Texas wild fires

Discussion in 'Politics' started by houtx48, Apr 18, 2011.

  1. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
  2. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    366
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    LOL... I love the irony.
     
  3. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Isn't it funny how the Republiteabaggers say they don't need the federal government, how they rail against taxes, "big government", and "wasteful spending" -- until they come begging for help and piles of moolah for themselves? Spending is only wasteful when it benefits someone else and doesn't directly benefit them. :rolleyes:

    Stupid, greedy, hypocritcal bastards.
     
  4. Pitbull

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,753
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    For 2008 - The latest year I could find figures for.

    Federal Government Tax Revenue Collected from Texas $235 Billion Dollars
    Federal Government Expenditures for Texas $210 Billion Dollars

    Doesn't seem too much to ask for some of our own money to help deal with an emergency.
    If that seems unreasonable than maybe the Federal Government should take less money from the people and the businesses of Texas so we can use it as we see fit.
     
  5. Mensch1351

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In the only other State that begins with "K"!
    Yoooohooooo...............we're a NATION! And as a nation when ONE state hurts.........we all hurt! Taxes collected from anywhere aren't just meant to help THAT particular area back -- but the nation as a WHOLE! You're either part of US --- or you separate and go your own way! Good Luck if you decide to go your own way pal. The Federal government just won't send troops if Mexico decides they want you BACK!!
     
  6. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    Well, true to form, you haven't provided any links, context, or citation for your numbers, not that they're remotely relevant anyway.

    Do you think federal taxes collected in Texas should only benefit Texas? Do you think maybe we have some other common national expenditures like say, oh I don't know, the Dept. of Defense, air traffic control, keeping the lights on at the Capitol, etc., etc., etc., . . . . .

    From the figures you provided it sounds like Texas is getting a pretty damn good deal.

    p.s. I agree with Mensch. If y'all hate the rest of the country so much and want to secede, please do.
     
  7. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    366
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    Don't take this as a personal attack on your revered Texas Republic... I think the OP was pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of Gov. Rick Perry's request. You can't have it both ways -- but luckily, the federal government doesn't hold grudges and President Obama is going to act like a President and direct the federal agencies your Governor loves to hate and criticize the support he asks for. So, you know, he can go back to hating and criticizing them.

    As to having some of "our own money back"... it doesn't work like that. Your money was spent before it was ever collected on defense, medicare, and social security. Don't like it? You should maybe blame a Texan for that: Lyndon Baines Johnson.
     
  8. Pitbull

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,753
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    I fail to see hypocrisy.

    People complain about the size & scope of the federal government and that it is exceeding its bounds.
    They send an excess of money to the federal government and when there is a fire bigger than Rhode Island they request some assistance.
    They are deemed hypocrites for that?
    I point that out and someone thinks I need to be told what a nation is?
    (While not agreeing with my point that hypocrisy is not present)

    Figures I gave are easily accessible via google to hundreds of websites.
    Think I made it up, Max?
    Do you think Texas (or any other state) actually gets more back than they give in?

    Texas is actually second in money sent and money back.
    Surprised me that New York is third - almost as much money in but much less back.
    But that makes NY liberals happy.
    Probably the only states getting back more than they give in are the 51st & 52nd States - Afghanistan and Iraq.
    The figures included DOD expenditures in Texas (63 Billion if memory serves me correctly)

    It isn't right that the federal government takes resources and then fails to provide services.

    And LBJ screwed a lot up but don't blame him for Social Security or defense.
    Medicare yes.
    And he had something to do with the Vietnam War too.
     
  9. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    It's more about Governor Goodhair running his mouth making asinine statements and then running to the subject of the statements for help when something goes south. He is kind of like a male Sarah Palin that stayed in office.
     
  10. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Gov. Rick Perry campaigned for his position in government with one of his political angles being the idea of secession. Knowing what the word secession means (and I'll assume for now that you do know), that would imply in this country a state would become absolutely independent from its federal rule and obligated to take care of all of its state's needs without the need of any federal assistance. That would also mean, in the case of the current Texas wild fires, that they wouldn't have access to any of our federally funded sources to help them deal with it. Figuratively speaking, the fact that Rick Perry is now requesting assistance from the very government he wanted to secede from just a few years ago illustrates the hypocrisy regardless if you want to believe one exists or not. Researchable and accessible historical events, combined with actual definitions from official, indisputable reference sources (such as a dictionary) are more important than political ideology.

    But even if you want to take the extreme angle and say that there's no hypocrisy here, there's still the issue of a politician doing a complete one-eighty on his own political ideologies. Anyone who is staunchly in support of one political view doesn't completely change his or her mind unless they've come to the realization that they are wrong, were incapable of seeing it through due to extraneous circumstances, or never believed what they were saying to begin with. Since we have nothing on record from Rick Perry suggesting that his past beliefs were in some ways in error, that would mean that his messages regarding secession in the past were nothing more than empty rhetoric geared to pander to the politically illogical. Either way you look at it, Rick Perry doesn't look good. So if hypocrisy isn't the right word to use in this case, pick one for us that would be more appropriate. And please... if you can, try not to use words like "liberal" or "conservative" next time. When you pay attention to the details, you realize this has NOTHING to do with left wing this or right winged that.
     
