• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you have opposed Western Exansion, Alaska and Hawaii statehood?

If you were alive at the time would you have supported adding new states

  • Yes, I think America growing to now include 50 states is great

    Votes: 14 93.3%
  • No, we should have kept America at 13 states

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I would have supported some expansion but not all of the 50 states we now have

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Total voters
    15

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Since it was learned Puerto Rico voted Tuesday in support of statehood, to my surprise many here seem opposed to allowing them to become the 51st sate. I'm sure we all realize America started out as just 13 states on the East Coast and today we have 50 states from the Atlantic the the Pacific, the Bering Sea to the middle of the South Pacific.

My question: If you had been around at the time would you have opposed the Western Expansion and all the states being added to the union since 1776? In hindsight do you think adding 37 states to the original 13 was a bad idea? If you would have supported western expansion but do not support allowing Puerto Rico to become the 51st state, why the difference?
 
Comparing Puerto Rican statehood to Western expansion isn't exactly a favorable comparison. No one would die and no wars would be fought if we made Puerto Rico a state tomorrow.
 
I would not have, of course, I think we should have annexed all of Mexico in 1848, instead of just the top half.
 
Westward expansion was based on murdering nearly the entire native population. That is utterly incomparable to Puerto Rico today, in which the people have willingly chosen to become a state.
 
I would not have, of course, I think we should have annexed all of Mexico in 1848, instead of just the top half.

If we had not alot of us would not be here to talk about it.
 
Westward expansion was based on murdering nearly the entire native population. That is utterly incomparable to Puerto Rico today, in which the people have willingly chosen to become a state.

So you're actually saying supporting Puerto Rico statehood is PREFERRED on ethical grounds more than adding most of the 37 added since 1776, right?
 
Hind sight makes it all to easy to decide now however at the time I am sure some citizens were against some of the expansions and perhaps with good reason. Personally I do not feel adding Puerto Rico is necessarily beneficial to the rest of the country right now and may never be. If Puerto Rico becomes a state it will immediately become an additional money drain on our already struggling economy. Articles I have read state that PR is over 50+ billion in debt and if they become a state they will be granted over another 50+ billion for infrastructure and government agency improvements just to set them on par with the rest of the states. So as a tax paying american I must wonder what exactly my money is doing for my or my fellow american. It sounds like more being spend with little to no return for current states.
 
I would not have, of course, I think we should have annexed all of Mexico in 1848, instead of just the top half.

I still favor that idea, but using the census data. Every ten years we calculate the percentage of the former Mexican population now permanently within our borders and adjust our southern border accordingly, soon we will have the Panama canal back. ;-)
 
There is a difference, though. "Back then" a state has demonstrate it was worthy - ie beneficial - to be a state rather than a territory.
 
Other than 800,000 people going on food stamps and government welfare, plus the gzillion federal laws landing on us and the people and businesses of PR, what do WE gain if PR becomes a state?
 
Hind sight makes it all to easy to decide now however at the time I am sure some citizens were against some of the expansions and perhaps with good reason. Personally I do not feel adding Puerto Rico is necessarily beneficial to the rest of the country right now and may never be. If Puerto Rico becomes a state it will immediately become an additional money drain on our already struggling economy. Articles I have read state that PR is over 50+ billion in debt and if they become a state they will be granted over another 50+ billion for infrastructure and government agency improvements just to set them on par with the rest of the states. So as a tax paying american I must wonder what exactly my money is doing for my or my fellow american. It sounds like more being spend with little to no return for current states.

I think there is huge confusion over the fiscal ramifications over Puerto Rico statehood. Unless I'm mistaken, switching PR's status from a US territory to the 51st state will have no fiscal impact on the rest of the country except minor costs of sending their new congressional delegation to Washington. In fact, the US treasury is possibly benefited because right now their federal taxes stay in Puerto Rico and could have to start being sent to Washington. Contrary to what seems to be a false assumption, Puerto Rico is NOT in essence a foreign country. They are already a part of the US and its financial burden is no different than if it were a state expect if they were a state they'd have to send their federal taxes to DC, which they don't do now.
 
Last edited:
I think there is huge confusion over the fiscal ramifications over Puerto Rico statehood. Unless I'm mistaken, switching PR's status from a US territory to the 51st state will have no fiscal impact on the rest of the country except minor costs of sending their new congressional delegation it Washington. In fact, the US treasury is possibly benefited because right now their federal taxes stay in Puerto Rico and could have to start being sent to Washington. Contrary to what seems to be a false assumption, Puerto Rico is NOT in essence a foreign country. They are already a part of the US and its financial burden is no different than if it were a state expect if they were a state they'd have to send their federal taxes to DC, which they don't do now.


I believe they were saying that PR's current federal tax revenue is simply not meeting demands, hence why they are 50+ billion in debt, and to raise them to a statehood standard with infrastructure and government agencies (police, courts, ect) it would require and additional federal injection of funds of 50+ billion. In short it would be just one more red ink state for the federal budget where federal tax revenue does not meet federal spending.
 
