State secessions?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by bcp

You mean like repeating the actions of Regan and just letting them all stay as citizens?
That kind of doing the same thing and expecting different results,
or do you mean, continue to do nothing at all just like the politicians have been doing since Regan made the mistake.

or do you mean try something new like make it impossible for them to live here, watch them self deport while we build a wall and increase border security to keep them out unless they actually applied and come in the proper way.

You keep suggesting we do the same and expect different results, then you turn around and claim that we cant do the same and expect different results.

Make up your mind and stick with one plan. Same thing, nothing or actually try to fix the problem.

Nice try.

FACT; The GOP stands around and watches illegals swamp the country when they have the power to do something about it.

FACT; When they are out of power, the GOP gets all up in arms about illegals.

FACT; when they are in power, people who are otherwise against illegal immigration make excuses for them; it's Les Evil!

FACT; when they are out of power, those same people think it's really, really important.

Notice a pattern?

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Kook! Crazy man! What's wrong with what we've been doing, huh?

With prohibition of anything, comes black amrket for that thing.

If we say "Halt, no more people", or make it harder for them to get out of their #### home country, they will come here anyway. They will fly under the radar, and not pay taxes, and not become a functional member of society.

Honestly, I've seen more "wetbacks" work harder than most 'Mericans.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn

With prohibition of anything, comes black amrket for that thing.

If we say "Halt, no more people", or make it harder for them to get out of their #### home country, they will come here anyway. They will fly under the radar, and not pay taxes, and not become a functional member of society.

Honestly, I've seen more "wetbacks" work harder than most 'Mericans.

Some Republicans are like the guy on the Titanic, trying to keep order while mobs of people want something really bad. We have a system that simply could not handle the demand. Illegals were willing to risk their lives to get here. To work. The GOP had full control of the government for four years and didn't do dick.

Other Republicans, entrepreneurs, see opportunity and are all too happy to skirt the rules to get on with it.

George Will: Republicans must start over again - The Washington Post

Most voters already favor less punitive immigration policies than the ones angrily advocated by clenched-fist Republicans unwilling to acknowledge that immigrating — risking uncertainty for personal and family betterment — is an entrepreneurial act.

[GURPS (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn

Honestly, I've seen more "wetbacks" work harder than most 'Mericans.

I have worked in construction over the yrs with a few ........



lazy white kids from upper middle class or higher families, living in Ashburn Va, unwilling to get a JOB at McDonald's .... but you see all manor of other nationalities working their butts off


deport lazy rich white kids to Mexico

[BigBlue]

Originally Posted by GURPS

I have worked in construction over the yrs with a few ........



lazy white kids from upper middle class or higher families, living in Ashburn Va, unwilling to get a JOB at McDonald's .... but you see all manor of other nationalities working their butts off


deport lazy rich white kids to Mexico

So you don'y want the rich to pay their fair share in taxes but you want to send their kids who are lazy and do nothing to Mexico for a vacation?

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by BigBlue

So you don'y want the rich to pay their fair share in taxes but you want to send their kids who are lazy and do nothing to Mexico for a vacation?

you trying to say you pay more tax in a year than a rich guy?

I say you are seriously full of sh$t

Why dont you pay YOUR fair share.

[BigBlue]

Originally Posted by bcp

you trying to say you pay more tax in a year than a rich guy?

I say you are seriously full of sh$t

Why dont you pay YOUR fair share.

1)I never said it ,anywhere.Please learn to read.

2)No one really cares what you say,least of all me.

3)I do pay my fair share and if they go up,I'll pay them too.

[Merlin99 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

I'm okay with that. Where do I sign up?

It's not going to get you out of paying taxes or anything, you just don't get to vote anymore. Think of it as being convicted felon in Virginia.

[Tilted (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Here's a potentially sticky problem:

Say one or several states did "secede". As I understand it, the U.S. government STILL has an obligation to pay pensions and Social Security to its citizens no matter where they reside.

So what happens when they still have to pay SS to Texans, even if there are no Texans paying INTO it?

Do you suppose that the political leadership of what remains as the U.S. would choose to continue paying benefits to those people that had become citizens of (what would then be) a foreign nation and that were residing in that foreign nation? I suppose that the chances that they would would be very small - close to zero.

