If you secede, you forfeit your SS and Medicare

[boedicca]

Most of us aren't going to get a positive return on our SS and Medicare taxes anyhoo, so the threat of loss is moot.

And if illegal aliens can come here and opt into SS, and then move out of country and still receive SS payments, then secession shouldn't remove the obligation of the US Gubmint to continue to pay to anyone who has paid taxes and qualifies as an individual.

 

[Mustang]

Come on, people. You don't have to worry about secession. Know why? Because once the initial period of shock of Obama's reelection is over, conservatives will turn their focus to trying to convince anyone who will listen (and that will primarily be each other) that Obama deserves to be impeached.

I wonder how many voters that will win over for conservatives when all their other arguments failed. My guess? It will just do more to solidify the view of other voting blocks that conservatives don't share their values.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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???

Under current law a state can't secede.

Incorrect.

Under current law a State cannot summarily seceded of it's own violation, however a State can secede in the same manner that new States are admitted. A State brings to Congress a petition to withdraw from the Union. Then, just as States are admitted by acceptance by Congress, States can depart by acceptance of Congress.

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."​

74 us 700 - Google Scholar

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???

Just because a State arbitrarily (as in without the consent of the other States) places itself in a State of insurrection does not mean that that State is therefore not still a State of the Union and it's inhabitants not citizens of the United States.

"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion."​

74 us 700 - Google Scholar


*******************************

Therefore to return to the original point which you said, that those who inhabit the State which attempted to unilaterally secede from the union, that all those people would loose Social Security you are incorrect either way you look at it.

1. If the inhabitants are considered at the point of secession to be non-citizens, relinquishing citizenship in the United States, then under current law the inhabitants WOULD eligible if they meet other eligibility criteria (as in worked enough quarters to qualify and were of sufficient age) based on work performed in the past to qualify.

2. The second reason you are wrong is that if a State were to unilaterally attempt to seceded from the Union, such articles as may have been enacted by the State government to facilitate such a withdrawal from the Union are null and void and that State never did in fact withdraw from the Union. As a result, the citizens of that State retained in full operation their citizenship in the United States.​

>>>>

 

[NYcarbineer]

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???

Under current law a state can't secede.

Incorrect.

Under current law a State cannot summarily seceded of it's own violation, however a State can secede in the same manner that new States are admitted. A State brings to Congress a petition to withdraw from the Union. Then, just as States are admitted by acceptance by Congress, States can depart by acceptance of Congress.

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States."​

74 us 700 - Google Scholar

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???

Just because a State arbitrarily (as in without the consent of the other States) places itself in a State of insurrection does not mean that that State is therefore not still a State of the Union and it's inhabitants not citizens of the United States.

"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion."​

74 us 700 - Google Scholar


*******************************

Therefore to return to the original point which you said, that those who inhabit the State which attempted to unilaterally secede from the union, that all those people would loose Social Security you are incorrect either way you look at it.

1. If the inhabitants are considered at the point of secession to be non-citizens, relinquishing citizenship in the United States, then under current law the inhabitants WOULD eligible if they meet other eligibility criteria (as in worked enough quarters to qualify and were of sufficient age) based on work performed in the past to qualify.

2. The second reason you are wrong is that if a State were to unilaterally attempt to seceded from the Union, such articles as may have been enacted by the State government to facilitate such a withdrawal from the Union are null and void and that State never did in fact withdraw from the Union. As a result, the citizens of that State retained in full operation their citizenship in the United States.​

>>>>

Well, sure if you invent a big set of conditions under which the secession occurs you can concoct a scenario that supports your assertion. That hardly makes me comprehensively wrong.

Do you really think that if, say, Texas seceded that all of its businesses, including the state itself, would continue to withhold US federal taxes from paychecks and continue to send that money to the Treasury/IRS wherever in Washington it goes???

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well, sure if you invent a big set of conditions under which the secession occurs you can concoct a scenario that supports your assertion

Not a big set of conditions: either they get permission from the other states or not. Pretty simple.

And it's not "my assertion" it was settled 150 years ago.

That hardly makes me comprehensively wrong.

