Options

Save DC

135678

Posts

  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »

    It's just a city though, it's not a state, and therefore isn't considered one.
    .

    This is the literal definition of circular reasoning

    Do we have any states that are just a city? Even a large one?

    No, right we don't.

    Did we have any states before alaska that were not continuous? nope.

    Therefore Alaska is not a state, right?

    Alaska has oil.

    Texas has oil, so that's okay. The non-continuous thing means it's not a state, though.

    Hell, We have to get rid of California, too, since before it no states bordered on the Pacific. I mean, what kind of shit is that? The united states touches the Atlantic, not the pacific!

    NYC should be its own state before DC. More people, and the residents of the city have virtually nothing in common with the people who live outside it (and in fact hate and resent one another for the most part).

    I mean, as long as we're taking cities and making them into states.

    If the residents of NYC want it, I have no issue.

    But DC is first because NYC actually has representation currently. DC doesn't.

    Fixed via sucking them into Maryland and doesn't cause the constitutional mess of turning DC into a state. Nor the breakdown the city would have once it lost the federal teet.

    what is the ammount of federal funding the city would lose that it couldn't do without?

    Evander on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »

    Show me how.

    Assuming you're talking about the latter part of my post, just look at the design.

    I don't see it. If you do, explain it, or else stop making arguments you can't articulate.

    Have you studied the debates for how Congress should be shaped during its forming?

    You are avoiding making an actual argument. Is this because you don't have one?

    Because the reply would take weeks and thousands of pages and require you to read through transcripts of history. Hence my question.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf, why would DC lose its federal funds? Every state receives them.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »

    You are completely ignoring costs. Also, long terms gains make sense when you have extra money to invest, not when you are already cutting costs to deal with your budget (as MD is right now)

    Sure, so is every other state currently. This doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare for when things get better and look at the best course for it.

    this reminds me so much of McCain's proposed federal budget freeze. "The economy is hurting, so let's kill it entirely, and then perform an autopsy"

    What you are proposing is bad finance

    Please show me where I made this form of argument? I actually specifically said moving forward in preparation for, not standing still in opposition of.

    I didn't say you made that argument, I said that the logic was reminicent.

    You are focusing on one small financial piece (in your case, a potential future cash cow) and completely ignoring every single other factor that makes your proposal bad business

    Evander on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »

    If the residents of NYC want it, I have no issue.


    All bullshitting aside, this is really the crux of our disagreement right here.

    You place zero value on past practice, history, tradition in your view of things. Which is fine, but it's not that way for everyone. Most of the arguments that could be made against your very narrowly (and uselessly, thank you) framed question of why DC shouldn't be a state, have already been rejected by you before they could ever have been made.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »

    Show me how.

    Assuming you're talking about the latter part of my post, just look at the design.

    I don't see it. If you do, explain it, or else stop making arguments you can't articulate.

    Have you studied the debates for how Congress should be shaped during its forming?

    You are avoiding making an actual argument. Is this because you don't have one?

    Because the reply would take weeks and thousands of pages and require you to read through transcripts of history. Hence my question.

    why would it take weeks? are you unable to summarize?

    It sounds to me like you do not have an actual argument

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    You place zero value on past practice, history, tradition in your view of things.

    So let's reinstate slavery?

    Past practice has value, but not moreso than giving american citizens equal rights.

    Evander on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »

    You are completely ignoring costs. Also, long terms gains make sense when you have extra money to invest, not when you are already cutting costs to deal with your budget (as MD is right now)

    Sure, so is every other state currently. This doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare for when things get better and look at the best course for it.

    this reminds me so much of McCain's proposed federal budget freeze. "The economy is hurting, so let's kill it entirely, and then perform an autopsy"

    What you are proposing is bad finance

    Please show me where I made this form of argument? I actually specifically said moving forward in preparation for, not standing still in opposition of.

    I didn't say you made that argument, I said that the logic was reminicent.

    You are focusing on one small financial piece (in your case, a potential future cash cow) and completely ignoring every single other factor that makes your proposal bad business

    Financial reasons. They'd become larger giving them a larger share of the house of representatives. It would be easier to accomplish then giving them statehood.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    People who don't like it leave. It's not like there aren't other states within spitting distance of even the center of DC.

