If you secede, you forfeit your SS and Medicare

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Medicare can't be paid to foreign providers. That fact is established. A scenario where we the people of the US pay social security to a whole new country of ex-Americans cannot be plausibly constructed.

 

[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?

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.

No actually it is the debt of the states because the states elect their respective representatives and the President, and all debt accumulation can be traced to their legislated policies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The Trust Fund is invested in US treasuries. Social Security has never tapped the general fund.

Social security has always paid its obligations out of Trust Fund assets or out of interest earned on those assets.

 

[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?

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.

**** court.

Spoils of war, and all that.

 

[Toro]

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.

The Trust Fund is invested in US treasuries. Social Security has never tapped the general fund.

Social security has always paid its obligations out of Trust Fund assets or out of interest earned on those assets.

Actually, the SS trust fund is not invested in Treasury securities. Treasury securities are securities issued by the Treasury. Instead, the trusts issue "nonmarketable securities" as debits to the fund.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The USA would of course permit foreigners to collect their SS and MC. It's contractual.

 

[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.

No actually it is the debt of the states because the states elect their respective representatives and the President, and all debt accumulation can be traced to their legislated policies.

That's not true. We have debated this for 40 years in Canada regarding Quebec separation, which unlike these silly petitions, is real. And in the indentures of sovereign bonds, the obligation is of the sovereign that issues the securities, not of the sub-jurisdictions.

 

[alan1]

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?

Same thing would happen in a revolution, cept the debt would be gone also.

“Every generation needs a new revolution.” ~ Thomas Jeffereson

Good ole Tom was wrong about 'every generation', but are we due?

He also said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
I'm more inclined to believe in the shedding of blood of the tyrants and hoping the patriots keep their blood.

 

[alan1]

They should also be forced to pay the US their share of the debt

Did a state develop the federal debt, or did the federal government do that?
Let's put responsibility where it should live.

 

[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.


>>>>

This thread is a fact-free zone.

"Thread?"

 

[USwings]

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.

Please don't do math, they would save 6 cents per dollar, because the 94 cents they got back included paying those benefits. That would mean 6% tax cut, same benefits.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No actually it is the debt of the states because the states elect their respective representatives and the President, and all debt accumulation can be traced to their legislated policies.

That's not true. We have debated this for 40 years in Canada regarding Quebec separation, which unlike these silly petitions, is real. And in the indentures of sovereign bonds, the obligation is of the sovereign that issues the securities, not of the sub-jurisdictions.

If Texas were to unilaterally declare its independence from the US, which it cannot do legally,

all Texans who ceased to pay federal taxes that they would otherwise owe would be committing federal crimes and/or civil violations.

 

[USwings]

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?

Current tax payers,

 

[alan1]

If Texas were to unilaterally declare its independence from the US, which it cannot do legally,

all Texans who ceased to pay federal taxes that they would otherwise owe would be committing federal crimes and/or civil violations.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmwqnqL3Hbg]Isn't that Special.mpg.FLV - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Politico]

Wow a 21 page discussion about something that won't happen lol.

 

[Photonic]

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?

Same thing would happen in a revolution, cept the debt would be gone also.

“Every generation needs a new revolution.” ~ Thomas Jeffereson

Good ole Tom was wrong about 'every generation', but are we due?

He also said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
I'm more inclined to believe in the shedding of blood of the tyrants and hoping the patriots keep their blood.

You left out a pretty key thing that keeps what Thomas Jefferson said in context.

He was talking about how the laws and government should be kept up to date with the current generation. As it is, we are ruled by an archaic set of laws that wasn't intended to apply to a modern society.

 

[alan1]

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?

Same thing would happen in a revolution, cept the debt would be gone also.

“Every generation needs a new revolution.” ~ Thomas Jeffereson

Good ole Tom was wrong about 'every generation', but are we due?

He also said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
I'm more inclined to believe in the shedding of blood of the tyrants and hoping the patriots keep their blood.

You left out a pretty key thing that keeps what Thomas Jefferson said in context.

He was talking about how the laws and government should be kept up to date with the current generation. As it is, we are ruled by an archaic set of laws that wasn't intended to apply to a modern society.

Care to quote Mr Jefferson, or am I just supposed to believe you because you said it? While you are at it, prove his quote supports what you state.

 

[Photonic]

Same thing would happen in a revolution, cept the debt would be gone also.

“Every generation needs a new revolution.” ~ Thomas Jeffereson

Good ole Tom was wrong about 'every generation', but are we due?

He also said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
I'm more inclined to believe in the shedding of blood of the tyrants and hoping the patriots keep their blood.

You left out a pretty key thing that keeps what Thomas Jefferson said in context.

He was talking about how the laws and government should be kept up to date with the current generation. As it is, we are ruled by an archaic set of laws that wasn't intended to apply to a modern society.

Care to quote Mr Jefferson, or am I just supposed to believe you because you said it? While you are at it, prove his quote supports what you state.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

James Madison: "I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that is not the guide in expounding it, there may be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers. If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense."

Sources: View Document

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18240625_lee.txt (Madison's letter to Henry Lee.)

There. He in fact advocated for a constitutional rewrite every 19 years.

 

[asterism]

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.

Is this not factual?

A citizen of Texas would send their taxes to Austin, not Washington DC.

It is always about the money.

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.

But that means the people wouldn't have to send 15% to the government anymore to fund Medicare and SS either. It's a win-win for almost everyone.

 

[asterism]

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 is not factual.

Noncitizens receiving Social Security benefits

You're ignorant.