Since it was learned Puerto Rico voted Tuesday in support of statehood, to my surprise many here seem opposed to allowing them to become the 51st sate. I'm sure we all realize America started out as just 13 states on the East Coast and today we have 50 states from the Atlantic the the Pacific, the Bering Sea to the middle of the South Pacific.

My question: If you had been around at the time would you have opposed the Western Expansion and all the states being added to the union since 1776? In hindsight do you think adding 37 states to the original 13 was a bad idea? If you would have supported western expansion but do not support allowing Puerto Rico to become the 51st state, why the difference?
I don't the name of the fallacy, but just because someone supports a policy, it does not imply that he supports it beyond a certain limit. Puerto Rico is a third-world culture. If you were suggesting Canada, I'd say extend the policy, provided of course that the Canadians asked to join our union.
 
Hind sight makes it all to easy to decide now however at the time I am sure some citizens were against some of the expansions and perhaps with good reason. Personally I do not feel adding Puerto Rico is necessarily beneficial to the rest of the country right now and may never be. If Puerto Rico becomes a state it will immediately become an additional money drain on our already struggling economy. Articles I have read state that PR is over 50+ billion in debt and if they become a state they will be granted over another 50+ billion for infrastructure and government agency improvements just to set them on par with the rest of the states. So as a tax paying american I must wonder what exactly my money is doing for my or my fellow american. It sounds like more being spend with little to no return for current states.
More permanent electoral votes for the Demwits.
 
On the contrary, I think we should break all ties with Puerto Rico.
 
I believe they were saying that PR's current federal tax revenue is simply not meeting demands, hence why they are 50+ billion in debt, and to raise them to a statehood standard with infrastructure and government agencies (police, courts, ect) it would require and additional federal injection of funds of 50+ billion. In short it would be just one more red ink state for the federal budget where federal tax revenue does not meet federal spending.

But PR is not Haiti. As a US territory they already get help from the federal government, no different than the help they would get as a state. The only fiscal difference is they'd start sending their taxes in Washington like the rest of us, at least in theory.
 
I believe they were saying that PR's current federal tax revenue is simply not meeting demands, hence why they are 50+ billion in debt, and to raise them to a statehood standard with infrastructure and government agencies (police, courts, ect) it would require and additional federal injection of funds of 50+ billion. In short it would be just one more red ink state for the federal budget where federal tax revenue does not meet federal spending.

Their economy is in the tank and they have 28% that now work for their gov't. They are in need of some cash so statehood is looking like a godsend to them.

http://www.doleta.gov/performance/r...conomic_reports/pr_economic_report_py2010.pdf
 
I don't the name of the fallacy, but just because someone supports a policy, it does not imply that he supports it beyond a certain limit. Puerto Rico is a third-world culture. If you were suggesting Canada, I'd say extend the policy, provided of course that the Canadians asked to join our union.


Puerto Rico is about as third world as West Virginia.
 
But PR is not Haiti. As a US territory they already get help from the federal government, no different than the help they would get as a state. The only fiscal difference is they'd start sending their taxes in Washington like the rest of us, at least in theory.


Im not sure if the bolded part is correct.

Why does Puerto Rico want statehood, anyway?

For one thing, becoming a state would allow them to benefit from an extra $20 billion a year in federal funds


This makes it sound as if territories and states are not equal in all things federally funded.
 
Im not sure if the bolded part is correct.

Why does Puerto Rico want statehood, anyway?




This makes it sound as if territories and states are not equal in all things federally funded.

Thanks. I'll read over it. When I lived in a US territory I was under the impression the Federal Government was Santa Claus without being a state but if we'd become a state some funding would be reduced, namely a new requirement to send federal taxes to Washington.
 
Im not sure if the bolded part is correct.

Why does Puerto Rico want statehood, anyway?




This makes it sound as if territories and states are not equal in all things federally funded.



Okay, just read it over. If they became a state they start getting "... an extra $20 billion a year in federal funds." However, "...Puerto Rican residents currently don’t pay federal income taxes, and companies doing business there don’t pay corporate taxes — two loopholes that would be closed if the island were made the 51st state." The question then arises, is the $20 billion a year in federal funds greater than the new federal taxes the residents and businesses would have to start sending to DC. I just did a crude estimation based on Mississippi, similar populations and economies. +/- $17 billion in federal taxes if my often off math is correct.

“Once Puerto Rico becomes a state, its fortunes could arc upward,” writes Reuters columnist Gregg Easterbrook, pointing out that Hawaii saw marked economic growth after it was made a state in 1959.
Economic growth is not the same as a burden on taxpayer in the mainland.

Why does Puerto Rico want statehood, anyway?
 
Last edited:
Puerto Rico is about as third world as West Virginia.
The high crime rate of the ones who live here disqualifies them from citizenship. Throw them back. Only sick people with a secret desire to be gang raped welcome such misfits.
 
Back
Top Bottom