Lost the election? Some states petition to secede from the United States

Nov 14, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Washington Times

WASHINGTON , November 14, 2012 - You may have thought just because the election was over that the silly season was behind us.

Comments
321 - 340 of 389 Comments Last updated Nov 29, 2012
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#358
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Occupy this wrote:
<quoted text>
No kidding.
The states that secede will escape Obama's crushing debt. Obama and liberals at the State level are driving America into the ground. All their liberal BS won't benefit anyone when the money runs out - And it will run out because the producers will decide that it's not worth producing anything when the government steps in and confiscates it - Just ask Hostess what they think...Big unions are an integral part of big liberal government...they are 2 sides of the same coin.
No states will secede because those people would lose Social Security and Medicare. yes, they would avoid the massive debt and Obamacare and high taxes, but they would have to put their money where their mouths are and not take SS and Medicare. They would have to be rugged individuals who are willing to make it on their own retired. You can't have it both ways. This is the problem. The old people were voting for just them to get SS and Medicare and the young people vote for them to get welfare. Everyone votes for getting money from the government, not just the Dems. That's why Romney got the 65 and older vote. And the reason they want Obamacare ended is to put that $750 billion back into Medicare, which is also government health care and socialism. Everyone wants money from the government. Imagine states seceding and then no one in those states gets SS and Medicare. They want socialism, and they're going to have to find a way to fund SS and Medicare for the baby boomers. The real issue is a VAT or a national sales tax in order to give the tea party folks SS and Medicare. It's not anti-socialism, it's a fight over the old and the young over who gets the government money.

I am glad that they were not allowed to end SS and Medicare on everyone under 55 because it would have been so unfair to younger people, so younger people voted it down. I think you have to come up with a new big tax to fund those two programs rather than just promise to give them to only the old people and then to end it. People don't want that. And, it wouldn't have worked anyway because, like Peter Schiff says, the $120 trillion of debt in SS and Medicare is the money promised to people 55 and older, so there's no way you can tax the young to pay that money out and then not give it to the young. It can't be done, and the debt in those programs needs to be dealt with NOW, not in 20 years from now.

If it can't be paid for, it needs to come out now, not kick the can down the road for another ten years.
Crooked liberal media

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#359
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>No states will secede because those people would lose Social Security and Medicare. yes, they would avoid the massive debt and Obamacare and high taxes, but they would have to put their money where their mouths are and not take SS and Medicare. They would have to be rugged individuals who are willing to make it on their own retired. You can't have it both ways. This is the problem. The old people were voting for just them to get SS and Medicare and the young people vote for them to get welfare. Everyone votes for getting money from the government, not just the Dems. That's why Romney got the 65 and older vote. And the reason they want Obamacare ended is to put that $750 billion back into Medicare, which is also government health care and socialism. Everyone wants money from the government. Imagine states seceding and then no one in those states gets SS and Medicare. They want socialism, and they're going to have to find a way to fund SS and Medicare for the baby boomers. The real issue is a VAT or a national sales tax in order to give the tea party folks SS and Medicare. It's not anti-socialism, it's a fight over the old and the young over who gets the government money.
I am glad that they were not allowed to end SS and Medicare on everyone under 55 because it would have been so unfair to younger people, so younger people voted it down. I think you have to come up with a new big tax to fund those two programs rather than just promise to give them to only the old people and then to end it. People don't want that. And, it wouldn't have worked anyway because, like Peter Schiff says, the $120 trillion of debt in SS and Medicare is the money promised to people 55 and older, so there's no way you can tax the young to pay that money out and then not give it to the young. It can't be done, and the debt in those programs needs to be dealt with NOW, not in 20 years from now.
If it can't be paid for, it needs to come out now, not kick the can down the road for another ten years.
Where have you been? Everybody knows that there's no chance of getting your SS when the time comes.And Obama raided Medicare to the tune of a trillion dollars in order to fund Obamacare. When the time comes, you will be offered euthanasia through obamacare's end of life program instead of treatment.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#360
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Crooked liberal media wrote:
<quoted text>
Where have you been? Everybody knows that there's no chance of getting your SS when the time comes.And Obama raided Medicare to the tune of a trillion dollars in order to fund Obamacare. When the time comes, you will be offered euthanasia through obamacare's end of life program instead of treatment.
Well if you all give up SS and Medicare, you can secede, and my guess is the states that secede will come out much better off and the other states will be third world ghettos. But I do not think anyone will give up SS and Medicare. They won't do that.
Crooked liberal media

