If you secede, you forfeit your SS and Medicare

[Oddball]

And that citizen would lose his Medicare and Social Security no matter how much he paid into it.

Additionally, Texas is a state that gets back from Washington, in spending, about what Texans pay to Washington, in taxes.

If the state secedes, they get nothing from Washington, so Texans would still have to see their state taxes raised to make up most of the difference.

You really are dumber than dirt, aren't ya?

With no federal bureaucrat parasites leeching off of Texas' tax dollars, there'd be more money to go to projects in Texas.

The tax foundation's figure for 2005 - their latest available - is that Texas got back 94 cents in federal spending for every dollar paid in federal taxes,

so your saving is 6 cents per tax dollar. So if you raise Texas taxes 94 cents for every dollar you were paying to the federal government, you're back to even,

but, for starters, your SS and Medicare trust funds are now both at zero.

Remove the money-sucking federal bureaucracy from the equation and Texas makes out just fine.

But you're too thick to recognize the fact, so fuck it.

 

[Oddball]

And that citizen would lose his Medicare and Social Security no matter how much he paid into it.

Additionally, Texas is a state that gets back from Washington, in spending, about what Texans pay to Washington, in taxes.

If the state secedes, they get nothing from Washington, so Texans would still have to see their state taxes raised to make up most of the difference.

Their state taxes would have to be raised exactly as much as need to compensate for the federal taxes they quit paying. However, that assumes Texans all want to continue receiving the same "services" that they now receive from the government. The whole point of seceding would be to abolish these welfare programs.

All the talk of abolishing all the welfare programs is wonderful until you see the results of doing so. Dallas would soon look like Mumbai, and Houston would look like Delhi with the poor living in shanty towns with no running water or plumbing. Crime rates would go through the roof. People and businesses would start to leave, because unlike India, people here in the US are not used to seeing and dealing with that type of abject poverty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

More fear mongering. You have nothing of substance on this.

Is any of this not factual?

1. You have to be a US citizen to qualify for Medicare.

2. Medicare law prohibits paying foreign healthcare providers. If Texas, for example, seceded, it would become a foreign country.

3. If your state were to secede but you wanted to stay in the state, retain your US citizenship, and cross the border to receive your Medicare benefit now or in the future, you could do that, but,

if you retain your US citizenship you are still liable for federal income taxes.

1) It is factual....Your attempt at scaring people -most of whom are over 40- that secession would mean forfeiture of SS bennies blew up in your face, as most of us looked upon that as a fair bargain.

2) Why don't you just quit while you're behind?

I'm sorry, where did anyone prove that that citizens of a seceded state would be able to get the US government to keep sending them Social Security checks?

 

[Oddball]

Having a conversation with you is like a Martian talking to a Fungo.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You really are dumber than dirt, aren't ya?

With no federal bureaucrat parasites leeching off of Texas' tax dollars, there'd be more money to go to projects in Texas.

The tax foundation's figure for 2005 - their latest available - is that Texas got back 94 cents in federal spending for every dollar paid in federal taxes,

so your saving is 6 cents per tax dollar. So if you raise Texas taxes 94 cents for every dollar you were paying to the federal government, you're back to even,

but, for starters, your SS and Medicare trust funds are now both at zero.

Remove the money-sucking federal bureaucracy from the equation and Texas makes out just fine.

But you're too thick to recognize the fact, so fuck it.

I just told you that Texas is pretty much breaking even. You can ignore that if you want.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm sorry, where did anyone prove that that citizens of a seceded state would be able to get the US government to keep sending them Social Security checks?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6353899-post18.html


I'd refer you to this thread on a different option -->> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/263019-secession-proposed-constitutional-amendment.html


>>>>

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is any of this not factual?

1. You have to be a US citizen to qualify for Medicare.

2. Medicare law prohibits paying foreign healthcare providers. If Texas, for example, seceded, it would become a foreign country.

3. If your state were to secede but you wanted to stay in the state, retain your US citizenship, and cross the border to receive your Medicare benefit now or in the future, you could do that, but,

if you retain your US citizenship you are still liable for federal income taxes.

1) It is factual....Your attempt at scaring people -most of whom are over 40- that secession would mean forfeiture of SS bennies blew up in your face, as most of us looked upon that as a fair bargain.

2) Why don't you just quit while you're behind?

I'm sorry, where did anyone prove that that citizens of a seceded state would be able to get the US government to keep sending them Social Security checks?

I'll take that non-answer as a 'no'.

To be eligible to collect Social Security you have to be a US citizen or a legal alien. A citizen of the seceded state of Texas or whichever would be neither,

unless he somehow chose to retain his US citizenship, which would, again, mean that he'd still have to keep paying applicable US federal taxes,

which he would pay in addition to all the new Texas taxes he would have to pay.

lol, quite a deal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'll take that non-answer as a 'no'.

To be eligible to collect Social Security you have to be a US citizen or a legal alien. A citizen of the seceded state of Texas or whichever would be neither,

unless he somehow chose to retain his US citizenship, which would, again, mean that he'd still have to keep paying applicable US federal taxes,

which he would pay in addition to all the new Texas taxes he would have to pay.

lol, quite a deal.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6353899-post18.html

Not true NYC as described in the link that was posted way early in this thread.

