The bank
> >manager (who was trying to get the checking accounts set up) informed us
> >that a background check would need to be run, and that it might take about
> >24 hours.
> >
> >We didn't have anything to give the bank manager with my wife's name on it
> >AND her new address. The mortgage, utilities, and all else related to the
> >house were in my name. The bank manager said it shouldn't be a problem. We
> >didn't give it much more thought. My wife still had the old checking
> >account with money in it, so she kept using that, and she'd take out money
> >at grocery stores, etc., (using her old debit card) so she wouldn't get
> >dinged with the ATM fees.
> >
> >A couple weeks later, we get a phone call from the bank saying that they
> >MUST get some kind of document (utility bill or something) with my wife's
> >name and current address on it, or they'll have to close my wife's checking
> >account as her identity could not be verified per their rules. They also
> >said something about new federal regulations requiring a background check,
> >blah blah. I calmly explain that there is nothing related to our property
> >that has my wife's name on it. They wouldn't budge. We went back and forth
> >with the bank for a few weeks. It was frustrating, but we called other
> >banks and learned that they had the same rule, so switching banks wouldn't
> >have helped.
> >
> >Finally I said ****it, called up the electric company, had the service
> >switched to her name. Then had the electric company fax us a current
> >statement. Then immediately called the electric company back and had the
> >service switched back to my name.
> >
> >So the only way we could get my wife a checking account was with a forged
> >utility bill, about 6 weeks after we moved. -Dave
> >
>
> No, that is the way that you CHOSE to do it, but if the electric bill
> had been in her name on your first visit, all the melodrama would have
> been avoided.
>
> The fact that you chose to make things more difficult doesn't mean
> that there was no other way to do it.

Most people who are married wouldn't necessarily think that it would be
necessary to put any thought into whose name is on the light bill.
Generally they end up in the name of whoever has time to call around to
the various utilities; thus it is likely that they'll all be in the
name of the same person.

nate

>
> Most people who are married wouldn't necessarily think that it would be
> necessary to put any thought into whose name is on the light bill.
> Generally they end up in the name of whoever has time to call around to
> the various utilities; thus it is likely that they'll all be in the
> name of the same person.
>
> nate

Thank You! I was the one who made all the phone calls, so it was my name on
everything. -Dave

In article >,
Bill Funk > wrote:

> Without ID, it's *impossible* to determine who voted. Having ID isn't
> the complex problem it's being made out to be.

Actually, that is not so. A registered voter has an address. If
elections officials need to determine if that person voted, they can
write a letter and ask him or her. Legitimate addresses can and should
be part of an annual rolls purge by the state Registrar's office.

As far as this particular issue goes, I have been wracking my brain
trying to recall any publicized instance of such fraud, where one person
votes in place of another. I cannot find a single instance, even
searching online.

There are a lot of insinuations and allegations, mostly by those with a
particular agenda that would be advanced if the public bought into the
idea. But generally, those same agendas are advanced more fully by fraud
on the levels of which I spoke previously, rather than prejudging
individual voters as guilty of malfeasance before they even vote.

Do you know of any studies showing, or even indicating, any real adverse
effect of _individual_ voter fraud on any election? (Note: I'm not
talking about the kind of organized fraud exemplified in R. Daley's
Chicago; this kind of fraud would find it simple to avoid the
requirements of voter ID.)

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:01:06 -0500, lid wrote:

>In article >,
> Bill Funk > wrote:
>
>> Without ID, it's *impossible* to determine who voted. Having ID isn't
>> the complex problem it's being made out to be.
>
>Actually, that is not so. A registered voter has an address. If
>elections officials need to determine if that person voted, they can
>write a letter and ask him or her. Legitimate addresses can and should
>be part of an annual rolls purge by the state Registrar's office.

While it's actually possible to do that in theory, no election
committee has the funds to do so in reality. *Every* votor would need
to be checked.
>
>As far as this particular issue goes, I have been wracking my brain
>trying to recall any publicized instance of such fraud, where one person
>votes in place of another. I cannot find a single instance, even
>searching online.

