Thread: Puerto Rico Votes to Become 51st U.S. State

Originally Posted by Kilroy

Originally Posted by Master Mew

This could provide a needed boost to our economy: We'll have to replace EVERY. SINGLE. FLAG.

Unfortunately nothing to go straight to the government as it is illegal to charge taxes on the US flag within the US. But the added revenue into the businesses could be a big boost.

Am I missing something here, or are you suggesting that Puerto Rico, which would then be a part of the U.S., would somehow boost the U.S.'s economy by importing even more flags from China?

Originally Posted by Bulletproof Scales

Am I missing something here, or are you suggesting that Puerto Rico, which would then be a part of the U.S., would somehow boost the U.S.'s economy by importing even more flags from China?

If you take into effect the thousands of flags private citizens and businesses will need to replace, yes flag stores will get some more business. Not to mention some local fire,police, government buildings will have to take the cash out of their budget (not a lot but it still has to be counted) in order to pay for new ones.

Originally Posted by Bulletproof Scales

Originally Posted by Kilroy

Originally Posted by Master Mew

This could provide a needed boost to our economy: We'll have to replace EVERY. SINGLE. FLAG.

Unfortunately nothing to go straight to the government as it is illegal to charge taxes on the US flag within the US. But the added revenue into the businesses could be a big boost.

Am I missing something here, or are you suggesting that Puerto Rico, which would then be a part of the U.S., would somehow boost the U.S.'s economy by importing even more flags from China?

I didn't say it would help U.S. manufacturing, but yes, it would boost retail.

But if burning down all flags in Colorado once about every week, and importing new ones from China boosts the U.S. economy, why don't you do that more often?

Globalism is good for the economy, if not for manufacturing. And at the risk of being moved into the Campaign Bus, I think we can all agree that it's about time that the Republicans to shift ideology on immigration. It's time for more Jeb Bushes, not more Michelle Bachmanns or Mitt Romneys.

Originally Posted by Goodbye Blue Monday

Also, Alaska and Hawaii were both admitted to the union at the same time, so I'm pretty sure that the political composition of Congress in 1959 didn't have much to do with it since those states tend to be on opposite ends of the political spectrum and have been throughout their histories (with the exception of electoral landslides like 1964, 1972 and 1984).

That's not true, Alaska was admitted in January 1959 and Hawaii was admitted in August 1959. During that time, the US flag had 49 stars.

Well PR has been a commonwealth for well over a century and have been american citizens since 1917... becoming a state would make sense...

Originally Posted by TheMissingno.

Originally Posted by Goodbye Blue Monday

Also, Alaska and Hawaii were both admitted to the union at the same time, so I'm pretty sure that the political composition of Congress in 1959 didn't have much to do with it since those states tend to be on opposite ends of the political spectrum and have been throughout their histories (with the exception of electoral landslides like 1964, 1972 and 1984).

That's not true, Alaska was admitted in January 1959 and Hawaii was admitted in August 1959. During that time, the US flag had 49 stars.

Thanks for fact-checking, you're right. They were admitted in the same year, though, I figured that political considerations re: how they would go in the electoral college weren't a big deal if they decided to admit both of them.

Originally Posted by Goodbye Blue Monday

Originally Posted by TheMissingno.

Originally Posted by Goodbye Blue Monday

Also, Alaska and Hawaii were both admitted to the union at the same time, so I'm pretty sure that the political composition of Congress in 1959 didn't have much to do with it since those states tend to be on opposite ends of the political spectrum and have been throughout their histories (with the exception of electoral landslides like 1964, 1972 and 1984).

That's not true, Alaska was admitted in January 1959 and Hawaii was admitted in August 1959. During that time, the US flag had 49 stars.

Thanks for fact-checking, you're right. They were admitted in the same year, though, I figured that political considerations re: how they would go in the electoral college wasn't a big deal if they decided to admit both of them.

Yeah your point was still valid, the only reason I knew that was because my dad told me how he begged his dad to get a 49 star flag when they came out but he didn't get it and everyone else did, but then they were the first house on the block to get a 50 star flag when they came out 6 months later.

I honestly do not see Puerto Rico coming in, not because it could be a Red State or Blue State, but because it is mired in poverty. 80% of Puerto Rico's children live in high poverty areas. Many of their schools cannot provide even the most basic in study materials. Puerto Rico's poverty rate is about 45%. And their water and sewage system is said to be terrible.