Likely there'd be some level of general animosity between the population of the remaining U.S. and that of the states which left. Even if there wasn't, why would the remaining U.S. choose to spend a big chunk of its revenues to pay benefits to people that (in the aggregate, at least) chose not to be part of the U.S. anymore? Especially considering the already existing fiscal problems that it would be facing? The U.S. would no longer be getting income from that population base, it certainly wouldn't want to keep providing substantial benefits to that population base.

It doesn't matter what existing law says. The U.S. would just change the law such that those people weren't entitled to Social Security or Medicare benefits. It would, legally, be free to do that. People don't have a Constitutional right to those benefits, they don't have property rights in them as they do with, e.g., some annuities. Considering the Social Security program to be a de facto pension fund as so many seem to do, I can see where they'd think there was an ethical obligation to keep paying those benefits; but I'm pretty sure that sense of obligation would be overcome by (1) the reality that the remaining U.S. couldn't afford it, (2) the fiscal self-interest of the remaining U.S., and (3) the general feeling (among many that remained) that those people chose to leave and so it's their problem, they don't want to be part the U.S. so they don't get the benefits of being part of the United States.

Originally Posted by SamSpade

Ok.

So Texas becomes a new nation - TOMORROW.

Millions of people who have paid into Social Security move there. They now receive it. Millions of federal employees move there - and receive their federal pensions - that they paid into.

But the SSA now has a MUCH DEPLETED tax base to continue to make payments. As they did before - they have an obligation to pay those who paid into it - but now they have fewer people to draw the money from.

This, of course, is the biggest weakness of Social Security - it doesn't invest the funds or in any way create anything resembling a retirement account for retirees. If it did that, it would already have enough funds to cover a future shortfall of revenue. But it doesn't, as you and I know - it pays today's checks with today's receipts.

That's because that isn't what the program is or what it was supposed to be. Social Security is a wealth redistribution program, always has been and was always supposed to be. It is a social safety net where taxes are collected presently from certain people in order to have money to pay benefits presently to certain (usually) other people. It isn't supposed to be a retirement account or pension fund.

They could have set it up as some sort of pension fund, but that would have meant that it did't go into effect as soon as it did. People would have had to pay into it for quite a while before they would become eligible to collect benefits. And each time new benefits, or new classes of beneficiaries, were added, those changes in the program couldn't have gone into effect for quite a while - people would have to have worked to pay into the program long enough for it to save money for them. People that were retiring presently wouldn't have been covered, and taking care of them was part of the goal of the program. As it is, there was no time for the program to 'get ahead' to the degree it would have needed to - it was always spending (at least most of) the revenue to pay benefits. I don't like the program, as many others I'm sure don't - but that's how it was designed and intended to work.

Originally Posted by SamSpade

I've read sites that say while you WOULD lose your military pay, you don't lose Social Security - but no references to the law.

I am doubtful, because seriously? It would suck to pay 30 to 40 years into a system - and have it all confiscated by the government. (This, by the way, is along the lines of arguments given that say illegals who have paid into SS should still receive it even if they are booted out; because they paid into it).

As much as some people don't want to think of it this way, that money was 'confiscated' by the government when it was collected as taxes. There is no 'that money', much as there is no 'that money' with regard to what was spent to pay the military, or to help with public education, or to provide Medicaid benefits to people, or to provide foreign aid. The government collects taxes, it spends the money it collects (and then some). There is no money to confiscate from individuals, as there is no money set aside or designated for individuals - there was never supposed to be. That's a hard reality that people need to come to grips with. The government kinda goes along with the idea that Social Security is some kind of pension fund and lets people think of it in that way so that they aren't quite as pissed off about having so much of their money taken from them by taxes, but the legal reality is quite different.

It sucks that the government makes me pay money to provide other people with eduction, to provide other people with health care, to provide other people with nutritional assistance, to provide retirees with income, to build things that I don't use or care about. It sucks that the government makes other people pay money to build or provide things that I do use or care about, even if they don't use or care about them. Such is the nature of societies and sovereigns. Fundamentally, the situation with Social Security and Medicare is not all that different. Government takes money from people to do things, some of those things amount to helping certain people or classes of people. People disagree as to what the government should be doing and the appropriate scale of government activity generally. Those of us that think it should be doing less have, in general, been losing for quite a while now. The Social Security and Medicare programs are just a couple (albeit quite substantial) aspects of that reality.

Okay, what was I talking about? I got a little lost there...

[JoeRider]

Hey, think about this - let Texas and Alaska go and allow DC and Puerto Rico to replace them. Then you don't have to change the flags.

Hey, why not sell Texas for 16 T to pay off the debt.