The Poojer Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 saw it this morning and it struck me as odd. The Motto on the License plate is "Taxation without representation" is that a slam at something? I mean isnt that a founding principle to NOT HAVE taxation without representation? Or is tat what DC residents want???? I am confused. Do they not have House Members? I know they don't have senators....maybe I am answering my own question. Does it mean that because of the lack of federal representatives in gov't, DC feels they are being taxed w/out representation???? See what happens when you think "out loud"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theesir Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 saw it this morning and it struck me as odd. The Motto on the License plate is "Taxation without representation" is that a slam at something? I mean isnt that a founding principle to NOT HAVE taxation without representation? Or is tat what DC residents want???? I am confused. Do they not have House Members? I know they don't have senators....maybe I am answering my own question. Does it mean that because of the lack of federal representatives in gov't, DC feels they are being taxed w/out representation???? See what happens when you think "out loud"? 283369[/snapback] You have indeed answered your own question, the motto on the License plate is a protest of the fact that they pay federal taxes, but have no representation in congress or the senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30dive Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Pooj....DC has NO voting member in Congress, yet they pay federal taxes. Therefore they have no one speaking (voting) for them on Capital Hill. I suspect this will moved to the PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted March 22, 2005 Author Share Posted March 22, 2005 Thanks didn't even dawn on me til i was typing it. You have indeed answered your own question, the motto on the License plate is a protest of the fact that they pay federal taxes, but have no representation in congress or the senate. 283375[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted March 22, 2005 Author Share Posted March 22, 2005 no reason for it to move, twas simply a question. Pooj....DC has NO voting member in Congress, yet they pay federal taxes. Therefore they have no one speaking (voting) for them on Capital Hill. I suspect this will moved to the PPP. 283377[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 no reason for it to move, twas simply a question. 283384[/snapback] Lived there for 15 years and this always annoyed me. Course, being 9 to 1 democratic, I would not have liked that more Dems would be in Congress, but that is besides the point lol The district has Shadow senators and congressmen, but they cannot vote. However, one can still vote in the federal elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCgirl Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 no reason for it to move, twas simply a question. 283384[/snapback] As a D.C. resident, I do think it is annoying we don't have ONE representative (I don't even think a Senator is necessary just one representative in the House). I don't think it would change that much but it's the principle of the whole thing. Even states with tiny populations have 3 Congressmen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 As a D.C. resident, I do think it is annoying we don't have ONE representative (I don't even think a Senator is necessary just one representative in the House). I don't think it would change that much but it's the principle of the whole thing. Even states with tiny populations have 3 Congressmen. 283396[/snapback] A: DC is NOT a state, and for good reason. It's a Federal District and as such should nopt have voting rights. As the seat of the government it should be independent of party politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 As a D.C. resident, I do think it is annoying we don't have ONE representative (I don't even think a Senator is necessary just one representative in the House). I don't think it would change that much but it's the principle of the whole thing. Even states with tiny populations have 3 Congressmen. 283396[/snapback] So a city that elects the likes of Berry should have a say in ANYTHING? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
30dive Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 So a city that elects the likes of Berry should have a say in ANYTHING? 283464[/snapback] So a city that elects the likes of those "leaders" in Buffalo should have a say in Anything? YIKES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 So a city that elects the likes of Berry should have a say in ANYTHING? 283464[/snapback] Now, Mr Berry had his good points as well. Let me tell ya, the women that followed him, Sharon Pratt Dixon, was no walk on the beach. In terms of Joe Six Pack remark about being a federal city. As a District Resident for 15 years, I would have absolutely been fine with that. Of course, that means the feds would be paying for a few more things. See, the district, like states, has to fund their own schools,DMV, prisons, park systems, transporation systems etc. Now if this was a true FEDERAL district, should not the FEDERAL government pay for those things. But they do not. Hence the plates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Now, Mr Berry had his good points as well. Let me tell ya, the women that followed him, Sharon Pratt Dixon, was no walk on the beach. In terms of Joe Six Pack remark about being a federal city. As a District Resident for 15 years, I would have absolutely been fine with that. Of course, that means the feds would be paying for a few more things. See, the district, like states, has to fund their own schools,DMV, prisons, park systems, transporation systems etc. Now if this was a true FEDERAL district, should not the FEDERAL government pay for those things. But they do not. Hence the plates. 283498[/snapback] If I'm not mistaken, does not the congress appropriate for the District as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 If I'm not mistaken, does not the congress appropriate for the District as well? 283500[/snapback] Used to, and there is a federal payment made to the district every year, but does not come close to true costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Now, Mr Berry had his good points as well. Let me tell ya, the women that followed him, Sharon Pratt Dixon, was no walk on the beach. In terms of Joe Six Pack remark about being a federal city. As a District Resident for 15 years, I would have absolutely been fine with that. Of course, that means the feds would be paying for a few more things. See, the district, like states, has to fund their own schools,DMV, prisons, park systems, transporation systems etc. Now if this was a true FEDERAL district, should not the FEDERAL government pay for those things. But they do not. Hence the plates. 283498[/snapback] Doesn't D.C. lead the nation in $$$ per student, with miserable results? Why toss more pearls before evident swine city management? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Doesn't D.C. lead the nation in $$$ per student, with miserable results? Why toss more pearls before evident swine city management? 283510[/snapback] Not sure about the #s Cincy, but I do not doubt you. However, the federal payment goes towards things that normally a city would not need to providde for, like security for the Inaguration etc. Hence the federal payment. It does not go towards things like schools, infrastucture etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 D.C. does have three votes in the Electoral College, as set by the 23rd Amendment. Which makes it the same for one city as it is for seven states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 As a D.C. resident, I do think it is annoying we don't have ONE representative (I don't even think a Senator is necessary just one representative in the House). I don't think it would change that much but it's the principle of the whole thing. Even states with tiny populations have 3 Congressmen. 283396[/snapback] No there are several states that have only 1 congressman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton is DC's non-voting representative in Congress. She is a very erudite woman who has influence because she is smart and makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 The simple solution is while keeping DC a federal district toss the citizens into one or more of the MD congressional districts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 use soapy water and a brush. then rinse. should clean 'em right up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts