why are the Democrats/Congress idiots?

[Ramo]

I don't have a hard number, but I can put a lower bound on yours: 3,913,055.

Seeing as how I support PR's statehood (which I've repeated a few times already), how does that follow?

Stop pulling a Dino. State your position. How do you judge the population is small enough to justify their disenfranchisement?

I think it's fairly silly, actually.

Why?

A majority of them voted against it. Congress would make them a state if they voted for it.

That's not true. A majority of people who turned out voted against it. Since the plebiscite didn't have Congressional approval, no one really cared. That may not be the case the next time it occurs.

But DC can't be made a state; such a state would be too powerful. In the absense of that should PR get representatives in Congress?

You're pulling the same contradictory nonsense that Dan is. First you assert that DC's representative would have an inconsequential amount of power, and now you're saying that she'd be too powerful? Anyways, I wasn't arguing for statehood, so that's a strawman.

We don't want them. I don't know that MD does either. And it's fairly important that the federal government be able to control its own seat.

Eh? How does DC having a member in the House mean that the feds can't control its own seat? That doesn't make any sense. Do mp's from London or Paris hold their gov't's hostage?

Is there even another country where the capitol city in particular is denied representation in the legislature?

He used to be. In either event, the mayor of D.C. is ultimately subservient to the wishes of the congress. He has no power over them. Believe me. His hat is always in hand.

The same wouldn't be true of a senator or congresscritter. Indeed, the senators and congresscritter would be much higher positions than city mayor, somewhat of a flip from the way things are now.

As I was telling Kuci, this position's contradictory. If the powers that be anoint the member of Congress representing DC, how can this person have a disproportionate amount of power within Congress? If she's too weak to defend herself against Pelosi or Emmanuel's machinations, how does she become an uber-rep?

[Heresson]

Re: why are the Democrats/Congress idiots?

duh, they are representatives of American society

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Seeing as how I support PR's statehood (which I've repeated a few times already), how does that follow?

PR doesn't want to be a state. What do you do with a territory that cannot be a state? Do you give them representatives?

Stop pulling a Dino. State your position. How do you judge the population is small enough to justify their disenfranchisement?

I refuse to answer an idiotic question like "how small is small enough." That's a subjective judgement based on surrounding circumstances. In DC's case the nearly zero good of giving 500k additional Americans representation has to be balanced against the problem of giving the District representation, the effort of passing a Consitutional amendment (which will result in little good beyond the end of the whining), and the consideration that they are already pretty well represented unofficially.

Why?

It's an end run around the Constitution. IMO it passes muster, but it's silly that they can have a delegate that votes in committee but not in the full House.

That's not true. A majority of people who turned out voted against it. Since the plebiscite didn't have Congressional approval, no one really cared. That may not be the case the next time it occurs.

So what? The point is that Congress can't make them a state, since they don't want to be (yet). Congress is in a similar position vis-a-vis the District, albeit for different reasons. If one should be afforded representation, so should the other.

(I know you don't want them to be a state, but the solution of merging DC into MD doesn't work either, as I'll address below.)

You're pulling the same contradictory nonsense that Dan is. First you assert that DC's representative would have an inconsequential amount of power, and now you're saying that she'd be too powerful?

They'd have an inconsequential amount of power on real issues. They'd have too much power over pork.

Eh? How does DC having a member in the House mean that the feds can't control its own seat? That doesn't make any sense. Do mp's from London or Paris hold their gov't's hostage?

If DC is part of another state, the federal gov't doesn't have full control over it. That was the purpose of the clause I cited in Article 1 Section 8: the federal gov't can carve out a piece of a state and have sole jurisdiction over it. The reasons for including that clause haven't changed, and are as valid now as they were 200 years ago.

Is there even another country where the capitol city in particular is denied representation in the legislature?

There are historical reasons for that; in addition, most countries don't have quite the federal structure we do, with as much emphasis on separation of powers between the federal and state gov'ts. I suspect is most countries the federal gov't already has absolute power over the capital city. In our system they wouldn't, were it part of a state.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
PR doesn't want to be a state. What do you do with a territory that cannot be a state? Do you give them representatives?

Well, realistically, we aren't sure because we don't give them a clear cut choice. We do this BS of giving them an out by saying they can continue being as they are instead of saying pick statehood or independence.

We should forget territories. Statehood or independence (or military bases).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, realistically, we aren't sure because we don't give them a clear cut choice. We do this BS of giving them an out by saying they can continue being as they are instead of saying pick statehood or independence.

