If you secede, you forfeit your SS and Medicare

[TakeAStepBack]

Sign me up!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Every nickel everyone in that state has paid in, and might expect to benefit from some day,

would be gone.

Did you factor that into your calculations?

No I think Lawyers would argue that Succeeding states have a right to their share of SS, and MC considering they did pay in to them.

The Idea of succession would bring up all sorts of Legal battles over the Finances alone. Does the rest of the country deserve compensation for the Resources the states that leave take with them? What about the Succeeding states share of our National Debt? Then there is the question of SS, and MC. All these things would theoretically end up being argued in court if Succession were to happen non-Violently.

Which of course will not happen.

I think the lawyers would first be too busy arguing whether secession was illegal and an act of treason as defined by the Constitution before they broached the subject of financial separation. I wonder if these secession idiots understand that by pushing to secede, they are categorically rejecting the United States, it's Constitution as well as the idea behind the Pledge of Allegiance which specifically says "indivisible" right after the word "God"..... everything the whiney crybaby conservatives hold sacrosanct.

It's not treason per the constitution. It was treason per Dishonest Abe.

 

[JWBooth]

Every federal office, installation, etc., in your state disappears. Every resident of your state holding a federal job is suddenly unemployed.

This is supposed to be a downside argument?

When's the last time you went to a Federal building?

Hmmmmmm.......
I know I was called to federal court jury duty back in the 90's...

 

[JWBooth]

No I think Lawyers would argue that Succeeding states have a right to their share of SS, and MC considering they did pay in to them.

The Idea of succession would bring up all sorts of Legal battles over the Finances alone. Does the rest of the country deserve compensation for the Resources the states that leave take with them? What about the Succeeding states share of our National Debt? Then there is the question of SS, and MC. All these things would theoretically end up being argued in court if Succession were to happen non-Violently.

Which of course will not happen.

I think the lawyers would first be too busy arguing whether secession was illegal and an act of treason as defined by the Constitution before they broached the subject of financial separation. I wonder if these secession idiots understand that by pushing to secede, they are categorically rejecting the United States, it's Constitution as well as the idea behind the Pledge of Allegiance which specifically says "indivisible" right after the word "God"..... everything the whiney crybaby conservatives hold sacrosanct.

It's not treason per the constitution. It was treason per Dishonest Abe.

After years of reading the document, I still cannot find the Once-in-never-out clause in the thing.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

This is supposed to be a downside argument?

When's the last time you went to a Federal building?

Hmmmmmm.......
I know I was called to federal court jury duty back in the 90's...

Exactly. My ATM sells stamps plus ther's a UPS store by my house.

 

[WillowTree]

If we secede we forefit the right to send taxes to DC. Oh the horror.

 

[eflatminor]

I wonder if these secession idiots understand that by pushing to secede, they are categorically rejecting the United States, it's Constitution ...

The Progressive central planners long ago rejected the Constitution. But I understand, you know what's best for everyone else...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's because it isn't there. That was Abe Lincoln's token policy. To take voluntary unity and turn it into despotic, choiceless unity....via violent conflict.

He wanted to fuck them up for unity. Because he needed those states tax revenue.

 

[occupied]

...we've outlawed forced labor in this country for close to a hundred years, ...

Not exactly. Tell me, how is government forcing some people to labor for the benefit of other people not slavery?

LOL what a silly attempt at diversion, there will still be taxes in the new confederacy only there they will make you pick cotton if you do not pay them.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

...we've outlawed forced labor in this country for close to a hundred years, ...

Not exactly. Tell me, how is government forcing some people to labor for the benefit of other people not slavery?

LOL what a silly attempt at diversion, there will still be taxes in the new confederacy only there they will make you pick cotton if you do not pay them.

This dude understands history and economics.

 

[eflatminor]

...we've outlawed forced labor in this country for close to a hundred years, ...

Not exactly. Tell me, how is government forcing some people to labor for the benefit of other people not slavery?

LOL what a silly attempt at diversion, there will still be taxes in the new confederacy only there they will make you pick cotton if you do not pay them.

What was that you said about diversion?

If you really think those of us fed up with government meddling are really just hoping to bring back slavery, well, that's just sad.

Regardless, let me ask you again. What do you call it when government forces some people to labor on the behalf of others?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

They call it "public good".

 

[JWBooth]

...we've outlawed forced labor in this country for close to a hundred years, ...

Not exactly. Tell me, how is government forcing some people to labor for the benefit of other people not slavery?