    #10 B_VinylBoy, Apr 19, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2011
  11. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    366
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    Thank you, VinylBoy... you are so much more eloquent and persuasive than I am.
     
  12. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Thanks, handsome. :redface:
    I can only try, and even if the initial target is unshaken perhaps someone else can read it and be swayed.
     
  13. quercusone

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,151
    Albums:
    7
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas (TX, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    Perry runs to the federal trough every time he gets a chance. He balanced the state budget last year, an election year, with fed money. Why was/is Texas in a budget crunch? Sure, the economy. But the Repubs changed our tax system a few years ago....maybe 3 years ago. They gave a huge property tax cut to homeowners and "replaced" the lost revenue with an increased business tax. But this business tax was not nearly high or broad enough to replace the lost property tax revenue. Many moderate republicans said at the time the tax change would result in a huge deficit in 2 or 3 years time. Guess what? Time to pay the piper. Which in Texas means slashing education and any other program that assists the poor. Great state Texas is.
     
  14. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    366
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    Interesting perspective... I (incorrectly) thought that Texas was immune to budget problems because of oil and gas royalties. Has a proposal been made to institute a state personal income tax?

    [BTW - impressive pix -- I was intrigued by the Calboner quote and I'm feeling pretty puny right now.]
     
  15. quercusone

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,151
    Albums:
    7
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dallas (TX, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    Texas has made a deal w/ the oil & gas companies.....We won't regulate you if you don't give us much in the way of royalties.

    And we have a constitutional clause that states anyone proposing a state income tax can be shot on sight by anyone with a Concealed Carry Permit.
     
  16. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    Actually, by law a substantial proportion of revenue realized by any oil producer on Texas State Land goes directly to fund all State-supported public schools, colleges, and universities. This has been the money from which Texas has been able to build the largest pubic school/education system in the USA. You can read the whole oily education history at the south end of The University of Texas, at Austin, where The Martin Luther King Highway (the MLK) cuts across the northern beginning of what eventually becomes Congress Street. They have a rickety reproduction of the original Santa Rita well that was responsible for the development of what we now call Texas.

    I don't see the Texas education system burning down. I propose they just let the wild fires continue -- as the US Forest Service did in Yellowstone -- until they die out.
     
  17. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    as I recall the great property tax cut did not amount to much on my house, I think the increase on insurance because of hurricanes took care of what small savings there might have been.
     
  18. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    Google "blue states subsidize red states" and you get a clear picture of which states receive the most federal dollars relative to what they contribute.

    It will surprise none of the wiser minds on this board that there is a direct relationship between reactionary Teabaggery and federal assistance. Ezra Klein posted this at the Washington Post. Quoting from a website called Fourth Branch:

    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).

    The Tax Foundation publishes a graph here. Here is a message board post where that info is color-coded and spiffed up.

    Here
    is an excellent blog post regarding the topic from Economist's View. Below are some rather interesting quotes from it:

    April 1 is Census Day. Evidently Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann are encouraging Americans to boycott the census — to refuse to fill out the whole form. This protest follows from their small government ideology. ... They say they want a government that intervenes less in the economic sphere. Perhaps they don’t like the idea that the census numbers are used, among other things, to determine the allocation of federal spending across states, because they don’t think it is the business of the government to redistribute income. That is “socialism.” Even “Stalinism.”

    [...]

    One reason is that the red states on average have lower population; thus their two Senators give them higher per capita representation in Washington than the blue states get, which translates into more federal handouts. The top ten feeders at the federal trough in 2005 were: New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Kentucky and Virginia. (Sarah Palin’s home state of Alaska ranks number one if measured in terms of federal spending per capita. Alabama Senator Shelby evidently gets goodies for his state, ranked 7, by indiscriminately holding up votes on administration appointments.) The top ten milk cows were: New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, and Colorado.


    Perhaps in determining how the federal government redistributes income across states one should view its role more expansively than is captured in the budget numbers. ... The four congressional districts that receive the most in farm subsidies are all represented by “conservative” Republicans, located in Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Texas. (Michele Bachmann’s family farm apparently received $250,000 in such farm payments between 1995 and 2006.)

    I was unaware that Representative Bachmann collected a quarter million dollars over an eleven year period in farm subsidies until I read it there. I know that "wow...just wow" is an overdone internet cliché, but sometimes nothing else quite works.

    ETA: Texas gets back $0.94 for every dollar they send to Washington, which is clearly not as bad as Massachusetts at $0.82, New York's $0.79, California's $0.78 and New Jersey's pitiful $0.61. Something's just not right with this picture.
     
    #18 Bbucko, Apr 19, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2011
Draft saved Draft deleted