Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Dec '10 14:36 / 1 edit
    http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/22/texas-just-got-bigger

    As the Dallas Morning News' Jim Landers points out, a yearly average of 80,000 Californians moved to Texas between 2006 and 2008. Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana likewise contributed to the influx, Landers says.

    Abundant resources -- land, petroleum, and so on -- create their own blessings; but a collateral blessing to Texas, in terms of creating attractions for population growth, is the state's taste for relatively small, relatively non-oppressive government. Save for the opposite disposition in states like New York and California, Texas, with its hot summers and taste for the un-chic, might not stand out so favorably among the other states. Stand out it does. Texas doesn't even have a personal income tax. It accords to business such latitude as comports with observance of mainstream legalities. The state legislature meets just five months out of every 24. The state's almost uniformly liberal newspapers rag on business a bit, but few enough others do. It's a good place, Texas is, to make a living.


    Does Texas benefit from a less obtrusive government or is all that just a lot of Texas hot air?
  2. 23 Dec '10 14:41
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/22/texas-just-got-bigger

    [quote]As the Dallas Morning News' Jim Landers points out, a yearly average of 80,000 Californians moved to Texas between 2006 and 2008. Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana likewise contributed to the influx, Landers says.

    Abundant resources -- land, petroleum, and so on -- create their own ...[text shortened]... Texas benefit from a less obtrusive government or is all that just a lot of Texas hot air?
    To answer that question you need to first find out why people are moving to Texas. Isn't it just for jobs?
  3. 23 Dec '10 14:41 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/22/texas-just-got-bigger

    [quote]As the Dallas Morning News' Jim Landers points out, a yearly average of 80,000 Californians moved to Texas between 2006 and 2008. Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana likewise contributed to the influx, Landers says.

    Abundant resources -- land, petroleum, and so on -- create their own Texas benefit from a less obtrusive government or is all that just a lot of Texas hot air?
    These are all a bunch of conservative lies. It has nothing to do with people preferring less taxation, rather, I think it has something to do with people wanting to move to a Conservative state and become voters so they can vote for the democrat socialist party so they can take over the state. Face it, people are just tired of conservatism and the sooner we nix them all the better!!
  4. 23 Dec '10 14:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    To answer that question you need to first find out why people are moving to Texas. Isn't it just for jobs?
    And there are jobs in Texas instead of places like California........why?

    Your almost there KN!! Just keep up that deductive reasoning of yours
  5. 23 Dec '10 14:45
    Originally posted by whodey
    And there are jobs in Texas instead of places like California........why?

    Your almost there KN!! Just keep up that deductive reasoning of yours
    This is inductive reasoning, whodey. And if you would really follow this line of logic you would be arguing for the Norwegian system.
  6. 23 Dec '10 14:50 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    This is inductive reasoning, whodey. And if you would really follow this line of logic you would be arguing for the Norwegian system.
    Why are there jobs in Texas and not abroad in states like California?
  7. 23 Dec '10 14:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    Why are there jobs in Texas and not abroad in states like California?
    There are no simple, single-sentence answers to questions like that, whodey. I have no idea what the labour markets in these states are like.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Dec '10 15:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    There are no simple, single-sentence answers to questions like that, whodey.
    Give us a soundbite answer! NOW!
  9. 23 Dec '10 15:03
    Originally posted by sh76
    Give us a soundbite answer! NOW!
    Less government!
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Dec '10 15:08
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Less government!
    There ya go!
  11. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    23 Dec '10 16:15
    Always be skeptical of numbers which are not net. How many Texans moved to California?
  12. 23 Dec '10 17:29
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Always be skeptical of numbers which are not net. How many Texans moved to California?
    Here are the facts.

    http://moderatemoyer.blogspot.com/

    Repbulican leaning states all across the South and West will gain Congressional seats based on results from the 2010 census.

    8 states will gain a total of 12 seats while 10 states, mostly in the Northeast and Midwest, will lose seats in the House.

    Those states that will win seats include: Texas (having seven straight decades of growth and picking up a whopping 4 seats), Florida, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carilina, Utah, and Washington.

    Loooser states include: Illionios, Iowa, Louisianna, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
  13. 23 Dec '10 18:03
    Boy, when I saw that headline I thought you were going to tell me that the United States had just annexed Mexico!
  14. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    23 Dec '10 18:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    And there are jobs in Texas instead of places like California........why?

    Your almost there KN!! Just keep up that deductive reasoning of yours
    Well, actually the unemployment rate in Texas stands at 8.2%, so there are not necessarily jobs to be had there. In California it is somewhat higher at 12.4%.

    In Pennsylvania, where I live and which has an income tax, unemployment is at 8.6%; but in Tennessee, where I've also lived and where there's no income tax, unemployment is at 9.4%. Massachusetts, which has what you would call "socialized medicine" (government-mandated universal coverage, really) the unemployment rate is just 8.2%.

    But don't take my word for it: http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

    What can you conclude from these numbers? One thing that you can't conclude, it seems, is that unemployment correlates much with income tax rates and the "size" of the state government.

    Incidentally, I'm not much of the opinion that the results of the new census is necessarily bad news for Democrats, mainly because most of the extra population growth in the "red states" that is garnering them more congressional seats is due to an influx of Hispanics, as well as people from "blue states" moving to warmer climes. These people tend to vote Democratic. What will happen is that there will be increasing numbers of blue congressional districts in the red states that will offset the loss of blue districts in the blue states. You already see this kind of thing happening in Virginia and North Carolina (in the Raleigh-Durham area), for instance. So, overall, things kind of even themselves out.
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Dec '10 18:56
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    Well, actually the unemployment rate in Texas stands at 8.2%, so there are not necessarily jobs to be had there. In California it is somewhat higher at 12.4%.

    In Pennsylvania, where I live and which has an income tax, unemployment is at 8.6%; but in Tennessee, where I've also lived and where there's no income tax, unemployment is at 9.4%. Massachuset ...[text shortened]... leigh-Durham area), for instance. So, overall, things kind of even themselves out.
    In the long term, who knows? But in the short term, it appears that the redistricting will help Republicans more than democrats.

    The great Nate Silver, in his usual thorough manner, breaks it down, state by state.

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/exurban-growth-should-bolster-g-o-p-in-congressional-redistricting/