Anyone think we might be better off without Home Rule in DC?

[Anonymous]

I’m super liberal but if offered a tax haven status I’d give up Home Rule in a second. Would hope clean streets and corruptless government would be part of the package.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:furlough his brow

love it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:furlough his brow

love it

Phone autocorrect. It’s true though he would shrug and keep implementing progressive bullsht policy while residents of his neighborhood keep getting their rims stolen, their houses paint-balled, the leaves under their cars lit on fire, and generally the violent assaults on a more frequent basis. You can hyperfocus on the important stuff like semantics.

I too would take a tax haven status if that was an option. Liberals have proven they can’t govern for sht. They can give away money and wring their hands over every perceived social injustice, and loudly proclaim that through performative wokeness and Twitter posts, but really it’s incompetence all the way down. Peace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m super liberal but if offered a tax haven status I’d give up Home Rule in a second. Would hope clean streets and corruptless government would be part of the package.

Taxation without representation.
This is what the original Boston Tea Party was all about.

Pick one. Either give us representation or waive federal taxes for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m super liberal but if offered a tax haven status I’d give up Home Rule in a second. Would hope clean streets and corruptless government would be part of the package.

Taxation without representation.
This is what the original Boston Tea Party was all about.

Pick one. Either give us representation or waive federal taxes for us.

I’d accept this as an alternative. No taxation for those of us without representation. (The territories can come too.)

[Anonymous]

Absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Absurd.

What's absurd? Taxation without Representation was the rallying cry that led to the creation of these United States. It's intrinsically American to demand representation in exchange for taxation. Nothing at all absurd about it. It's already bad enough not having representation. Eliminating home rule and local government would be a step even farther away from that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m super liberal but if offered a tax haven status I’d give up Home Rule in a second. Would hope clean streets and corruptless government would be part of the package.

Taxation without representation.
This is what the original Boston Tea Party was all about.

Pick one. Either give us representation or waive federal taxes for us.

I’d accept this as an alternative. No taxation for those of us without representation. (The territories can come too.)

Then the Congress will just send the residential parts of DC back to Maryland. Then you’ll have representation. Problem solved. Or is it not really about representation?

I will happily accept two additional democratic senators, which is what this is really about. It’s politics, you need to reframe it in a way the GOP would accept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. DC should become a state. It has more people than several states.

And we pay more in federal taxes than the bottom 22 states. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. We should be a state and have a say. Either that or you can waive federal tax and repay me a whole heap of wrongfully collected taxes.

No, you pay the same tax rates. DC is just wealthier than other states so total collections are higher. You also receive more federal benefits—higher Medicaid match, TAG, and judiciary. This is not the strongest argument.

If you want the GOP on board, highlight savings to federal government from DC assuming the cost of those programs.

Yes, we have higher income because there are for example more advanced degrees per capita than there are in those bottom 22 states. DC is full of hard working professionals, entrepreneurs, world-renowned experts. DC has a high cost of living, which in turn needs to be met with appropriate wages. You want to blame things like Medicaid yet that's not entirely valid, DC medicaid is on par with red states like Alaska and South Dakota but at least we more than pay for ours, as opposed to the 22 states who pay less per capita but who also take much in terms of federal dollars. Most of those 22 are red states.

Your argument isn't a strong one. The GOP needs to get itself on board with REALITY.

You’re basically saying wealthier people deserve representation more than poorer people. I suppose that’s reality considering who Congress actually works for, but it’s a bad argument. Focus on what other (red) states get out of the deal. They will celebrate lower funding for DC. Could even frame that you’re reducing funding for DC relative to other states instead of just eliminating DC’s special privileges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m super liberal but if offered a tax haven status I’d give up Home Rule in a second. Would hope clean streets and corruptless government would be part of the package.

Taxation without representation.
This is what the original Boston Tea Party was all about.

Pick one. Either give us representation or waive federal taxes for us.

