Manchin on DC statehood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If citizens wanted to ensure they were represented re statehood, why would they chose to within the District? By opting to live there, they chose other factors above representation, which is totally fine to do and their right. Clearly representation was not an important factor in deciding where to live. It’s not like representation was taken away once the citizens settled within the District.

Why should people have to move away to get representation? If you're only thinking, "You knew there was no representation when you moved here," you're overlooking the many, many people who were born and raised here, often in families going back generations.

[Anonymous]

There are literally no moral or intellectual arguments against DC statehood. The arguments against boil down to: (1) because the status quo exists, we should not change the status quo ("you knew you wouldn't have Congressional representation when you moved here"; "you should move elsewhere if you want representation"); and (2) because DC is liberal, the Americans who live there don't deserve equal rights. There is no principle behind these positions other than naked partisanship. There is a clear principle behind the push for DC statehood, on the other hand: all Americans who pay federal taxes should be represented in Congress, which makes laws affecting those Americans and determines how those tax receipts are spent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are literally no moral or intellectual arguments against DC statehood. The arguments against boil down to: (1) because the status quo exists, we should not change the status quo ("you knew you wouldn't have Congressional representation when you moved here"; "you should move elsewhere if you want representation"); and (2) because DC is liberal, the Americans who live there don't deserve equal rights. There is no principle behind these positions other than naked partisanship. There is a clear principle behind the push for DC statehood, on the other hand: all Americans who pay federal taxes should be represented in Congress, which makes laws affecting those Americans and determines how those tax receipts are spent.

Yep. Shout it from the rooftops. Naked partisanship is the only reason to oppose DC statehood; the 'reasons' people cite to oppose it are just intellectually dishonest window dressings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If citizens wanted to ensure they were represented re statehood, why would they chose to within the District? By opting to live there, they chose other factors above representation, which is totally fine to do and their right. Clearly representation was not an important factor in deciding where to live. It’s not like representation was taken away once the citizens settled within the District.

Taxation without representation was the whole reason for the Boston Tea Party and movement to independence from the British. It's fundamentally American but we are stuck in an archaic construct.

Move.

BS. Let the people vote. Why do you want Americans who are not empowered to contribute to the management of iur country while taking their money?

But you knew this before you moved to DC? You knew the contract you were signing up for. Nothing has changed to that contract.

Born here. Generations here. Freed slaves here. Sorry, we were here before that contract.

You've had someone from your family live in the DC area before it was declared a District and partitioned from MD?? Wow... quite a family history you must have. I guess that history also indicates that representation was never a big deal to your ancestors if nobody ever moved away (all the way to like PG, Montgomery, Arlington or Alexandria counties)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If citizens wanted to ensure they were represented re statehood, why would they chose to within the District? By opting to live there, they chose other factors above representation, which is totally fine to do and their right. Clearly representation was not an important factor in deciding where to live. It’s not like representation was taken away once the citizens settled within the District.

Why should people have to move away to get representation? If you're only thinking, "You knew there was no representation when you moved here," you're overlooking the many, many people who were born and raised here, often in families going back generations.

People move all the time for political representaton purposes. Literally daily. States...Countries...Continents...I just don't think it has ever been that big of deal to anyone who chose to live there, or else you wouldn't live there in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. "Per capita"

2. DC receives more from the federal govt. than any other state or territory. We're also running a huge deficit.

Again, wrong.

There are only 5 states that receive less money that DC from the Federal government. IOW, there are 45 states that receive more than DC. DC is a net payer into the US treasury. Unlike, you know, Kentucky, Mississippi and a host of other states that are net taker states.

And no, DC is not running a huge deficit. In fact, it has had a budget surplus every year for the past 20 years, and has a AAA bond rating from all three rating agencies. Very few states can make this claim. And finally, the District of Columbia is prohibited by law of carrying a deficit.

I really don't know where you get your information, but you are just flat out wrong.

DC is tiny. It is amazing than it gets more than even 5 states!

DC residents pay more in federal taxes than 22 other states. They more than carry their weight fiscally.

What percentage of those people get a paycheck from the federal govt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. "Per capita"

2. DC receives more from the federal govt. than any other state or territory. We're also running a huge deficit.

Again, wrong.

There are only 5 states that receive less money that DC from the Federal government. IOW, there are 45 states that receive more than DC. DC is a net payer into the US treasury. Unlike, you know, Kentucky, Mississippi and a host of other states that are net taker states.

And no, DC is not running a huge deficit. In fact, it has had a budget surplus every year for the past 20 years, and has a AAA bond rating from all three rating agencies. Very few states can make this claim. And finally, the District of Columbia is prohibited by law of carrying a deficit.

I really don't know where you get your information, but you are just flat out wrong.

DC is tiny. It is amazing than it gets more than even 5 states!

DC residents pay more in federal taxes than 22 other states. They more than carry their weight fiscally.

What percentage of those people get a paycheck from the federal govt?

