Statehood for Puerto Rico and DC?

[ZiprHead]

This question was posed by Lawrence O'Donnell last week. Whose interest does the complete rejection of the stimulus represent?

I don't know; I'm not so familiar with the details of that one. In any case, he motivation for voting against the stimulus need not be the same as the motivation for rejecting the stimulus. Voting against it might be just for show if they know it will pass anyway - and whom they make the show for depends on the case.

The stimulus was wildly popular, even among republicans. The day it passed sent the stock market to record highs so even the business community supported it. Who, other than republican party officials, does this benefit? Does it even benefit those republicans?

 

[Elixir]

Bad choice of words, perhaps. What I meant is that I would expect them to have a stronger tilt due to party affiliation than the general public, though I'm not certain of that, so let's say 'probably'.

I think we can say obviously. Your own numbers show that public support Statehood for PR is over the top, and it is hard to find ONE Republican politician who publicly favors the idea.

 

[steve_bank]

As it is it is a welfare state unable to manage their own affairs.

Major corruption has been an issue as long as I can remember. There was a referendum, but they can't make up their minds. Status quo, statehood, or independence.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This question was posed by Lawrence O'Donnell last week. Whose interest does the complete rejection of the stimulus represent?

I don't know; I'm not so familiar with the details of that one. In any case, he motivation for voting against the stimulus need not be the same as the motivation for rejecting the stimulus. Voting against it might be just for show if they know it will pass anyway - and whom they make the show for depends on the case.

The stimulus was wildly popular, even among republicans. The day it passed sent the stock market to record highs so even the business community supported it. Who, other than republican party officials, does this benefit? Does it even benefit those republicans?

Is your question whether voting against the package benefits those who voted against the package?
I suppose probably so in some ways, even if they may have miscalculated the overall outcome. But I can't be sure. Maybe they did it on principle, but that seems less probable.
Other than that, why do you think they voted against it?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Bad choice of words, perhaps. What I meant is that I would expect them to have a stronger tilt due to party affiliation than the general public, though I'm not certain of that, so let's say 'probably'.

I think we can say obviously. Your own numbers show that public support Statehood for PR is over the top, and it is hard to find ONE Republican politician who publicly favors the idea.

Okay, so the question would be about Democrats. That gives further support for my earlier point: Due to party split on the matter, if Democrats get rid of the filibuster, PR has a good chance of becoming a state. Else, chances remain pretty low.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As it is it is a welfare state unable to manage their own affairs.

Major corruption has been an issue as long as I can remember. There was a referendum, but they can't make up their minds. Status quo, statehood, or independence.

It's not that they can't make up their minds. Rather, nearly all of them make up their minds, but they do so in support of different alternatives. Even so, it looks like statehood is slightly ahead of the two others combined, at least given the latest vote.

 

[ZiprHead]

The stimulus was wildly popular, even among republicans. The day it passed sent the stock market to record highs so even the business community supported it. Who, other than republican party officials, does this benefit? Does it even benefit those republicans?

Is your question whether voting against the package benefits those who voted against the package?
I suppose probably so in some ways, even if they may have miscalculated the overall outcome. But I can't be sure. Maybe they did it on principle, but that seems less probable.
Other than that, why do you think they voted against it?

I don't know why. It makes no sense to me. Maybe they figure that money would be better spent to give rich people more tax cuts because they don't seem to have a problem with that sort of spending.

 

[TomC]

It's not that they can't make up their minds. Rather, nearly all of them make up their minds, but they do so in support of different alternatives. Even so, it looks like statehood is slightly ahead of the two others combined, at least given the latest vote.

This is an important point. How firmly attached to any particular outcome are the various factions? How well informed are the various factions? Politesse claims to understand the Puerto Rican people, but I'm not so sure.

I keep remembering Brexit. A small majority of people with a skewed version of reality dragged the whole country into a simplistic decision that can't be undone. Brexit looks to me like classic "Act in haste, repent in leisure."

I don't have a firm opinion about Puerto Rican statehood, status quo, or sovereignty. Except this. What is best for Puerto Ricans matters far more to me than the opinions of mainlanders, especially the politicians angling for partisanship.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

It's not that they can't make up their minds. Rather, nearly all of them make up their minds, but they do so in support of different alternatives. Even so, it looks like statehood is slightly ahead of the two others combined, at least given the latest vote.

This is an important point. How firmly attached to any particular outcome are the various factions? How well informed are the various factions? Politesse claims to understand the Puerto Rican people, but I'm not so sure.

I keep remembering Brexit. A small majority of people with a skewed version of reality dragged the whole country into a simplistic decision that can't be undone. Brexit looks to me like classic "Act in haste, repent in leisure."

