Debt-ridden Texas no longer laughing at California
Started by Socialist
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 2261
Member since: Feb 2010
Discussion about
Deficit-ridden Texas no longer laughing at California For no one has been more gleeful about California's plight as it sank deeper and deeper into deficit than the leading officials of Texas. They even used tax dollars to pay for studies on how to take business away from California. Not from other states, just California. Leading Texans starting with Republican Gov. Rick Perry made frequent forays... [more]
Deficit-ridden Texas no longer laughing at California
For no one has been more gleeful about California's plight as it sank deeper and deeper into deficit than the leading officials of Texas. They even used tax dollars to pay for studies on how to take business away from California. Not from other states, just California.
Leading Texans starting with Republican Gov. Rick Perry made frequent forays into California over the last few years trying to convince California business owners to move operations and headquarters to the Lone Star state, and even convinced a few to go. Some California politicians, mostly notably Republican Meg Whitman while she ran for governor last year, called for emulating the low-taxes and weak regulations of Texas and even brought Perry in for advice. But hardly anyone seeks his counsel any more.
For the buccaneer-like approach used by Texas government and Texas businesses in their relations with California have been muted. Some of the Texas companies that tried to exploit Californians illegally during the energy crisis of the early 2000s are extinct, starting with the biggest pirate of them all, Enron.
And after hiding the truth for more than a year, Texas state government now admits to a two-year budget deficit of $25.5 billion, similar to California's shortfall on a per capita basis.
The Texas budget gap comes to about 30 percent of the state budget; California's to less than one-fourth of recent yearly spending. Things are so tough that ever-lax Texas has begun cracking down on Internet retailers, demanding they pay sales tax if they have a physical presence in the state.
This caused Amazon.com to close its lone Texas warehouse, the retail giant griping about an "unfavorable business climate" - the same words Texans use while trying to lure California businesses.
The Texas troubles are largely driven by the "supply side" economic beliefs of Perry and other Republican leaders in that solidly "red" state, who have long been convinced their government could survive and thrive with the third-lowest tax rates in the nation, when levies on income, sales and property are combined. Lower taxes, they've argued, would lead to more business growth and more jobs, producing more actual tax dollars for the state budget than would higher rates.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Yes, unemployment in Texas is lower than in California just now, about 8.3 percent and rising in January, while California unemployment has held steady about four percentage points higher for a year. But Texas, with real estate values far below California's, had virtually no price bubble to burst and was therefore not afflicted with as great a foreclosure crisis or as much of a dropoff in housing construction jobs. Take away housing factors and Texas unemployment is about the same as California's.
Meanwhile, Texas business growth has been slowing since mid-2010, reported an Austin business newspaper.
At the same time, one in every three Texas families that include at least one wage-earner remains below the federal poverty level of $22,300 per year income for a family of four. This more than doubles California's 15.3 percent 2010 rate.
The difference in poverty numbers indicates that Texas features many more low-paying jobs than California, another factor depleting meaning from the difference in unemployment rates.
[less]
How many people would rather move to TX than CA? not many i know.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by huntersburg
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 11329
Member since: Nov 2010
How many people who are looking to move do you know Jason?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Socialist
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 2261
Member since: Feb 2010
I know 2 people who are planning to move. Both want to go to North Carolina.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by oohah
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 82
Member since: Feb 2010
^^^ Are they moving to the Raleigh-Durham research triangle?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by jason10006
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 5257
Member since: Jan 2009
Limiting the choices to ONLY TX, and CA?
COuld not move to TX for any amount of money. But obviously that is just IMO.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by jason10006
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 5257
Member since: Jan 2009
....however, if you look at quality of life indicators, economic stats, etc...in almost every way CA is better than TX. And CA is a state that gets only about 70% of its federal taxes back in federal spending. FOr texas, this is reversed. So CA (and other blue states) blatantly subsidize states like Texas.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by huntersburg
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 11329
Member since: Nov 2010
>FOr texas, this is reversed. So CA (and other blue states) blatantly subsidize states like Texas
Your point is that the State of Texas is more clever than California?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by lucillebluth
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 2631
Member since: May 2010
"know 2 people who are planning to move. Both want to go to North Carolina"
"^^^ Are they moving to the Raleigh-Durham research triangle?"
know 1 single guy and 2 couples who moved down there in the last year. also know a bunch of people who have been down there for 5-10 years having moved from the ny and dc metro areas. they all really like it.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Socialist
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 2261
Member since: Feb 2010
All I know is one wants to go to the Charlotte area.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Socialist
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 2261
Member since: Feb 2010
Most Red states get back more from the federal govt. than they pay. The exact opposite is true for Blue states. Yet it is the people in Red states who want to cut govt. spending. I guess they don't realize that they would be hit the hardest and their states won't be able to keep low tax rates for much longer.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Socialist
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 2261
Member since: Feb 2010
The red state ripoff
There is a very strong correlation, then, between a state voting for Republicans and receiving more in federal spending than its residents pay to the federal government in taxes (the rust belt and Texas being notable exceptions). In essence, those in blue states are subsidizing those in red states. Both red and blue states appear to be acting politically in opposition to their economic interests. Blue states are voting for candidates who are likely to continue the policies of red state subsidization while red states are voting for candidates who profess a desire to reduce federal spending (and presumably red state subsidization).