    Plus wouldn't there be an extremely sticky wicket involving all that embassy land? How much land would the state of DC actually have considering just how much of it is actually Federal property?

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    why would it take weeks? are you unable to summarize?

    It sounds to me like you do not have an actual argument

    Go read the transcript. Come back.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    One additional member of the House != enough money to cover DC. And even if it did, this guy
    thomascarcetti2.jpg
    does not want to deal with DC voters.

    Brian Krakow on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    People who don't like it leave. It's not like there aren't other states within spitting distance of even the center of DC.

    Plus wouldn't there be an extremely sticky wicket involving all that embassy land? How much land would the state of DC actually have considering just how much of it is actually Federal property?

    Problem being they gain members in the house and the senate so it does affect people who don't live in the area.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »

    You are completely ignoring costs. Also, long terms gains make sense when you have extra money to invest, not when you are already cutting costs to deal with your budget (as MD is right now)

    Sure, so is every other state currently. This doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare for when things get better and look at the best course for it.

    this reminds me so much of McCain's proposed federal budget freeze. "The economy is hurting, so let's kill it entirely, and then perform an autopsy"

    What you are proposing is bad finance

    Please show me where I made this form of argument? I actually specifically said moving forward in preparation for, not standing still in opposition of.

    I didn't say you made that argument, I said that the logic was reminicent.

    You are focusing on one small financial piece (in your case, a potential future cash cow) and completely ignoring every single other factor that makes your proposal bad business

    Financial reasons. They'd become larger giving them a larger share of the house of representatives. It would be easier to accomplish then giving them statehood.

    being easy doesn't make it right.

    What I find so odd right now is that opponants of DC statehood are arguing BOTH that DC wcan't survive without federal funding and ALSO that DC would more than pay for itself if MD took it in. This seems like a pretty big contradiction.

    Evander on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    nstf, why would DC lose its federal funds? Every state receives them.

    DC is highly funded by congress because it is a federal district and because congress controls it. Change it into a state, remove congressional power to run it via amending the constitution, give it it's own court system instead of a federal one and then you can make it a state. Then it loses it's massive funding as a federal district and will go into the red even more (it always is, it counts on congress to come through) and you've just fucked DC.

    But hey, all those with money can move the fuck out to NOVA and MOCO, and if you can't afford it have fun in the dump it will turn into, if you think it's bad now you ain't seen nothing yet.

    You willing to just fuck all those people over? The federal government would love to say "not our fucking problem anymore" with that mess, it's a money pit already.

    nstf on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    why would it take weeks? are you unable to summarize?

    It sounds to me like you do not have an actual argument

    Go read the transcript. Come back.

    Nope, I'm not doing your homework.

    Make your argument or don't, but don't sit around goign "there is a very good argument, but I refuse to tell you what it is."

    Evander on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    One additional member of the House != enough money to cover DC. And even if it did, this guy
    thomascarcetti2.jpgdoes not want to deal with DC voters.

    Except DC's major handling its budget like most other cities, instead of congress handling it, the way it currently is, would allow the financial issues of DC to be fixed.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    You place zero value on past practice, history, tradition in your view of things.

    So let's reinstate slavery?

    Past practice has value, but not moreso than giving american citizens equal rights.

    Yes, lets. Starting with Evander and his family. :P


    And his friends. And his dog.

    It would be simpler to give DC residents full representation by side-stepping the issue of creating a new state, if that's not enough of a reason for you, then by all means keep dreaming about something that won't happen.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »

    being easy doesn't make it right.

    What I find so odd right now is that opponants of DC statehood are arguing BOTH that DC wcan't survive without federal funding and ALSO that DC would more than pay for itself if MD took it in. This seems like a pretty big contradiction.

    Different people making different arguments.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    People who don't like it leave.

    Didn't read the first post, I take it?

    If DC residents leave, our government would actually collapse, due to a lack of physical infrastructure.