I don't have a firm opinion about Puerto Rican statehood, status quo, or sovereignty. Except this. What is best for Puerto Ricans matters far more to me than the opinions of mainlanders, especially the politicians angling for partisanship.
Tom

I don't claim to "understand the Puerto Rican people". My post was entirely composed of statements of fact.

 

[TomC]

But I have to ask, do Puerto Ricans really want statehood? If the PR people, as a whole, really understood the other options would statehood be the choice of a solid majority?

That is what they chose the last two times the question was put to vote.

It's weird that you are requesting a "long drawn out process of decision" in reference to a 122 year old controversy that has been debated, voted on, discussed in just about every manner imaginable, and on which certain positions have created and defined both of PR's major political parties. Just how much more drawn out could the process possibly be than it already has been?

It's not that they can't make up their minds. Rather, nearly all of them make up their minds, but they do so in support of different alternatives. Even so, it looks like statehood is slightly ahead of the two others combined, at least given the latest vote.

This is an important point. How firmly attached to any particular outcome are the various factions? How well informed are the various factions? Politesse claims to understand the Puerto Rican people, but I'm not so sure.

I keep remembering Brexit. A small majority of people with a skewed version of reality dragged the whole country into a simplistic decision that can't be undone. Brexit looks to me like classic "Act in haste, repent in leisure."

I don't have a firm opinion about Puerto Rican statehood, status quo, or sovereignty. Except this. What is best for Puerto Ricans matters far more to me than the opinions of mainlanders, especially the politicians angling for partisanship.
Tom

I don't claim to "understand the Puerto Rican people". My post was entirely composed of statements of fact.

Sorry, I misunderstood.
Your response sounded like you were contradicting my opinion that a modern, well done, set of referendums was better than just holding a vote and having a "first past the post winner" to decide Puerto Rico's future.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

It's not that they can't make up their minds. Rather, nearly all of them make up their minds, but they do so in support of different alternatives. Even so, it looks like statehood is slightly ahead of the two others combined, at least given the latest vote.

This is an important point. How firmly attached to any particular outcome are the various factions? How well informed are the various factions? Politesse claims to understand the Puerto Rican people, but I'm not so sure.

I keep remembering Brexit. A small majority of people with a skewed version of reality dragged the whole country into a simplistic decision that can't be undone. Brexit looks to me like classic "Act in haste, repent in leisure."

I don't have a firm opinion about Puerto Rican statehood, status quo, or sovereignty. Except this. What is best for Puerto Ricans matters far more to me than the opinions of mainlanders, especially the politicians angling for partisanship.
Tom

I don't claim to "understand the Puerto Rican people". My post was entirely composed of statements of fact.

Sorry, I misunderstood.
Your response sounded like you were contradicting my opinion that a modern, well done, set of referendums was better than just holding a vote and having a "first past the post winner" to decide Puerto Rico's future.
Tom

Wait so... your problem is that you feel the votes they held weren't "well done"? Perhaps you feel Puerto Ricans need to be lectured at by foreigners as to how to do a vote correctly?

 

[TomC]

This is an important point. How firmly attached to any particular outcome are the various factions? How well informed are the various factions? Politesse claims to understand the Puerto Rican people, but I'm not so sure.

I keep remembering Brexit. A small majority of people with a skewed version of reality dragged the whole country into a simplistic decision that can't be undone. Brexit looks to me like classic "Act in haste, repent in leisure."

I don't have a firm opinion about Puerto Rican statehood, status quo, or sovereignty. Except this. What is best for Puerto Ricans matters far more to me than the opinions of mainlanders, especially the politicians angling for partisanship.
Tom

I don't claim to "understand the Puerto Rican people". My post was entirely composed of statements of fact.

Sorry, I misunderstood.
Your response sounded like you were contradicting my opinion that a modern, well done, set of referendums was better than just holding a vote and having a "first past the post winner" to decide Puerto Rico's future.
Tom

Wait so... your problem is that you feel the votes they held weren't "well done"? Perhaps you feel Puerto Ricans need to be lectured at by foreigners as to how to do a vote correctly?

It's not just Puerto Ricans. I'm also unimpressed by how the USA votes for President. And how the British voted for Brexit.

There's lots of criticism I'll make for democratic processes around the globe.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

I don't claim to "understand the Puerto Rican people". My post was entirely composed of statements of fact.

Sorry, I misunderstood.
Your response sounded like you were contradicting my opinion that a modern, well done, set of referendums was better than just holding a vote and having a "first past the post winner" to decide Puerto Rico's future.
Tom

Wait so... your problem is that you feel the votes they held weren't "well done"? Perhaps you feel Puerto Ricans need to be lectured at by foreigners as to how to do a vote correctly?

