TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 8, 2012 11:15:04 GMT -5
Looks like Puerto Rico wants to become a state: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20238272Anyone know anything more about this? Also, if true, welcome to Puerto Rico! The Big East probably wants to talk to you about joining  |
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Nov 8, 2012 11:19:28 GMT -5
Would never happen until DC became a state first.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,735
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Nov 8, 2012 12:04:31 GMT -5
Would have to be approved by both houses of Congress. Highly unlikely. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,736
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Nov 8, 2012 13:28:34 GMT -5
Would have to be approved by both houses of Congress. Highly unlikely. It would first need to actually be asked for by Puerto Rico. That vote wasn't very clear cut. A majority of people were unhappy with the current status. Then statehood did win the vote of alternate status choices, but if we assume that everyone who voted "happy with current" would nto want statehood -- well, statehood wasn't a majority. So it's not even clear that PR wants statehood at this point. I believe Obama is on record that he'd support whatever PR wants -- but there would need to be a much more clear cut statehood or no vote. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Nov 8, 2012 15:21:34 GMT -5
Would have to be approved by both houses of Congress. Highly unlikely. Putting aside the points SF made (which sucks--I want a new state!), why would you think Congress would reject the application, something they've never done before? |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Nov 8, 2012 15:41:23 GMT -5
Putting aside the points SF made (which sucks--I want a new state!), why would you think Congress would reject the application, something they've never done before? Why would the Republican Party agree to 2 likely Democratic Senators? |
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Nov 8, 2012 15:45:14 GMT -5
Putting aside the points SF made (which sucks--I want a new state!), why would you think Congress would reject the application, something they've never done before? Why would the Republican Party agree to 2 likely Democratic Senators? How about an additional 'grand bargain' - Puerto Rico and DC become states, but we split up the Dakotas so that we have Northwest Dakota, Northeast Dakota, Southwest Dakota and Southeast Dakota? |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Nov 8, 2012 16:09:17 GMT -5
I think you're thinking small on the branding. Keep the names of North and South Dakota and name the two new states "Reagantonia" and "Lowtaxestown".
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Nov 8, 2012 16:34:08 GMT -5
Putting aside the points SF made (which sucks--I want a new state!), why would you think Congress would reject the application, something they've never done before? Why would the Republican Party agree to 2 likely Democratic Senators? Not only two very likely Dems in Senate every 6 years, but the entire congressional delegation in all likelihood and we're talking about a state that would have several house members, not the bare minimum. It isn't a great reason to say no, but pretty hard to say yes if you are the GOP. |
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Nov 9, 2012 15:19:44 GMT -5
Why would the Republican Party agree to 2 likely Democratic Senators? Not only two very likely Dems in Senate every 6 years, but the entire congressional delegation in all likelihood and we're talking about a state that would have several house members, not the bare minimum. It isn't a great reason to say no, but pretty hard to say yes if you are the GOP. There's just a wee bit of precedent for refusing to admit states on these grounds . |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Nov 9, 2012 16:05:07 GMT -5
Maybe we can bifurcate Missouri rather than South Dakota and have the long awaited sequel, Missouri Compromise 2 : The Gerrymandering. The Tea Party would love it.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,264
|
Post by prhoya on Nov 9, 2012 18:24:03 GMT -5
And adding my two cents here!!!!! (another P.R. rum (the best)&coke ) |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Nov 26, 2012 17:11:11 GMT -5
Changing focus slightly to DC: folks almost always talk about making DC a state (which would, of course, require amending the constitution), but I think two other alternatives are more viable:
1. amend the constitution to allow the federal district full voting representation of 1 rep and 2 sens, but don't go as far as making DC a state; or
2. exempt bona fide residents of the federal district from paying federal personal income tax like some residents of PR and Guam. The main problem with this: gov't workers and military, among others, in PR still pay federal income tax (as well as payroll tax, import/export, etc.), and that's a large portion of DC's population, so it might not be as appealing to the general population.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 26, 2012 17:24:23 GMT -5
Don't you want to pay personal income taxes in DC? Don't you want them raised even? What's wrong with you? Aren't you patriots? Why do DC residents hate America? |
|