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#361
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>Well if you all give up SS and Medicare, you can secede, and my guess is the states that secede will come out much better off and the other states will be third world ghettos. But I do not think anyone will give up SS and Medicare. They won't do that.
Of course they'll give up their SS and Medicare. Since they know they can't collect on either one in the future, they may as well secede. And I agree, the states tha5 secede would be better off.
Researcher

Killeen, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#362
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

"Social Security debate in the United States"

During 2011, total benefits of $736 billion were paid out versus income (taxes and interest) of $805 billion, a $69 billion annual surplus.

References

1.^ Social Security Trustees Report 2012-Press Release-April 2012
Researcher

Killeen, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#363
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

"The 10 highest tax-producing states have all been “blue states” over the last few presidential elections. Of the 10 lowest, eight are “red.”

It’s a well-known irony that states that tend to vote Republican—the party that constantly raves about the “makers” and trolls the “takers”—generally take in more tax money than they pay out.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-gop-is-the-fo...
Researcher

Killeen, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#364
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Crooked liberal media wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they'll give up their SS and Medicare. Since they know they can't collect on either one in the future, they may as well secede. And I agree, the states tha5 secede would be better off.
Personally, I favor government's reforming both social security and Medicare as quickly as possible to insure the programs will stay strong long into the future of the U.S.

But it is counterproductive and just plain wrong to try to scare people with wild tales of all the money paid into those programs disappearing, etc. etc. etc.

That is simply not true. Yes, adjustments need to be made, the quicker the better.

Just don't lie about it.

"Social Security is structurally sound and does not require drastic changes.

"Social Security’s funding shortfall is relatively small and manageable.

"The trustees report reaffirms that Social Security is in excellent financial shape over the near term. The program will be able to pay 100 percent of promised benefits for more than three decades — until 2041.

At that point, income will be sufficient to pay only 78 percent of benefits. Measured over the next 75 years, the amount by which income will fall short of what is needed to pay benefits amounts to 0.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Many combinations of modest revenue increases and benefit reductions would remedy the projected shortfall for 75 years and beyond.[1]

"Medicare’s financial problems are much more challenging. The Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is projected to start running deficits in 2010. Current income and trust fund reserves will be sufficient to pay all hospital insurance benefits until 2019, when reserves are projected to be depleted. At that point, if policymakers do not make changes, scheduled HI income will cover 78 percent of estimated expenditures. The HI deficit will average 1.6 percent of GDP over the next 75 years.

"The Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund is always adequately financed because beneficiary premiums and general revenue contributions are set annually to cover expected costs. However, the rapid growth of program costs will place increasing pressures on both beneficiaries (to pay the premiums) and taxpayers (to provide the general revenues).

"Medicare’s long-term financing problems stem primarily from the continuing sharp rise in both public and private health care costs, not from structural problems with the program. Medicare spending is growing rapidly for the same reasons that private health spending is growing rapidly — increases in the cost and use of medical services. For several decades, increases in Medicare costs per beneficiary have mirrored the increases in costs in the health system as a whole. Between 1970 and 2006, Medicare spending for each enrollee rose by 8.7 percent annually, and private health insurance spending rose by 9.7 percent per person per year."
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#365
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Crooked liberal media wrote:
<quoted text>
Even if this is true, it's not relevant. Obama won by about 2 million votes. Most of these votes were bought. He had 10 million less voters this time too. If he hadn't bought votes using our money, then Romney would be President.
Actually, to this point, Obama is winning by more than 4.2 Million votes, and 100 Electoral votes, and he was at last count some 4 Million votes off of the 2008 total of 66 Million, and conversely Romney has surpassed the McCain 2008 58 Million vote total, but he's regressing back to just over 47% of all the votes counted.

This was not a close election, with 47% of all the votes counted, Romney stand at this point 6 points behind President Obama.

By any definition that's a considerable margin for a victory and Landslide by any understanding of American elections.