    Evander on
  • Options
    Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    People who don't like it leave. It's not like there aren't other states within spitting distance of even the center of DC.

    Plus wouldn't there be an extremely sticky wicket involving all that embassy land? How much land would the state of DC actually have considering just how much of it is actually Federal property?

    Problem being they gain members in the house and the senate so it does affect people who don't live in the area.

    Well good thing it would require amending the Constitution to do so, so we'd have to agree to it in the first place.

    It will never happen that way. They might get a Congressman/woman if the democrats ever have a stable super majority or coalition with dissatisfied former republicans, but I really doubt even that.

    State absorption by Maryland would be best. Don't forget that while DC residents complain they do see a shit ton of federal money and jobs and I'm sure Maryland wouldn't be too put out if the government sweetened the deal a bit.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • Options
    Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    One additional member of the House != enough money to cover DC. And even if it did, this guy
    thomascarcetti2.jpgdoes not want to deal with DC voters.

    Except DC's major handling its budget like most other cities, instead of congress handling it, the way it currently is, would allow the financial issues of DC to be fixed.
    Leaving aside the fact that we have no way of knowing that, it is completely irrelevant to my point.

    Brian Krakow on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    You place zero value on past practice, history, tradition in your view of things.

    So let's reinstate slavery?

    Past practice has value, but not moreso than giving american citizens equal rights.

    Yes, lets. Starting with Evander and his family. :P


    And his friends. And his dog.

    It would be simpler to give DC residents full representation by side-stepping the issue of creating a new state, if that's not enough of a reason for you, then by all means keep dreaming about something that won't happen.

    I'm not arguing statehood uber alles.

    I just think "give it to MD" is actually an even more over-simplified argument, and one which completely ignores the multitufdes of ramifications (as evidenced by the fact that the two most vehement proponants for it in this thread are actually making the exact opposite arguments in favor fo it.)

    Evander on
  • Options
    Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    People who don't like it leave.

    Didn't read the first post, I take it?

    If DC residents leave, our government would actually collapse, due to a lack of physical infrastructure.

    Leave as in move five/ten miles to a neighboring state, don't be obtuse. They could still walk or bike to work! :P

    Tons of my friends who went to school in DC did just that. They live within walking distance of DC in Virginia.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    People who don't like it leave. It's not like there aren't other states within spitting distance of even the center of DC.

    Plus wouldn't there be an extremely sticky wicket involving all that embassy land? How much land would the state of DC actually have considering just how much of it is actually Federal property?

    Problem being they gain members in the house and the senate so it does affect people who don't live in the area.

    Well good thing it would require amending the Constitution to do so, so we'd have to agree to it in the first place.

    It will never happen that way. They might get a Congressman/woman if the democrats ever have a stable super majority or coalition with dissatisfied former republicans, but I really doubt even that.

    State absorption by Maryland would be best. Don't forget that while DC residents complain they do see a shit ton of federal money and jobs and I'm sure Maryland wouldn't be too put out if the government sweetened the deal a bit.

    Plenty of Maryland residents already work in DC. They wouldn't be gaining jobs, they'd be gaining homeless.

    Evander on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    You place zero value on past practice, history, tradition in your view of things.

    So let's reinstate slavery?

    Past practice has value, but not moreso than giving american citizens equal rights.

    Yes, lets. Starting with Evander and his family. :P


    And his friends. And his dog.

    It would be simpler to give DC residents full representation by side-stepping the issue of creating a new state, if that's not enough of a reason for you, then by all means keep dreaming about something that won't happen.

    I'm not arguing statehood uber alles.

    I just think "give it to MD" is actually an even more over-simplified argument, and one which completely ignores the multitufdes of ramifications (as evidenced by the fact that the two most vehement proponants for it in this thread are actually making the exact opposite arguments in favor fo it.)

    Perhaps it's over-simplified (Ok, yes it definitely is) but it's within the realm of possibility and fulfills the goal of granting representation. Statehood is a literal political impossibility, so any debate about that route is 10x more useless in comparison.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    One additional member of the House != enough money to cover DC. And even if it did, this guy
    thomascarcetti2.jpgdoes not want to deal with DC voters.