Social Security benefits accrued during the time that a person was a citizen are still payable. If a state secedes and the individual had accrued SSN credits for time worked as a citizen, then they are still eligible to receive benefits at retirement age even if they renounce their citizenship because of past earned credits.


Not saying I agree with that, I'm saying that's the way it is. Personally, I think SS benefits ought to only be (a) deducted from citizens and be (b) payable only to citizens. If a citizen then renounces their citizeship then eligibility for the benefit ends. However what I'd like to see and what the current law is are two different things.



>>>>

 

[bripat9643]

All the talk of abolishing all the welfare programs is wonderful until you see the results of doing so. Dallas would soon look like Mumbai, and Houston would look like Delhi with the poor living in shanty towns with no running water or plumbing. Crime rates would go through the roof. People and businesses would start to leave, because unlike India, people here in the US are not used to seeing and dealing with that type of abject poverty.

Horseshit. All the lazy-assed welfare queens would simply have to get off their lazy asses and get a job. Private charity would provide for the truly needy like it did before 1964.

Your claim that crime rates would go through the roof is an insult to poor people. Apparently the only reason they aren't all out robbing liquor stores and hijacking cars is the check they get from the government.

BTW, where were all those shanty towns with no running water or plumbing before 1964? Can you post a few pics of some?

 

[auditor0007]

I'll take that non-answer as a 'no'.

To be eligible to collect Social Security you have to be a US citizen or a legal alien. A citizen of the seceded state of Texas or whichever would be neither,

unless he somehow chose to retain his US citizenship, which would, again, mean that he'd still have to keep paying applicable US federal taxes,

which he would pay in addition to all the new Texas taxes he would have to pay.

lol, quite a deal.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6353899-post18.html

Not true NYC as described in the link that was posted way early in this thread.

Social Security benefits accrued during the time that a person was a citizen are still payable. If a state secedes and the individual had accrued SSN credits for time worked as a citizen, then they are still eligible to receive benefits at retirement age even if they renounce their citizenship because of past earned credits.


Not saying I agree with that, I'm saying that's the way it is. Personally, I think SS benefits ought to only be (a) deducted from citizens and be (b) payable only to citizens. If a citizen then renounces their citizeship then eligibility for the benefit ends. However what I'd like to see and what the current law is are two different things.



>>>>

It's pretty easy to change laws.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm sorry, where did anyone prove that that citizens of a seceded state would be able to get the US government to keep sending them Social Security checks?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6353899-post18.html


I'd refer you to this thread on a different option -->> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/263019-secession-proposed-constitutional-amendment.html


>>>>

That proposal prohibits the state resident of the seceding state from dual citizenship, so any citizen of the state choosing to retain his US citizenship would effectively be not seceding; they would become a resident alien in the seceded state, and pretty much liable or eligible for everything I said in every way I said it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'm sorry, where did anyone prove that that citizens of a seceded state would be able to get the US government to keep sending them Social Security checks?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6353899-post18.html


I'd refer you to this thread on a different option -->> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/263019-secession-proposed-constitutional-amendment.html


>>>>

That proposal prohibits the state resident of the seceding state from dual citizenship, so any citizen of the state choosing to retain his US citizenship would effectively be not seceding; they would become a resident alien in the seceded state, and pretty much liable or eligible for everything I said in every way I said it.

No, what you've been saying repeatedly throughout the thread is that when a State secedes, that the citizens of the new country will no longer be eligible for Social Security.

Under current law that is not true, a person can renounce their citizenship yet retain the SS eligibility because of credits paid into the system while they were a citizen. Now there are certain requirements (such as spending 1 day per month, or 30 days in six months) to make sure the payments continue. But you premise that those individual would not be eligible for SS is incorrect.


>>>>

 

[auditor0007]

All the talk of abolishing all the welfare programs is wonderful until you see the results of doing so. Dallas would soon look like Mumbai, and Houston would look like Delhi with the poor living in shanty towns with no running water or plumbing. Crime rates would go through the roof. People and businesses would start to leave, because unlike India, people here in the US are not used to seeing and dealing with that type of abject poverty.

Horseshit. All the lazy-assed welfare queens would simply have to get off their lazy asses and get a job. Private charity would provide for the truly needy like it did before 1964.

Your claim that crime rates would go through the roof is an insult to poor people. Apparently the only reason they aren't all out robbing liquor stores and hijacking cars is the check they get from the government.

BTW, where were all those shanty towns with no running water or plumbing before 1964? Can you post a few pics of some?

Hoovervilles

 

[grunt11b]

Noone is seceding, it is constitutionally impossible. It's a dead issue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'll take that non-answer as a 'no'.

To be eligible to collect Social Security you have to be a US citizen or a legal alien. A citizen of the seceded state of Texas or whichever would be neither,

unless he somehow chose to retain his US citizenship, which would, again, mean that he'd still have to keep paying applicable US federal taxes,

which he would pay in addition to all the new Texas taxes he would have to pay.

lol, quite a deal.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6353899-post18.html

Not true NYC as described in the link that was posted way early in this thread.