Study: Puerto Rico's children mired in poverty that dwarfs rest of U.S. - CNN

To put it plainly, if it were admitted as a state, it would require a TON of money to get it up to standards. And if people haven't noticed spending a ton of money is not really politically popular in Washington, especially when we have our own infrastructure problems.

Then again Congress over the past two decades has shown a keen interest in "Nation Building".

Originally Posted by Big Lutz

To put it plainly, if it were admitted as a state, it would require a TON of money to get it up to standards. And if people haven't noticed spending a ton of money is not really politically popular in Washington, especially when we have our own infrastructure problems.

States as a whole might not have those rates of poverty, but a lot of U.S. cities get close (for example, I wouldn't be surprised if Detroit and Flint, MI were up there) as well as some very depressed rural areas (like the Mississippi Delta region). Some of them even have infrastructure problems (Detroit, again). The federal government hasn't seen much reason to help with that stuff recently, I'm not sure why they would feel the need to do anything about Puerto Rico just to admit it as a state.

(and don't use the auto bailout as a counter-example in terms of Detroit, that just helped to keep its economy from completely tanking, but as a native Detroiter I can tell you there are much more deep-seated problems with the region's economy and infrastructure that that did not address and that both local and federal governments still don't seem that interested in addressing)

Originally Posted by Goodbye Blue Monday

States as a whole might not have those rates of poverty, but a lot of U.S. cities get close (for example, I wouldn't be surprised if Detroit and Flint, MI were up there) as well as some very depressed rural areas (like the Mississippi Delta region). Some of them even have infrastructure problems (Detroit, again). The federal government hasn't seen much reason to help with that stuff recently, I'm not sure why they would feel the need to do anything about Puerto Rico just to admit it as a state.

(and don't use the auto bailout as a counter-example in terms of Detroit, that just helped to keep its economy from completely tanking, but as a native Detroiter I can tell you there are much more deep-seated problems with the region's economy and infrastructure that that did not address and that both local and federal governments still don't seem that interested in addressing)

Well if we have areas with that much problems, should we not focus on repairing those areas and not bring in a state which, from those numbers, suggest it is a third world state? I agree that we have not focused as much on infrastructure in the last decade, but that seems to be turning. As the President said on the campaign trail "It's time to stop building over there, and focus on building over here" or something to that effect. Furthermore I would thing there is atleast a minimum standard in terms of regulations that a area has to meet or else they receive money to reconstruct it.

Originally Posted by Big Lutz

Originally Posted by Goodbye Blue Monday

States as a whole might not have those rates of poverty, but a lot of U.S. cities get close (for example, I wouldn't be surprised if Detroit and Flint, MI were up there) as well as some very depressed rural areas (like the Mississippi Delta region). Some of them even have infrastructure problems (Detroit, again). The federal government hasn't seen much reason to help with that stuff recently, I'm not sure why they would feel the need to do anything about Puerto Rico just to admit it as a state.

(and don't use the auto bailout as a counter-example in terms of Detroit, that just helped to keep its economy from completely tanking, but as a native Detroiter I can tell you there are much more deep-seated problems with the region's economy and infrastructure that that did not address and that both local and federal governments still don't seem that interested in addressing)

Well if we have areas with that much problems, should we not focus on repairing those areas and not bring in a state which, from those numbers, suggest it is a third world state? I agree that we have not focused as much on infrastructure in the last decade, but that seems to be turning. As the President said on the campaign trail "It's time to stop building over there, and focus on building over here" or something to that effect. Furthermore I would thing there is atleast a minimum standard in terms of regulations that a area has to meet or else they receive money to reconstruct it.

Point taken. But maybe having to deal with a new state with such extreme poverty levels would help the U.S. government to see that they have a lot of urban and rural areas where conditions are not so different? Maybe I'm just being optimistic though.

Originally Posted by Goodbye Blue Monday

Point taken. But maybe having to deal with a new state with such extreme poverty levels would help the U.S. government to see that they have a lot of urban and rural areas where conditions are not so different? Maybe I'm just being optimistic though.

That is probably true I just can't see why we have to add to our problem before we can address it.

And could please some one answer this: What does Puerto Rico offer us in return of becoming a state?

In Alaska we got vast natural resources, in Hawaii we got a massive vacation destination that draws in billions. In Puerto Rico it seems we get... a third world country that needs fixing. Is there some upside to this I am not seeing other than adding a star?

If Puerto Rico really needs that much help then I say all the more reason to admit it as a state. If Puerto Rico becoming a state will help people there get out of poverty then I say let Puerto Rico become a state. We've spent a lot of tax dollars trying to fix countries that didn't ask us to fix them, why not invest in a place that is asking?