The Republicans in the House who loss seats are still the majority, however, the incoming Democrats amassed more than 500,000 more votes than their counterparts, collectively.

Redistricting last year benefited the Republicans and ensured they keep the majority in the house, not the citizens preference.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#366
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Whatever reform is worked out has to "not" include any cancelling of the debt owed to Social Security and Medicare's Trust Funds, at present, there is more than $2.6 Trillion outstanding, owed to the Social Security Trust Fund's surpluses.

The easy route to reforming social security would be to eliminate the cap and expand the tax to every category of earnings. Presently, only the Middle Class and poor contribute to Social Security and Medicare, and their employers on the employee's earnings.

Social Security has not caused any portion of the national debt to increase, the inability to do anything construction for years about the rising cost of Health Care has lead to the cost increase over the entire population for Health Care.
Researcher wrote:
<quoted text>
Personally, I favor government's reforming both social security and Medicare as quickly as possible to insure the programs will stay strong long into the future of the U.S.
But it is counterproductive and just plain wrong to try to scare people with wild tales of all the money paid into those programs disappearing, etc. etc. etc.
That is simply not true. Yes, adjustments need to be made, the quicker the better.
Just don't lie about it.
"Social Security is structurally sound and does not require drastic changes.
"Social Security’s funding shortfall is relatively small and manageable.
"The trustees report reaffirms that Social Security is in excellent financial shape over the near term. The program will be able to pay 100 percent of promised benefits for more than three decades — until 2041.
At that point, income will be sufficient to pay only 78 percent of benefits. Measured over the next 75 years, the amount by which income will fall short of what is needed to pay benefits amounts to 0.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Many combinations of modest revenue increases and benefit reductions would remedy the projected shortfall for 75 years and beyond.[1]
"Medicare’s financial problems are much more challenging. The Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is projected to start running deficits in 2010. Current income and trust fund reserves will be sufficient to pay all hospital insurance benefits until 2019, when reserves are projected to be depleted. At that point, if policymakers do not make changes, scheduled HI income will cover 78 percent of estimated expenditures. The HI deficit will average 1.6 percent of GDP over the next 75 years.
"The Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund is always adequately financed because beneficiary premiums and general revenue contributions are set annually to cover expected costs. However, the rapid growth of program costs will place increasing pressures on both beneficiaries (to pay the premiums) and taxpayers (to provide the general revenues).
"Medicare’s long-term financing problems stem primarily from the continuing sharp rise in both public and private health care costs, not from structural problems with the program. Medicare spending is growing rapidly for the same reasons that private health spending is growing rapidly — increases in the cost and use of medical services. For several decades, increases in Medicare costs per beneficiary have mirrored the increases in costs in the health system as a whole. Between 1970 and 2006, Medicare spending for each enrollee rose by 8.7 percent annually, and private health insurance spending rose by 9.7 percent per person per year."
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#367
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

States will not secede because those States are on lands that belong to the citizens of the United States of America. States are only formed in territories designated only by the U.S Congress and permitted to form on application to the U.S Congress by the sole authority of the U.S Congress.

For those unfamiliar with America, succession has been tried before in America. America is not surrendering an inch of land and there is no Army big or bad enough to take an inch of land from America.

To that point, nothing is for sale. We aren't anything like Eastern Europe, we aren't splitting any land to allow another government to erect itself.
Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>No states will secede because those people would lose Social Security and Medicare. yes, they would avoid the massive debt and Obamacare and high taxes, but they would have to put their money where their mouths are and not take SS and Medicare. They would have to be rugged individuals who are willing to make it on their own retired. You can't have it both ways. This is the problem. The old people were voting for just them to get SS and Medicare and the young people vote for them to get welfare. Everyone votes for getting money from the government, not just the Dems. That's why Romney got the 65 and older vote. And the reason they want Obamacare ended is to put that $750 billion back into Medicare, which is also government health care and socialism. Everyone wants money from the government. Imagine states seceding and then no one in those states gets SS and Medicare. They want socialism, and they're going to have to find a way to fund SS and Medicare for the baby boomers. The real issue is a VAT or a national sales tax in order to give the tea party folks SS and Medicare. It's not anti-socialism, it's a fight over the old and the young over who gets the government money.
I am glad that they were not allowed to end SS and Medicare on everyone under 55 because it would have been so unfair to younger people, so younger people voted it down. I think you have to come up with a new big tax to fund those two programs rather than just promise to give them to only the old people and then to end it. People don't want that. And, it wouldn't have worked anyway because, like Peter Schiff says, the $120 trillion of debt in SS and Medicare is the money promised to people 55 and older, so there's no way you can tax the young to pay that money out and then not give it to the young. It can't be done, and the debt in those programs needs to be dealt with NOW, not in 20 years from now.
If it can't be paid for, it needs to come out now, not kick the can down the road for another ten years.
Crooked liberal media