Social Security benefits accrued during the time that a person was a citizen are still payable. If a state secedes and the individual had accrued SSN credits for time worked as a citizen, then they are still eligible to receive benefits at retirement age even if they renounce their citizenship because of past earned credits.


Not saying I agree with that, I'm saying that's the way it is. Personally, I think SS benefits ought to only be (a) deducted from citizens and be (b) payable only to citizens. If a citizen then renounces their citizeship then eligibility for the benefit ends. However what I'd like to see and what the current law is are two different things.



>>>>

You're assuming, quite wrongly, that secession of Texas was accepted and agreed to as legitimate and lawful by the United States Government.

I think we had that discussion a hundred and fifty years ago.

 

[NYcarbineer]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/6353899-post18.html


I'd refer you to this thread on a different option -->> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/263019-secession-proposed-constitutional-amendment.html


>>>>

That proposal prohibits the state resident of the seceding state from dual citizenship, so any citizen of the state choosing to retain his US citizenship would effectively be not seceding; they would become a resident alien in the seceded state, and pretty much liable or eligible for everything I said in every way I said it.

No, what you've been saying repeatedly throughout the thread is that when a State secedes, that the citizens of the new country will no longer be eligible for Social Security.

Under current law that is not true, a person can renounce their citizenship yet retain the SS eligibility because of credits paid into the system while they were a citizen. Now there are certain requirements (such as spending 1 day per month, or 30 days in six months) to make sure the payments continue. But you premise that those individual would not be eligible for SS is incorrect.


>>>>

Under current law a state can't secede. If an entire state declares itself in insurrection, under what principle would the US be in any way obligated to keep sending the insurrectionists money???

 

[bripat9643]

All the talk of abolishing all the welfare programs is wonderful until you see the results of doing so. Dallas would soon look like Mumbai, and Houston would look like Delhi with the poor living in shanty towns with no running water or plumbing. Crime rates would go through the roof. People and businesses would start to leave, because unlike India, people here in the US are not used to seeing and dealing with that type of abject poverty.

Horseshit. All the lazy-assed welfare queens would simply have to get off their lazy asses and get a job. Private charity would provide for the truly needy like it did before 1964.

Your claim that crime rates would go through the roof is an insult to poor people. Apparently the only reason they aren't all out robbing liquor stores and hijacking cars is the check they get from the government.

BTW, where were all those shanty towns with no running water or plumbing before 1964? Can you post a few pics of some?

Hoovervilles

Sorry. Those existed for a brief period during the reign of a Democrat. They weren't a permanent feature of this country at any time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Noone is seceding, it is constitutionally impossible. It's a dead issue.

It's even currently unconstitutional in the case of Texas, by their own constitution:

Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.

So they would have to start by amending their own constitution. That would require a 2/3rds vote of the Legislature, and a majority vote of the voters of Texas.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Nobody is seceding so this whole conversation is a complete waste of time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That proposal prohibits the state resident of the seceding state from dual citizenship, so any citizen of the state choosing to retain his US citizenship would effectively be not seceding; they would become a resident alien in the seceded state, and pretty much liable or eligible for everything I said in every way I said it.

No, what you've been saying repeatedly throughout the thread is that when a State secedes, that the citizens of the new country will no longer be eligible for Social Security.

Under current law that is not true, a person can renounce their citizenship yet retain the SS eligibility because of credits paid into the system while they were a citizen. Now there are certain requirements (such as spending 1 day per month, or 30 days in six months) to make sure the payments continue. But you premise that those individual would not be eligible for SS is incorrect.


>>>>

Under current law a state can't secede. If an entire state declares itself in insurrection, under what principle would the US be in any way obligated to keep sending the insurrectionists money???

Correct, states cannot unilaterally ‘seceded’ from the Union, and even if a state were to ‘secede,’ it’s unlikely that would be construed to constitute expatriation on the part of every resident of the ‘departed’ state.

Indeed, per Texas v. White, Texas and the other states of the ‘confederacy’ remained states in the United States throughout the Civil War, the act of the states’ legislatures rendered null and void. There was therefore never a ‘confederate states’ of America, the Union was never divided, and the American Civil War was indeed a civil war.

Given these facts, the accuracy of the OP’s premise is cast in doubt – as the residents of the departed state would remain US citizens, whether they like it or not, whether they acknowledge it or not. It’s unknown what the SSA might do, it may suspend payments until the issue is reviewed by the courts. It may continue payments to the residents in accordance with Texas v. White.

Needless to say the Supreme Court would never allow secession, invalidating the state’s measure authorizing it and enjoining the state from taking adverse action against Federal assets. The Texas National Guard would be likely nationalized by the president (an interesting and ironic aspect of the story in of itself), and state officials at war with the Constitution likely taken onto custody.

Although the OP may not be correct with regard to SSA benefits, he is correct that any act of ‘secession’ would be ignored by the Federal government, resulting in a number of unpleasant consequences for state officials and private citizens, likely perceived to be in revolt.