4 ms·

It's kind of like how they started a country to escape taxes and then gave themselves the power to arrest and imprison those that don't pay taxes ... everyone k

It's kind of like how they started a country to escape taxes and then gave themselves the power to arrest and imprison those that don't pay taxes ... everyone knows how wrong what is happening is and how much it makes them look like morons to normal people ... but they have deeper pockets and patient lawyers/politicians in those pockets that will span generations if necessary until they get their way. They try a big step, and when it doesn't work, they step back and break it up into smaller steps that get them to the eventual goal. It's obvious their lobbying power is something that defies logic because we were taught how things are "supposed" to work in school. I'm curious how heartfelt blasting (totally justified btw) of these larger organizations accomplishes anything. A moment of rage doesn't stop a river. I'm not sure what does.

freehunter 15y ago
You have a few good points, but I'd like to correct the first one. America was not founded to escape taxes, it was founded (in part) because those taxes were coming from across the ocean and the money was going back across the ocean with no American voice being heard and no American benefit from being a colony.
- smokeyj 15y ago
  Now we send our money to DC and never see it again.
pinko 15y ago
"No taxation without representation" != "No taxation"
- corin_ 15y ago
  That does still leave Puerto Rico as a bit of an anomoly, though!
  - eli 15y ago
    Forget Puerto Rico -- Washington, DC pays taxes and yet has no meaningful Congressional representation and limited autonomy to pass its own laws.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      That's true. Now what do we do about it? The option that gets the most traction is DC statehood, but understandably, the overwhelming force behind DC statehood is Democrats who want to automatically get another 2 Senators out of the deal. And the whole point of the District of Columbia was to keep the federal government neutral by not putting it in any state. A more sensible alternative, which has less traction, is to reducing the District to merely encompass the core government buildings and ceding the rest to the state of Maryland, just as the parts of DC south of the Potomac were ceded to Virginia to form Arlington County. If this were done, Maryland would have to agree to it and the 23rd Amendment, which gives DC three electors in the Electoral College, would probably need to be repealed, or else the land surrounding the Capitol, White House, and Supreme Court buildings would have three electors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocessi... It's an important issue for sure, but it's a tough nut to crack and the notion of statehood means any resolution to the problem will have a direct partisan effect.
      - eli 15y ago
        The neutrality of the federal government is a nonissue. Federal buildings and parks are already outside city jurisdiction. They have their own police force and they pay no DC taxes. The founders certainly did not intend for 700,000 Americans to live without representation. Retrocession is a neat idea aside from the fact that none of the people it would affect actually want it. Statehood is the only option that makes sense. It is unfortunate that DC happens to have demographics that favor one party over the other only because it makes it hard to get things done. But it doesn't change the basic unfairness of the situation. It's not a partisan issue any more than women's suffrage is a partisan issue. There was a decent plan a few years ago to give a voting member of the House and also granting an additional member to the next state in line based on census data (conveniently a heavily Republican district in Utah, I believe). Unfortunately it fell apart when Republicans added poison pill amendements to alter gun ownership and abortion laws in the District. It was also probably unconstitutional.

freehunter 15y ago

You have a few good points, but I'd like to correct the first one. America was not founded to escape taxes, it was founded (in part) because those taxes were coming from across the ocean and the money was going back across the ocean with no American voice being heard and no American benefit from being a colony.

smokeyj 15y ago
Now we send our money to DC and never see it again.

pinko 15y ago

"No taxation without representation" != "No taxation"

corin_ 15y ago
That does still leave Puerto Rico as a bit of an anomoly, though!
- eli 15y ago
  Forget Puerto Rico -- Washington, DC pays taxes and yet has no meaningful Congressional representation and limited autonomy to pass its own laws.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    That's true. Now what do we do about it? The option that gets the most traction is DC statehood, but understandably, the overwhelming force behind DC statehood is Democrats who want to automatically get another 2 Senators out of the deal. And the whole point of the District of Columbia was to keep the federal government neutral by not putting it in any state. A more sensible alternative, which has less traction, is to reducing the District to merely encompass the core government buildings and ceding the rest to the state of Maryland, just as the parts of DC south of the Potomac were ceded to Virginia to form Arlington County. If this were done, Maryland would have to agree to it and the 23rd Amendment, which gives DC three electors in the Electoral College, would probably need to be repealed, or else the land surrounding the Capitol, White House, and Supreme Court buildings would have three electors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocessi... It's an important issue for sure, but it's a tough nut to crack and the notion of statehood means any resolution to the problem will have a direct partisan effect.
    - eli 15y ago
      The neutrality of the federal government is a nonissue. Federal buildings and parks are already outside city jurisdiction. They have their own police force and they pay no DC taxes. The founders certainly did not intend for 700,000 Americans to live without representation. Retrocession is a neat idea aside from the fact that none of the people it would affect actually want it. Statehood is the only option that makes sense. It is unfortunate that DC happens to have demographics that favor one party over the other only because it makes it hard to get things done. But it doesn't change the basic unfairness of the situation. It's not a partisan issue any more than women's suffrage is a partisan issue. There was a decent plan a few years ago to give a voting member of the House and also granting an additional member to the next state in line based on census data (conveniently a heavily Republican district in Utah, I believe). Unfortunately it fell apart when Republicans added poison pill amendements to alter gun ownership and abortion laws in the District. It was also probably unconstitutional.