So Socialist, you agree that Kirsten Gillibrand probably wasn't a good idea as a second Democratic senator from NY?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Socialist
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 2261
Member since: Feb 2010
well, a quick GOogle search finds that she supports farm subsidies, which is one the main ways the federal govt. subsidizes Red states.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by jason10006
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 5257
Member since: Jan 2009
The reasons for the blues subsidizing the reds: retirees move south and southwest (social security checks); defense bases disproportionately based in red states; the two senators per state no matter the population means more pork per capita for small states (which is mostly red); and there are more poor people in red states (medicaid, food stamps, welfare, etc.)
In addition, yes farm subsidies.
Is that clever? TARP was pretty darn clever for New york.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by madmilker
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 1
Member since: Mar 2011
I think whoever it was that wrote this is full of cow sh!!.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by somewhereelse
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 7435
Member since: Oct 2009
of course, alpo lives in New Jersey, so everyone gets to laugh at him.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by lucillebluth
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 2631
Member since: May 2010
i think everyone knows at this point that alpine lives in midtown, went to ps6, owns the place in cliffside park he had hoped to flip, and is much smarter than people seem to want to believe.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by columbiacounty
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 12708
Member since: Jan 2009
LucilleLivesDownTheBlockFromHer
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by lucillebluth
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 2631
Member since: May 2010
hey, you're on this one, too. alpine is a girl? are you?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by huntersburg
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 11329
Member since: Nov 2010
columbiacounty, you are very good at putting a bunch of words together without using spaces.
Congratulations! Your lifetime achievement.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by jason10006
almost 15 years ago
Posts: 5257
Member since: Jan 2009
AP: "....Texas' economic miracle beginning to tarnish...
..."Texas is better off than practically any state in the country," Perry said in September, well after the coming problem was identified. When asked about the budget deficit in December, Perry dismissed the question as speculative.
Even though Texas' budget shortfall is among the worst in the nation, Perry says Texas remains an example for other states..."
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/opinion/273609-deficit-ridden-texas-no-longer-laughing-at-california#
How many people would rather move to TX than CA? not many i know.
How many people who are looking to move do you know Jason?
I know 2 people who are planning to move. Both want to go to North Carolina.
^^^ Are they moving to the Raleigh-Durham research triangle?
Limiting the choices to ONLY TX, and CA?
COuld not move to TX for any amount of money. But obviously that is just IMO.
....however, if you look at quality of life indicators, economic stats, etc...in almost every way CA is better than TX. And CA is a state that gets only about 70% of its federal taxes back in federal spending. FOr texas, this is reversed. So CA (and other blue states) blatantly subsidize states like Texas.
>FOr texas, this is reversed. So CA (and other blue states) blatantly subsidize states like Texas
Your point is that the State of Texas is more clever than California?
"know 2 people who are planning to move. Both want to go to North Carolina"
"^^^ Are they moving to the Raleigh-Durham research triangle?"
know 1 single guy and 2 couples who moved down there in the last year. also know a bunch of people who have been down there for 5-10 years having moved from the ny and dc metro areas. they all really like it.
All I know is one wants to go to the Charlotte area.
Most Red states get back more from the federal govt. than they pay. The exact opposite is true for Blue states. Yet it is the people in Red states who want to cut govt. spending. I guess they don't realize that they would be hit the hardest and their states won't be able to keep low tax rates for much longer.
The red state ripoff
There is a very strong correlation, then, between a state voting for Republicans and receiving more in federal spending than its residents pay to the federal government in taxes (the rust belt and Texas being notable exceptions). In essence, those in blue states are subsidizing those in red states. Both red and blue states appear to be acting politically in opposition to their economic interests. Blue states are voting for candidates who are likely to continue the policies of red state subsidization while red states are voting for candidates who profess a desire to reduce federal spending (and presumably red state subsidization).
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_red_state_ripoff.html
So Socialist, you agree that Kirsten Gillibrand probably wasn't a good idea as a second Democratic senator from NY?
well, a quick GOogle search finds that she supports farm subsidies, which is one the main ways the federal govt. subsidizes Red states.
The reasons for the blues subsidizing the reds: retirees move south and southwest (social security checks); defense bases disproportionately based in red states; the two senators per state no matter the population means more pork per capita for small states (which is mostly red); and there are more poor people in red states (medicaid, food stamps, welfare, etc.)
In addition, yes farm subsidies.
Is that clever? TARP was pretty darn clever for New york.
I think whoever it was that wrote this is full of cow sh!!.
of course, alpo lives in New Jersey, so everyone gets to laugh at him.
i think everyone knows at this point that alpine lives in midtown, went to ps6, owns the place in cliffside park he had hoped to flip, and is much smarter than people seem to want to believe.
LucilleLivesDownTheBlockFromHer
hey, you're on this one, too. alpine is a girl? are you?
columbiacounty, you are very good at putting a bunch of words together without using spaces.
Congratulations! Your lifetime achievement.
AP: "....Texas' economic miracle beginning to tarnish...
..."Texas is better off than practically any state in the country," Perry said in September, well after the coming problem was identified. When asked about the budget deficit in December, Perry dismissed the question as speculative.
Even though Texas' budget shortfall is among the worst in the nation, Perry says Texas remains an example for other states..."
yeah, right.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7475635.html