About 25% of employed people who live in DC work for the federal, state, county or city government. That’s the same as Alaska and they still get a congressman and two Senators. https://www.businessinsider.com/percentage-workforce-employed-by-government-every-us-state-2019-1

[Anonymous]

So people employed by state and federal governments should pay more federal taxes? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. "Per capita"

2. DC receives more from the federal govt. than any other state or territory. We're also running a huge deficit.

Again, wrong.

There are only 5 states that receive less money that DC from the Federal government. IOW, there are 45 states that receive more than DC. DC is a net payer into the US treasury. Unlike, you know, Kentucky, Mississippi and a host of other states that are net taker states.

And no, DC is not running a huge deficit. In fact, it has had a budget surplus every year for the past 20 years, and has a AAA bond rating from all three rating agencies. Very few states can make this claim. And finally, the District of Columbia is prohibited by law of carrying a deficit.

I really don't know where you get your information, but you are just flat out wrong.

DC is tiny. It is amazing than it gets more than even 5 states!

DC residents pay more in federal taxes than 22 other states. They more than carry their weight fiscally.

What percentage of those people get a paycheck from the federal govt?

About 25% of employed people who live in DC work for the federal, state, county or city government. That’s the same as Alaska and they still get a congressman and two Senators. https://www.businessinsider.com/percentage-workforce-employed-by-government-every-us-state-2019-1

I was curious re federal taxes and percent employed by federal govt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. "Per capita"

2. DC receives more from the federal govt. than any other state or territory. We're also running a huge deficit.

Again, wrong.

There are only 5 states that receive less money that DC from the Federal government. IOW, there are 45 states that receive more than DC. DC is a net payer into the US treasury. Unlike, you know, Kentucky, Mississippi and a host of other states that are net taker states.

And no, DC is not running a huge deficit. In fact, it has had a budget surplus every year for the past 20 years, and has a AAA bond rating from all three rating agencies. Very few states can make this claim. And finally, the District of Columbia is prohibited by law of carrying a deficit.

I really don't know where you get your information, but you are just flat out wrong.

DC is tiny. It is amazing than it gets more than even 5 states!

DC residents pay more in federal taxes than 22 other states. They more than carry their weight fiscally.

What percentage of those people get a paycheck from the federal govt?

Where they get their paycheck from is NOT relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If citizens wanted to ensure they were represented re statehood, why would they chose to within the District? By opting to live there, they chose other factors above representation, which is totally fine to do and their right. Clearly representation was not an important factor in deciding where to live. It’s not like representation was taken away once the citizens settled within the District.

Why should people have to move away to get representation? If you're only thinking, "You knew there was no representation when you moved here," you're overlooking the many, many people who were born and raised here, often in families going back generations.

People move all the time for political representaton purposes. Literally daily. States...Countries...Continents...I just don't think it has ever been that big of deal to anyone who chose to live there, or else you wouldn't live there in the first place.

There's ALREADY around a half million who commute into DC for work. Now you expect the 600k who live within the District to clear out and move out to the burbs as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. "Per capita"

2. DC receives more from the federal govt. than any other state or territory. We're also running a huge deficit.

Again, wrong.

There are only 5 states that receive less money that DC from the Federal government. IOW, there are 45 states that receive more than DC. DC is a net payer into the US treasury. Unlike, you know, Kentucky, Mississippi and a host of other states that are net taker states.

And no, DC is not running a huge deficit. In fact, it has had a budget surplus every year for the past 20 years, and has a AAA bond rating from all three rating agencies. Very few states can make this claim. And finally, the District of Columbia is prohibited by law of carrying a deficit.

I really don't know where you get your information, but you are just flat out wrong.

DC is tiny. It is amazing than it gets more than even 5 states!

DC residents pay more in federal taxes than 22 other states. They more than carry their weight fiscally.

What percentage of those people get a paycheck from the federal govt?

Where they get their paycheck from is NOT relevant.

really? I think it's interesting info.

[Anonymous]

But it isn't relevant as to whether DC should be a state, or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But it isn't relevant as to whether DC should be a state, or not.

PP here who was asking. I agree with you. Was just curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If citizens wanted to ensure they were represented re statehood, why would they chose to within the District? By opting to live there, they chose other factors above representation, which is totally fine to do and their right. Clearly representation was not an important factor in deciding where to live. It’s not like representation was taken away once the citizens settled within the District.

Why should people have to move away to get representation? If you're only thinking, "You knew there was no representation when you moved here," you're overlooking the many, many people who were born and raised here, often in families going back generations.

People move all the time for political representaton purposes. Literally daily. States...Countries...Continents...I just don't think it has ever been that big of deal to anyone who chose to live there, or else you wouldn't live there in the first place.

There's ALREADY around a half million who commute into DC for work. Now you expect the 600k who live within the District to clear out and move out to the burbs as well?

Or...you could put DC back into Maryland...that solves all problems. You get the representation that is so clearly desired by all the residents. Nobody has to move. And saves the the District residents from commuting. How bout that? Problem solved.