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#368
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Researcher wrote:
<quoted text>
Personally, I favor government's reforming both social security and Medicare as quickly as possible to insure the programs will stay strong long into the future of the U.S
Then why did you vote for Obama?

It was Romney who offered a way to save SS and Medicare. Now we'll lose them both and states will secede as a way of escaping Obama's crushing debt, communist dictatorship and death panels.
Crooked liberal media

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#369
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, to this point, Obama is winning by more than 4.2 Million votes, and 100 Electoral votes, and he was at last count some 4
These extra votes for Obama were bought with tax payer dollars too. Obama extended unemployment benefits and eliminated the work requirement. It was as effective as granting a million illegals amnesty via executive order. Obama spent trillions (long term costs) of our money to stay in power - engraving America and using our money to do it.
Crooked liberal media

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#370
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

That should read "enslaving" America and using our money to do it.... autocorrect is about as smart as your average liberal...
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#371
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

1

Crooked liberal media wrote:
<quoted text>
These extra votes for Obama were bought with tax payer dollars too. Obama extended unemployment benefits and eliminated the work requirement. It was as effective as granting a million illegals amnesty via executive order. Obama spent trillions (long term costs) of our money to stay in power - engraving America and using our money to do it.
And George Bush expanding the federal Government by 1.7 Million to ensure his 2004 Reelection was what exactly? That was about the time he signed the bill to grant illegal workers tax returns and tax credits for children they claimed as dependents.

Would that not be a better example of purchasing an election?

It was clear cut in a squeaker win as opposed to Obama wining in a landslide in 2012.

What say you?
Some Random Dude

Santa Cruz, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Crooked liberal media wrote:
That should read "enslaving" America and using our money to do it.... autocorrect is about as smart as your average liberal...
So it's at least four times as smart as you are then?

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#373
Nov 23, 2012
 
Shame they had never been in Texas, They Do not know what they had been missing
Occupy this

San Jose, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#374
Nov 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>
And George Bush expanding the federal Government by 1.7 Million to ensure his 2004 Reelection was what exactly? That was about the time he signed the bill to grant illegal workers tax returns and tax credits for children they claimed as dependents.
Would that not be a better example of purchasing an election?
It was clear cut in a squeaker win as opposed to Obama wining in a landslide in 2012.
What say you?
Bush was a closet socialist. Not as far to the left as Obama obviously, but he was a closet socialist nonetheless.

But regardless, Bush is not the topic here. Obama is. Saying that Bush is almost as bad as Obama is not an argument for Obama.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#375
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Crooked liberal media wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did you vote for Obama?
It was Romney who offered a way to save SS and Medicare. Now we'll lose them both and states will secede as a way of escaping Obama's crushing debt, communist dictatorship and death panels.
Those lies did'nt work, during the election....why would they work now?

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#376
Nov 24, 2012
 
Crooked liberal media wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did you vote for Obama?
It was Romney who offered a way to save SS and Medicare. Now we'll lose them both and states will secede as a way of escaping Obama's crushing debt, communist dictatorship and death panels.
Birther nut.

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#377
Nov 24, 2012
 
Occupy this wrote:
<quoted text>
Bush was a closet socialist. Not as far to the left as Obama obviously, but he was a closet socialist nonetheless.
But regardless, Bush is not the topic here. Obama is. Saying that Bush is almost as bad as Obama is not an argument for Obama.
Neither one is the topic. Secession is the topic. Frightwingnuts always talk about it. When are they going to back it up and get the hell out of the United States?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••