Then you've never heard of Chicago, where the dead come to life to
vote, such is their partiotism? :-)
>
>There are a lot of insinuations and allegations, mostly by those with a
>particular agenda that would be advanced if the public bought into the
>idea. But generally, those same agendas are advanced more fully by fraud
>on the levels of which I spoke previously, rather than prejudging
>individual voters as guilty of malfeasance before they even vote.

And yet, a cursory inspection of votor rolls at polling places often
turns up the signatures of dead people.
One example (the first hit in a Google sea4rch on "dead people voting"
(sans quotes)):
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/206969_dead07.html
I especially liked this:
""These are not indications of fraud," said Bill Huennekens, King
County's elections supervisor."
>
>Do you know of any studies showing, or even indicating, any real adverse
>effect of _individual_ voter fraud on any election? (Note: I'm not
>talking about the kind of organized fraud exemplified in R. Daley's
>Chicago; this kind of fraud would find it simple to avoid the
>requirements of voter ID.)

How can votor fraud be considered as anything but an attempt to have
an effect on the election?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

In article >,
Bill Funk > wrote:

> Then you've never heard of Chicago, where the dead come to life to
> vote, such is their partiotism? :-)

I think I addressed that issue. In Mayor Daley's case, the poll workers
themselves were Daley loyalists, handpicked and paid well by corrupt
aldermen.

Voter ID wouldn't have had any positive effect in Chicago. Indeed, it
would have made voter manipulation even easier for the crooks. They
wouldn't have had to guess whose ballot to filter out. Only Federal
investigation and prosecution could fix that problem.

Again, corrupt attempts to fix elections have existed as long as
elections have existed. Voter ID doesn't work; it presumes that the
voter is corrupt before he even enters the polls.

It dissuades voting, further skewing election results.

It makes volunteer poll workers susceptible to corruption, since they
are given much more responsibility. Do they get extra training to
discern proper from phony ID? Who pays for that? What happens if they
allow someone through who shouldn't be allowed? Do we prosecute them for
dereliction of duty? Many poll workers are retirees. How do you suppose
the threat of prosecution would affect their willingness to serve?

The reasons to forget voter ID far outnumber any possible reasons to
adopt it.

In article >,
Bill Funk > wrote:

> How can votor fraud be considered as anything but an attempt to have
> an effect on the election?

Well, from the very link you posted is this (regarding one of the eight
disputed votes out of over 2.7 million ballots cast in that election):

<material from the PI article>

"Doris McFarland said she voted for her husband, Earl, who died Oct. 7.

"I called up the elections board and said, 'Can I do it because he
wanted me to vote?' " the Duvall woman said. "The person ... said,
'Well, who would know?' I said, 'I don't want to do anything that is
wrong.' "

Huennekens disputed that election workers would say such a thing.

McFarland said she signed her husband's name and mailed in his ballot,
along with her own. She said she had power of attorney for her
92-year-old husband, who was blind.

"If I did something that wasn't right, you can just throw that ballot
out," McFarland said last night."

</included material>

Okay, so that was one. Now we are left with seven.

<from the article>

"one of the P-I's eight cases involved an administrative error that
showed a deceased person as voting and would be corrected. In four
cases, the signatures on the ballot matched. Huennekens said officials
needed further information or could not track down enough information on
the other cases."

</included material>

The "administrative error" (probably a poll worker marking the wrong
voter) lowers Seattle's voting dead count to six.

Of those, one admits voting on behalf of his deceased wife, and another
was a widow who cast her dead husband's ballot in place of her own. The
other cases are still under investigation.

All in all, the article is talking about 8 votes in an election that
garnered over 2.7 MILLION ballots cast. Moreover, all 8 disputed votes
were cast absentee, by mail. Sorta makes voter ID kind of a moot point,
don't you think?

On top of everything else, the report itself acknowledged that
individual voter fraud was "alleged", not proven.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> "rick++" > said in misc.consumers:
>
>
>>It could backfire too. There are some areas in the SW states where you
>>lucky to find half the cars and drivers with legal registrations.
>
>
> Yeah, but that has nothing to do with cost. In most areas, wetbacks
> couldn't get licenses even if they were free.


And states shouldn't hand out licenses to at least 50% of the people
they actually do.

Thye should stop treating licenses like prizes in Cracker Jack boxes.