    Except DC's major handling its budget like most other cities, instead of congress handling it, the way it currently is, would allow the financial issues of DC to be fixed.
    Leaving aside the fact that we have no way of knowing that, it is completely irrelevant to my point.

    Your point is it wouldn't be enough, my point is it would be.
    Evander wrote: »

    I just think "give it to MD" is actually an even more over-simplified argument, and one which completely ignores the multitufdes of ramifications (as evidenced by the fact that the two most vehement proponants for it in this thread are actually making the exact opposite arguments in favor fo it.)

    Its a more realistic solution then statehood.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    and probably subsidies from the federal government and tax revenue from the rich people who do still live in DC proper.

    DC residents like to bitch and moan that the federal government hasn't given them anything when it is simply not true.

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    People who don't like it leave.

    Didn't read the first post, I take it?

    If DC residents leave, our government would actually collapse, due to a lack of physical infrastructure.

    Leave as in move five/ten miles to a neighboring state, don't be obtuse. They could still walk or bike to work! :P

    Tons of my friends who went to school in DC did just that. They live within walking distance of DC in Virginia.

    Yes, some one disgruntled enough to move out of the city they call home is going to just move a couple of miles and keep supporting it, rather than move off somewhere else entirely...

    Also, how about all of the people who can't afford to move?

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    You place zero value on past practice, history, tradition in your view of things.

    So let's reinstate slavery?

    Past practice has value, but not moreso than giving american citizens equal rights.

    Yes, lets. Starting with Evander and his family. :P


    And his friends. And his dog.

    It would be simpler to give DC residents full representation by side-stepping the issue of creating a new state, if that's not enough of a reason for you, then by all means keep dreaming about something that won't happen.

    I'm not arguing statehood uber alles.

    I just think "give it to MD" is actually an even more over-simplified argument, and one which completely ignores the multitufdes of ramifications (as evidenced by the fact that the two most vehement proponants for it in this thread are actually making the exact opposite arguments in favor fo it.)

    Perhaps it's over-simplified (Ok, yes it definitely is) but it's within the realm of possibility and fulfills the goal of granting representation. Statehood is a literal political impossibility, so any debate about that route is 10x more useless in comparison.

    This debate is 100% useless. I can promise you, on penalty of death, that this discussion right here will have absolutely zero effect on the fate of DC.

    This is an internet discussion, not a senate sub-committee. Let's discuss things even if some one thinks they won't happen.

    Evander on
  • Options
    Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    People who don't like it leave. It's not like there aren't other states within spitting distance of even the center of DC.
    "If you want your rights, go somewhere else" has actually been addressed and dismissed by the Supreme Court, in a fairly similar matter, in Reynolds v. Sims.
    Plus wouldn't there be an extremely sticky wicket involving all that embassy land? How much land would the state of DC actually have considering just how much of it is actually Federal property?
    A larger percentage than states like Nevada, probably.
    Also, this says DC is about 30% federally owned.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Options
    Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »

    Your point is it wouldn't be enough, my point is it would be.
    No it isn't. My point is that it definitely would not be enough in the short term. We don't know if your solution would work. The politicians don't know if it would work. You are asking Maryland to take a risk that they simply will not take. They probably wouldn't take it even if they knew it would work out in the long run

    Maryland will not take DC.

    Brian Krakow on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »

    Your point is it wouldn't be enough, my point is it would be.
    No it isn't. My point is that it definitely would not be enough in the short term. We don't know if your solution would work. The politicians don't know if it would work. You are asking Maryland to take a risk that they simply will not take. They probably wouldn't take it even if they knew it would work out in the long run

    Maryland will not take DC.

    Can't help it if you're too short sighted to see it as a long term gain.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    People who don't like it leave.

    Didn't read the first post, I take it?

    If DC residents leave, our government would actually collapse, due to a lack of physical infrastructure.

    Leave as in move five/ten miles to a neighboring state, don't be obtuse. They could still walk or bike to work! :P

    Tons of my friends who went to school in DC did just that. They live within walking distance of DC in Virginia.