We should forget territories. Statehood or independence (or military bases).

What's wrong with their status if they like it and we like it?

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Elok

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Ramo

Where do you expect hundreds of thousands of poor black people to go to?

For most, Maryland is just a mile or two away with no perceptible change in demographics.

So you're in effect offering DC residents a choice between no Federal representation and the worst local government in the mid-atlantic region. Get real.

Hey, if Federal representation is sooooooo important to them, they can move out and help clean up PGC.

For most of the DC-representation crowd it's all about racial politics. If DC were mostly white you'd never hear a peep out of them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, realistically, we aren't sure because we don't give them a clear cut choice. We do this BS of giving them an out by saying they can continue being as they are instead of saying pick statehood or independence.

We should forget territories. Statehood or independence (or military bases).

What's wrong with their status if they like it and we like it?

We shouldn't like it dammit . None of this territory crap. Either join fully or go away .

[Kuciwalker]

I think they pay a little more than they get, so it's no skin off our nose. What's the problem?

And I don't mind having countries willingly submit to our suzerainty... it makes things simpler.

[Imran Siddiqui]

IIRC, they pay less than they get. They pay income tax to the local PR government (payroll to federal). But that's irrelevant; there is no reason for the US to have 'territories'. They should all be represented by the national legislature, or go away.

[Kuciwalker]

IRC, they pay less than they get. They pay income tax to the local PR government (payroll to federal).

Payrol tax they ought to get roughly the same as they pay, barring a huge demographic difference. I read (while looking up PR's status earlier) that they get less in Medicare than they pay. I don't know of much other transfer of money either way, so I suspect they are a slight net contributor. If so, consider it a cheap bribe for them never disagreeing with us on foreign policy.

IRC, they pay less than they get. They pay income tax to the local PR government (payroll to federal).

What do we do with Canada?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Invade, of course .

And granted this is a very pro-statehood page, but:

http://www.lulac.org/advocacy/issues/puertorico/prdebate.html

# The current "Commonwealth" system was designed to support economic subsidies to Puerto Rico which have grown to be extremely expensive. A recent study by two prominent Harvard economists found the cost of Commonwealth to be in excess of $10 billion a year. As a Commonwealth, Puerto Rico lacks the tools and flexibility to compete economically in a level-playing field with the States and foreign countries, thus perpetuating economic dependence on the U.S. Treasury. Under these circumstances, the cost of Commonwealth can only increase.

# The same study concluded that if the voters of Puerto Rico, and ultimately Congress, chose statehood, the American taxpayer would see a net reduction in Federal spending in Puerto Rico of between $2.1 and $2.7 billion, with greater savings in the future as the Puerto Rican economy fully realizes its potential as a state. Thus, a change in status potentially could save the taxpayer billions, while continuation of the current status will only result in increasing subsidies over time.

# Similarly, the General Accounting Office in 1995, using static analysis, concluded that the Treasury would see a net benefit of $50 million as a result of bringing Puerto Rican American into the Federal income tax system (they currently pay into social security and the unemployment system). As incomes on the Island were to increase as a result of a better economy, Treasury tax revenues would as well.

[Kuciwalker]

A recent study by two prominent Harvard economists found the cost of Commonwealth to be in excess of $10 billion a year.

Bull****.

the General Accounting Office in 1995, using static analysis, concluded that the Treasury would see a net benefit of $50 million as a result of bringing Puerto Rican American into the Federal income tax system

who cares about $50 million? Just check the couches at the White House and you'll find more than that.

Your source sucks

[Imran Siddiqui]

So now it's changed from 'Puerto Rico pays more than they take in' to '$50 million doesn't matter that much' .

[Kuciwalker]

Actually it's a typo:

I suspect they are a slight net contributor. If so not, consider it [whatever small amount we pay] a cheap bribe for them never disagreeing with us on foreign policy.

Fixed.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Elok: that wasn't my post you responded to...

The one I quoted in that post? Of course not. I tacked on my reference to your posts at the end, sort of an unrelated aside. Sorry for the confusion. But really, how can you think DC is represented by all the congresspeople? Or that money allocated for DC serves the interests of its residents as opposed to the interests of the Fed presence in DC? If DC had even one representative, some of the money now spent building Balsa Appreciation Centers in Oregon would be going towards stuff like...actually, it'd probably be going towards something equally useless like the stadium they're building in Anacostia for whatever braindead reason. But in theory they could use their pork on something useful.