I’d accept this as an alternative. No taxation for those of us without representation. (The territories can come too.)

Then the Congress will just send the residential parts of DC back to Maryland. Then you’ll have representation. Problem solved. Or is it not really about representation?

I will happily accept two additional democratic senators, which is what this is really about. It’s politics, you need to reframe it in a way the GOP would accept.

Maryland doesn’t want them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m super liberal but if offered a tax haven status I’d give up Home Rule in a second. Would hope clean streets and corruptless government would be part of the package.

Taxation without representation.
This is what the original Boston Tea Party was all about.

Pick one. Either give us representation or waive federal taxes for us.

You have a vote at the federal level. You vote for president same as every other citizen. You are a city, and you have city representation in your D.C. city council. Where is this taxation your taxation without representation? Do you mean you want to add 2 more D senators and send more Ds to congress for political purposes? Yes, I suspect that is the gist of your argument. Be honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m super liberal but if offered a tax haven status I’d give up Home Rule in a second. Would hope clean streets and corruptless government would be part of the package.

Taxation without representation.
This is what the original Boston Tea Party was all about.

Pick one. Either give us representation or waive federal taxes for us.

You have a vote at the federal level. You vote for president same as every other citizen. You are a city, and you have city representation in your D.C. city council. Where is this taxation your taxation without representation? Do you mean you want to add 2 more D senators and send more Ds to congress for political purposes? Yes, I suspect that is the gist of your argument. Be honest.

You forgot Eleanor Holmes Norton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m super liberal but if offered a tax haven status I’d give up Home Rule in a second. Would hope clean streets and corruptless government would be part of the package.

Taxation without representation.
This is what the original Boston Tea Party was all about.

Pick one. Either give us representation or waive federal taxes for us.

You have a vote at the federal level. You vote for president same as every other citizen. You are a city, and you have city representation in your D.C. city council. Where is this taxation your taxation without representation? Do you mean you want to add 2 more D senators and send more Ds to congress for political purposes? Yes, I suspect that is the gist of your argument. Be honest.

You forgot Eleanor Holmes Norton.

You're right, I did completely forget. One more person for representation for the people who claim they are taxed without representation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m super liberal but if offered a tax haven status I’d give up Home Rule in a second. Would hope clean streets and corruptless government would be part of the package.

Taxation without representation.
This is what the original Boston Tea Party was all about.

Pick one. Either give us representation or waive federal taxes for us.

You have a vote at the federal level. You vote for president same as every other citizen. You are a city, and you have city representation in your D.C. city council. Where is this taxation your taxation without representation? Do you mean you want to add 2 more D senators and send more Ds to congress for political purposes? Yes, I suspect that is the gist of your argument. Be honest.

This is such a disingenuous argument. People who live in DC DGAF about the power balance in sending two Dem senators to congress. They just want the representation. Party politics should not stop people from getting representation for how their tax dollars are spent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m super liberal but if offered a tax haven status I’d give up Home Rule in a second. Would hope clean streets and corruptless government would be part of the package.

Taxation without representation.
This is what the original Boston Tea Party was all about.

Pick one. Either give us representation or waive federal taxes for us.

You have a vote at the federal level. You vote for president same as every other citizen. You are a city, and you have city representation in your D.C. city council. Where is this taxation your taxation without representation? Do you mean you want to add 2 more D senators and send more Ds to congress for political purposes? Yes, I suspect that is the gist of your argument. Be honest.

This is such a disingenuous argument. People who live in DC DGAF about the power balance in sending two Dem senators to congress. They just want the representation. Party politics should not stop people from getting representation for how their tax dollars are spent.

+1 I want I senator I elected to call if I don’t like what congress is doing with my tax dollars. I want a *voting* congressional rep to represent my interests. If MD would take us back I’d be fine with that honestly, but I hear they don’t want us so I’ll take the tax exemption. Or DC Statehood. Either’s good with me.