You were comprehensively wrong about those who loose their citizenship loose their Social Security. On that you were fundamentally wrong.

Do you really think that if, say, Texas seceded that all of its businesses, including the state itself, would continue to withhold US federal taxes from paychecks and continue to send that money to the Treasury/IRS wherever in Washington it goes???

Different issue. Different goal post.

One is the State and businesses in the State and the other is the obligation of the United States to it's citizens under the law.


**************************

As I said before, what "I" think the way it ought to work is and the way it does work are not necessarily the same things. Thats reality.

>>>>

 

[driveby]

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?

It's already gone, dickless wonders like you should be more worried about when China will stop funding your entitlements.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most of us aren't going to get a positive return on our SS and Medicare taxes anyhoo, so the threat of loss is moot.

And if illegal aliens can come here and opt into SS, and then move out of country and still receive SS payments, then secession shouldn't remove the obligation of the US Gubmint to continue to pay to anyone who has paid taxes and qualifies as an individual.

So the difference between getting zero and getting an SS payment plus thousands in medical insurance is nothing.

Good one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

It's already gone, dickless wonders like you should be more worried about when China will stop funding your entitlements.....

Then don't claim any of it when it's your turn.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

Stop with the ******* lie that there is a 'trust fund', it doesn't exist except as a fantasy of your deluded mind.

 

[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.

Stop with the ******* lie that there is a 'trust fund', it doesn't exist except as a fantasy of your deluded mind.

When did SS stop sending out checks? Where is that money coming from?

 

[bripat9643]

When did SS stop sending out checks? Where is that money coming from?

It comes from the general fund, numskull. Obama admitted as much when he said SS checks would stop if the Republicans didn't approve an increase in the debt ceiling.

Believing in the trust fund is the mark of a true idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

ROFL! That is the most obvious piece of political hackery the Court ever produced. Five of the judges on the court at the time were appointed by Lincoln. What are the odds that they were going to vote that the states have a right to secede?

If the states remained states of the United States, then why did they have to reapply for admission to the union? Why didn't they have representation in Congress until after they were readmitted? They claim that they remained states of the union is laughable. That decision is a joke and anyone who cites it is simply a hack and a demagogue.

 

[eflatminor]

Where is that money coming from?

IOUs on those yet to be born. Suckers.

 

[Freewill]

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?

Who says? What if you retire and move to Mexico, does that mean that the federal government has the right to steal what is yours? In this day an age I would guess the answer is yes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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?

Who says? What if you retire and move to Mexico, does that mean that the federal government has the right to steal what is yours? In this day an age I would guess the answer is yes.

Read the link in Post #18.

To answer your question, if someone retires and moves to Mexico then will Social Security payments be made? Yes. However, there is a requirement that you return to the states periodically, which shows that you are alive, but yes you can retire to another country and still draw SS.


>>>>

 

[df_tweets]

...and you think they will secede for real??

 

[Toro]

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?

Sure, why not.

But Texas wouldn't be stuck with the federal debt. The debt is the debt of the federal government of the United States. It is not the debt of the states.

 

[Toro]

If you're in the seceding state and 60+ years old, you're probably already getting it. The checks would stop, immediately.

There's your privatization of Medicare and Social Security, in its purest form. lol

Unless this is a wishful thinking thread, that is not true. Payments can continue after an individual renounces their citizenship indefinitely.

Social Security Publications


Just say'n.


>>>>

My parents are not Americans but because they lived and worked in the States, they receive a monthly check from the US government.

Having said that, there's nothing stopping the federal government from passing a law saying that all residents of a seceding state forfeit their SS and Medicare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hardly the case.

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?

 

[USwings]

If Texas secedes, the US military will remove itself from Texas. Those Texans in the military who support the secession will no longer be in the US military. They will be unemployed, with no unemployment check.

The US military has bases in dozens of foreign countries and we will certainly allow them to continue to operate in the state of Texas

We are defending other countries, not that I agree with that. Our bases in Texas are domestic bases. They wouldn't be if Texas secedes.

Although that brings up the issue of federal lands within a state that wants to secede...

Too funny, I literally laughed out loud.