    Yes, some one disgruntled enough to move out of the city they call home is going to just move a couple of miles and keep supporting it, rather than move off somewhere else entirely...

    Also, how about all of the people who can't afford to move?

    What about them? Do you really think that being a part of some fairyland state would really help these people? Poor people are treated the same no matter where you are. They are ignored politically and you know that. You really think two senators and one congressman would give a damn about them? No, they'd just pay lip service and go back and serve the handful of rich connected people that would live in your small made up state broken up by land they didn't own.

    Where would the revenue for this state come from? Tolls to get into the federal parts of the capital?

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • Options
    Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »

    Your point is it wouldn't be enough, my point is it would be.
    No it isn't. My point is that it definitely would not be enough in the short term. We don't know if your solution would work. The politicians don't know if it would work. You are asking Maryland to take a risk that they simply will not take. They probably wouldn't take it even if they knew it would work out in the long run

    Maryland will not take DC.

    Can't help it if you're too short sighted to see it as a long term gain.
    Can't help it if you're too much of a silly goose to actually address my points.

    Brian Krakow on
  • Options
    Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    edited September 2010

    Where would the revenue for this state come from? Tolls to get into the federal parts of the capital?
    Uhhhhh... Taxes and Federal Funding? Like every other state?

    Brian Krakow on
  • Options
    DeShadowCDeShadowC Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »

    Your point is it wouldn't be enough, my point is it would be.
    No it isn't. My point is that it definitely would not be enough in the short term. We don't know if your solution would work. The politicians don't know if it would work. You are asking Maryland to take a risk that they simply will not take. They probably wouldn't take it even if they knew it would work out in the long run

    Maryland will not take DC.

    Can't help it if you're too short sighted to see it as a long term gain.
    Can't help it if you're too much of a silly goose to actually address my points.

    Your point about the short term is overshadowed by the fact that during the transition they would still receive the federal money they currently do. Also Maryland would control that money instead of Congress which greatly increases the chance of that money being used to benefit DC.

    DeShadowC on
  • Options
    agentk13agentk13 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010
    and probably subsidies from the federal government and tax revenue from the rich people who do still live in DC proper.

    DC residents like to bitch and moan that the federal government hasn't given them anything when it is simply not true.

    That's because a lot of the money DC is getting is to pay for all the federal government operations in DC. I doubt residents get all that much utility out of the white house rose garden.

    agentk13 on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    People who don't like it leave.

    Didn't read the first post, I take it?

    If DC residents leave, our government would actually collapse, due to a lack of physical infrastructure.

    Leave as in move five/ten miles to a neighboring state, don't be obtuse. They could still walk or bike to work! :P

    Tons of my friends who went to school in DC did just that. They live within walking distance of DC in Virginia.

    yeah... most of the residents are not wealthy enough to move.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited September 2010

    Where would the revenue for this state come from? Tolls to get into the federal parts of the capital?
    Uhhhhh... Taxes and Federal Funding? Like every other state?

    Problem here is that DC can't support itself. It is dependent on the funding it gets as a federal district. If you remove that it goes belly up. The well off can move out to Arlington and Bethesda which will completely drain the tax base.

    It will kill it.

    And it can't be a state if congress still controls and funds it ala a federal district, and if it it's court system remains federal.

    So here is our little problem. Removing the items, even if you could, that stop it from being a state would kill off it's federal funding, killing the city. And the federal government already hates funding it and keeps looking for ways to give less money yearly, it's a constant battle and local issue with the residents crying for more.

    nstf on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DeShadowC wrote: »
    DeShadowC wrote: »

    Your point is it wouldn't be enough, my point is it would be.
    No it isn't. My point is that it definitely would not be enough in the short term. We don't know if your solution would work. The politicians don't know if it would work. You are asking Maryland to take a risk that they simply will not take. They probably wouldn't take it even if they knew it would work out in the long run

    Maryland will not take DC.

    Can't help it if you're too short sighted to see it as a long term gain.

    States are not corporations. They do not undertake risky endeavors in order to have future profits. They under take stable endeavors so as to provide for their residents here and now.

    Evander on
Sign In or Register to comment.