liberty wrote:I understand that a third of the population of the island work for the government; do you think that is sustainable?
Once again, because it clearly did not sink in the first thousand times you pulled "facts" out of your ass, your safest assumption is that whatever you imagine you know or understand, it is wrong.
26% of Puerto Rico's workforce are in public sector jobs
source
It is 35% in Denmark and Norway
Sweden 28%
Slovakia and Hungary 27%
Estonia and Luxembourg 26%
Poland and Ireland 25%
UK 24%
Slovenia and Greece 23%
Belgium 22%
So yes, it is absolutely sustainable if they can get the economy turned around. There are structural issues that make that challenging. You built the Puerto Rican economy to serve U.S. interests with tax and trade incentives, and when it was in your interest you eliminated those incentives knowing it would tank their economy.
My problem with Puerto Rico is that they are making fools of the people of this country. This foolishness has been going on long enough; it is past time for them to either join the family or go their own way. Giving the Puerto Ricans US citizenship was one of the most ill conceived things that congress ever did. The people of that island have US citizenship, but the territory doesn’t belong to the US. They can leave anytime they want; what would happen if a state tried that?
Once again, in 1904 Congress created Puerto Rican citizenship, because you didn't want to make them American citizens and you couldn't allow millions of people to remain stateless. Around 1917 or thereabouts, you decided you didn't like that idea, because there was a war on and they couldn't be conscripted. So poof, they became U.S. citizens. So once again, you gave them distinct citizenship when it suited you, and you gave them U.S. citizenship when it suited you, you got to use them for cannon fodder in four wars and citizenship is the price you had to pay. Deal with it.
The
GAO report on the impact of PR statehood on the federal budget estimated that federal program spending would increase by $1.7 to $5.9 billion* under statehood. The effect on tax revenues could be anywhere from a decrease of $2.2 billion to an increase of $7.3 billion. If we split the difference on both it would be $3.8 B more in program costs and $2.6 B more in taxes. Nothing to get excited about either way.
I'm curious, because I don't think the circumstances are much different in other U.S. territories, what is it about Puerto Rico that makes you feel entitled to single it out for such a ridiculous ultimatum. And once again, the Commonwealth was something imposed on Puerto Rico because it suited your interests (are we seeing a pattern here yet?). They weren't given the options of statehood or independence in 1898, if they had, I am pretty sure they would have picked one of the two. And for almost the next hundred years, the federal government had absolutely no intention to entertain either an application for statehood or a request for independence. Apparently that was long enough to get used to the idea, given the absence of any mass popular movement for change. How does that translate into they are making fools out of you? Why is it ok for the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa to remain territories, but Puerto Rico alone must be forced to decide between statehood and independence?
And this analogy
There is no marriage; your beautiful daughter is shacking up with a drunken bum that can run off with the rent money at anytime.
is as ridiculous as I would expect from you. What, exactly, would the U.S. be cheated out of if Puerto Rico opted for independence? Because the rent money was paid to the landlord, and if your daughter was looking for a lifetime commitment, she should have treated him like a partner instead of defining their relationship without regard to his feelings, and never taking account of him except when it can get you something you want.
*some of the components are probably underestimated. For Medicare, they assumed no change in utilization (currently 78% of utilization in the states), but increasing payments to providers should induce additional providers to remain in PR rather than chase higher incomes on the mainland. Greater access to providers =greater usage=higher cost. For Medicaid, they made no provision for payments to nursing homes which really don't exist at present (because who would pay for them), but Medicaid payments might be sufficient inducement for someone to establish nursing homes)
No, I mean Spain.