LOL what a silly attempt at diversion, there will still be taxes in the new confederacy only there they will make you pick cotton if you do not pay them.

Your knowledge of Ag economics isn't very up to date is it?

 

[occupied]

Not exactly. Tell me, how is government forcing some people to labor for the benefit of other people not slavery?

LOL what a silly attempt at diversion, there will still be taxes in the new confederacy only there they will make you pick cotton if you do not pay them.

What was that you said about diversion?

If you really think those of us fed up with government meddling are really just hoping to bring back slavery, well, that's just sad.

Regardless, let me ask you again. What do you call it when government forces some people to labor on the behalf of others?

I don't know, I am assuming you are simplistically equating taxation with slavery, why don't you consult your Beck-a-pedia for a silly answer to your meaningless question?

 

[sfcalifornia]

No one who has ever thought it would be a good idea has ever thought it through or even considered that there may be a few drawbacks. They just secede re-enslave the black folks and before long they are all Kentucky colonels sipping mint julips on the porches of their vast plantation estates.

Every federal office, installation, etc., in your state disappears. Every resident of your state holding a federal job is suddenly unemployed.

This is supposed to be a downside argument?

Yeah and it gets worse.

Farmers, corporations, small businesses, universities, law enforcement would crumble without federal aid. The federal government would halt all grants, contracts, matching funds and tax breaks.

The US would impose sanctions on the recalcitrant states: power grids, pipelines, shipping lanes, satellite and internet communications would be blocked. Without federal regulations on food safety, clean water, clean air and without the Center for Disease Control, rampant disease would spread. Inflation on medicines would skyrocket as the demand increased. Black markets would spring up in every town.

The individual states economies aren't capable of competing in the global market. Eventually, the states which seceded would be reduced to third world status. The good news is China, which has been known to support rogue countries over the years, would probably continue to stock the shelves of the Walmarts with all their cheap crap....... although the seceded state's debt to China would then quadruple from what it is now.....

 

[jasonnfree]

No one who has ever thought it would be a good idea has ever thought it through or even considered that there may be a few drawbacks. They just secede re-enslave the black folks and before long they are all Kentucky colonels sipping mint julips on the porches of their vast plantation estates.

Every federal office, installation, etc., in your state disappears. Every resident of your state holding a federal job is suddenly unemployed.

Keep this up and they won't want to secede.

 

[eflatminor]

They call it "public good".

Same excuse Southern Democrats used to justify slavery back in the day. Oh the irony.

 

[eflatminor]

I don't know

Clearly.

 

[sfcalifornia]

No I think Lawyers would argue that Succeeding states have a right to their share of SS, and MC considering they did pay in to them.

The Idea of succession would bring up all sorts of Legal battles over the Finances alone. Does the rest of the country deserve compensation for the Resources the states that leave take with them? What about the Succeeding states share of our National Debt? Then there is the question of SS, and MC. All these things would theoretically end up being argued in court if Succession were to happen non-Violently.

Which of course will not happen.

I think the lawyers would first be too busy arguing whether secession was illegal and an act of treason as defined by the Constitution before they broached the subject of financial separation. I wonder if these secession idiots understand that by pushing to secede, they are categorically rejecting the United States, it's Constitution as well as the idea behind the Pledge of Allegiance which specifically says "indivisible" right after the word "God"..... everything the whiney crybaby conservatives hold sacrosanct.

It's not treason per the constitution. It was treason per Dishonest Abe.

It was treason per the Supreme Court in Texas v. White.

 

[Oddball]

Every federal office, installation, etc., in your state disappears. Every resident of your state holding a federal job is suddenly unemployed.

This is supposed to be a downside argument?

Yeah and it gets worse.

Farmers, corporations, small businesses, universities, law enforcement would crumble without federal aid. The federal government would halt all grants, contracts, matching funds and tax breaks.

The US would impose sanctions on the recalcitrant states: power grids, pipelines, shipping lanes, satellite and internet communications would be blocked. Without federal regulations on food safety, clean water, clean air and without the Center for Disease Control, rampant disease would spread. Inflation on medicines would skyrocket as the demand increased. Black markets would spring up in every town.

The individual states economies aren't capable of competing in the global market. Eventually, the states which seceded would be reduced to third world status. The good news is China, which has been known to support rogue countries over the years, would probably continue to stock the shelves of the Walmarts with all their cheap crap....... although the seceded states debt to China would then quadruple from what it is now.....

I don't whether to laugh uproariously or be scared to death that you actually believe all that crap.