It's not just Puerto Ricans. I'm also unimpressed by how the USA votes for President. And how the British voted for Brexit.

There's lots of criticism I'll make for democratic processes around the globe.
Tom

It's just kind of funny, given that you seem to be accusing me of ethnocentrism, while also holding this opinion.

 

[TomC]

Sorry, I misunderstood.
Your response sounded like you were contradicting my opinion that a modern, well done, set of referendums was better than just holding a vote and having a "first past the post winner" to decide Puerto Rico's future.
Tom

Wait so... your problem is that you feel the votes they held weren't "well done"? Perhaps you feel Puerto Ricans need to be lectured at by foreigners as to how to do a vote correctly?

It's not just Puerto Ricans. I'm also unimpressed by how the USA votes for President. And how the British voted for Brexit.

There's lots of criticism I'll make for democratic processes around the globe.
Tom

It's just kind of funny, given that you seem to be accusing me of ethnocentrism, while also holding this opinion.

I'm not accusing you of ethnocentrism. But I remember you calling my opinions "weird", because I didn't claim the certainty of your dogmatic political correctness. I'm not sure what the best thing to do is, regarding Puerto Rico. I don't even feel that I have much say in the matter. I see a raft of nuances that need to be taken into account. You made it seem quite simple. "After a 122 years, what's there to discuss?" That's a paraphrase, but you did say something like that.

I'm not as dogmatic as you are.

Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

The stimulus was wildly popular, even among republicans. The day it passed sent the stock market to record highs so even the business community supported it. Who, other than republican party officials, does this benefit? Does it even benefit those republicans?

Is your question whether voting against the package benefits those who voted against the package?
I suppose probably so in some ways, even if they may have miscalculated the overall outcome. But I can't be sure. Maybe they did it on principle, but that seems less probable.
Other than that, why do you think they voted against it?

I don't know why. It makes no sense to me. Maybe they figure that money would be better spent to give rich people more tax cuts because they don't seem to have a problem with that sort of spending.

Democrats want a wealth tax and Republicans want another tax cut

Republicans reintroduced a bill to repeal the estate tax, which affects less than 2,000 households.

The GOP lawmakers claim this will help farm estates, but USDA data show only 0.6% would be affected.

This legislation comes eight days after Democrats introduced an ultramillionare tax.

Eight days after the Democrats introduced an ultramillionaire tax proposal on the richest American households, Republican lawmakers proposed less taxes on the wealthy by means of a federal estate tax repeal.

The estate tax is a tax on a person's right to transfer property after death, but it only applied to estates valued at over $11.7 million in 2021. A 2020 estimate by the Tax Policy Center found that fewer than 2,000 households would have to pay the estate tax in 2020, given this high threshold. But Republican Sens. John Kennedy of Louisiana and John Thune of South Dakota want to permanently repeal all of that with their Death Tax Repeal Act of 2021.

"The death tax is lethal to many family-run businesses and farms," Kennedy said in a statement. "Louisianians shouldn't lose a legacy of family work to a punishing, illogical tax burden. By ending the death tax, we can make it easier for families to pass their farms and businesses to the next generation."

However, data from the Dept. of Agriculture revealed that farm estates did not actually bear much of the brunt of estate taxes. In 2020, the USDA forecasted that only 0.6% of the 31,394 farm estates would be required to file an estate tax return, and only 0.16% of those estates would have an estate tax liability.

Nailed it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't know why. It makes no sense to me. Maybe they figure that money would be better spent to give rich people more tax cuts because they don't seem to have a problem with that sort of spending.

Democrats want a wealth tax and Republicans want another tax cut

Republicans reintroduced a bill to repeal the estate tax, which affects less than 2,000 households.

The GOP lawmakers claim this will help farm estates, but USDA data show only 0.6% would be affected.

This legislation comes eight days after Democrats introduced an ultramillionare tax.

Eight days after the Democrats introduced an ultramillionaire tax proposal on the richest American households, Republican lawmakers proposed less taxes on the wealthy by means of a federal estate tax repeal.

The estate tax is a tax on a person's right to transfer property after death, but it only applied to estates valued at over $11.7 million in 2021. A 2020 estimate by the Tax Policy Center found that fewer than 2,000 households would have to pay the estate tax in 2020, given this high threshold. But Republican Sens. John Kennedy of Louisiana and John Thune of South Dakota want to permanently repeal all of that with their Death Tax Repeal Act of 2021.

"The death tax is lethal to many family-run businesses and farms," Kennedy said in a statement. "Louisianians shouldn't lose a legacy of family work to a punishing, illogical tax burden. By ending the death tax, we can make it easier for families to pass their farms and businesses to the next generation."

However, data from the Dept. of Agriculture revealed that farm estates did not actually bear much of the brunt of estate taxes. In 2020, the USDA forecasted that only 0.6% of the 31,394 farm estates would be required to file an estate tax return, and only 0.16% of those estates would have an estate tax liability.

Nailed it.

Republicans often want tax cuts, but that does not provide strong evidence of a link between this particular tax cut and the stimulus package. They vote for other expenses after all. And there are plenty of other reasons why they might oppose Biden's package. If you take a look at criticism of the package in different sites, you can find potential reasons for them to vote against. A quick search gives many results; purely for example:

https://reason.com/2021/03/11/biden...l-probably-cost-a-lot-more-than-1-9-trillion/

https://reason.com/2021/02/18/biden...as-almost-nothing-to-do-with-the-coronavirus/

https://reason.com/2021/03/12/biden...s-on-anyone-who-earns-600-in-the-gig-economy/

 

[laughing dog]

I don't know why. It makes no sense to me. Maybe they figure that money would be better spent to give rich people more tax cuts because they don't seem to have a problem with that sort of spending.

Democrats want a wealth tax and Republicans want another tax cut

Republicans reintroduced a bill to repeal the estate tax, which affects less than 2,000 households.

The GOP lawmakers claim this will help farm estates, but USDA data show only 0.6% would be affected.

This legislation comes eight days after Democrats introduced an ultramillionare tax.

Eight days after the Democrats introduced an ultramillionaire tax proposal on the richest American households, Republican lawmakers proposed less taxes on the wealthy by means of a federal estate tax repeal.

The estate tax is a tax on a person's right to transfer property after death, but it only applied to estates valued at over $11.7 million in 2021. A 2020 estimate by the Tax Policy Center found that fewer than 2,000 households would have to pay the estate tax in 2020, given this high threshold. But Republican Sens. John Kennedy of Louisiana and John Thune of South Dakota want to permanently repeal all of that with their Death Tax Repeal Act of 2021.

"The death tax is lethal to many family-run businesses and farms," Kennedy said in a statement. "Louisianians shouldn't lose a legacy of family work to a punishing, illogical tax burden. By ending the death tax, we can make it easier for families to pass their farms and businesses to the next generation."

However, data from the Dept. of Agriculture revealed that farm estates did not actually bear much of the brunt of estate taxes. In 2020, the USDA forecasted that only 0.6% of the 31,394 farm estates would be required to file an estate tax return, and only 0.16% of those estates would have an estate tax liability.

Nailed it.

Not only that, but if there is a liquidity issue with taxing high value agricultural land, the proper response is to permit longer payment time periods.

 

[Elixir]

AOC notes that Puerto Rican statehood won't mean automatic Democratic votes.

Add to that, it's about 75% white according to wiki - whiter than most states, especially southern "red" states. So it's mysterious that Republican legislators are dead set against it.
Maybe they're afraid of the domino effect - PR today, DC tomorrow (where Dem senators would be a near-certainty). And of course Guam would be out of the question since it's less than 8% white.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Also, Guam is really close to tipping over from population density. Can't have full states tipping over.

 

[Politesse]

Wait so... your problem is that you feel the votes they held weren't "well done"? Perhaps you feel Puerto Ricans need to be lectured at by foreigners as to how to do a vote correctly?

It's not just Puerto Ricans. I'm also unimpressed by how the USA votes for President. And how the British voted for Brexit.

There's lots of criticism I'll make for democratic processes around the globe.
Tom

It's just kind of funny, given that you seem to be accusing me of ethnocentrism, while also holding this opinion.

I'm not accusing you of ethnocentrism. But I remember you calling my opinions "weird", because I didn't claim the certainty of your dogmatic political correctness. I'm not sure what the best thing to do is, regarding Puerto Rico. I don't even feel that I have much say in the matter. I see a raft of nuances that need to be taken into account. You made it seem quite simple. "After a 122 years, what's there to discuss?" That's a paraphrase, but you did say something like that.

I'm not as dogmatic as you are.

Tom

I didn't question whether there was anything to discuss, only your diagnosis that what was truly needed was an even more drawn out process before the decision of basic directions/goals can even be made. What is another thirty years of argument going to add that the past century has not? It's clear that Puerto Ricans are all aware of the various sides of this issue, and have firm positions on it. This issue dominates almost all aspects of Puerto Rican political life.