quoi?
Poll
Do You Consider Yourself A US citizen Or A Citizen Of Your State?
| I identify more with National Citizenship | 86% | 86% - 33 | ||||
| I identify more with State/local Citizenship | 13% | 13% - 5 | ||||
| Total: 38 | ||||||
California's problem is that they have high benefits but low taxes (compared to what they need to cover their benefits). Texas doesn't have much in the way of benefits, but it has a low tax burden as well. Plus, it also helps that land in Texas is dirt cheap (no pun intended).Flaming_Maniac wrote:
At least states like Texas can maintain a relatively large economy without incentivising people and businesses to come to the state with suicidally low taxes and benefits.Turquoise wrote:
Um... You do realize that, on average, blue states tend to be more productive than red ones. Texas is the exception to that rule.rdx-fx wrote:
Well, if we could sell off New York, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Illinois, and Florida - then 'American' wouldn't need qualification.
As it currently stands, the overinflated sense of entitlement and generally Orwellian nanny-state culture in California, Chicago, and New York makes it embarrassing to claim them as part of the same United States as the rest of us.
Unfortunately, we cannot divest ourselves of irresponsible over-indulgent non-self-sufficient states. So, in that respect, the US Constitution is a suicide pact. We have to keep those boat-anchor states, even if they're going to sink the country.
The following is a chart of what each state gets back from the government per every dollar that each puts in.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/299 … 8ffb_o.gif
Now, it is true that some highly productive states are terrible at debt management (like California), but that has less to do with personalities and more to do with ridiculous systems in place (like California's referendum system).
A state that eventually implodes is not an argument of any sort. If it's not stable, it's irrelevant. Flash in the pan means nothing.
Unless of course you're talking ponzi scheme.
Also, Texas has relatively low regulation of industry. Granted, Oklahoma is starting to become a cheaper alternative than doing business in the larger cities of Texas. How Texas has countered this is by continuing to maintain a relatively skilled labor force in the tech and engineering fields.
Texas also has some good universities.
I'll relate this to other blue states in my next response.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-05-28 14:25:55)
The only thing really going for Texas in the long run is that no one section of the state will ever be able to become completely dominant within the political structure. People from Houston are different from people in DFW and people in DFW are definitely different from people in Austin. This gives you an advantage over a state like New York where a single large city dominates the states politics and the culture of the people within it is what defines the social handouts etc.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
At least states like Texas can maintain a relatively large economy without incentivising people and businesses to come to the state with suicidally low taxes and benefits.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I like the direction this is taking - it seems that at least in this thread, people favor state over national identity (unless provoked by Euros, then it becomes an 'US vs. them' mindset. The ability for people to move freely through group associations as the argument or foe changes fascinates me.
A state that eventually implodes is not an argument of any sort. If it's not stable, it's irrelevant. Flash in the pan means nothing.
Unless of course you're talking ponzi scheme.
Parts of Texas are still dirt cheap at less than $1000 an acre. As the state becomes more urbanized over time, you'll have your do-gooders who will want to expand Medicaid and other things that are bankrupting my state, California etc. Enjoy the lack of income tax while it lasts as well because it surely won't last forever. Texans like to brag about all the businesses they are stealing from California, but in the end Texas will end up just like Cali because more jobs means more poor people are attracted to the state. More poor people arrive, crime increases until the Turquoises step up and bribe them back into their ghettos.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
KEN, my clipboard has been fucking up lately, I quoted and responded to you in my post a few up now. I changed who I quoted to correct it.
Turquoise, to put it quite frankly, hurr durr. You stated why Texas is awesome. How this is an argument for why California is such a great state and why it should not try to be more like Texas, I do not know.
Turquoise, to put it quite frankly, hurr durr. You stated why Texas is awesome. How this is an argument for why California is such a great state and why it should not try to be more like Texas, I do not know.
Well yeah... that's because there's too much variance in wealth disparity and standard of living between the various countries in the EU.eleven bravo wrote:
the EU will not survive. guarenteed. no single confederation in history has withstood the test of time.
It's a nice idea, but it just doesn't work in reality in the long run.
LOLJohnG@lt wrote:
The only thing really going for Texas in the long run is that no one section of the state will ever be able to become completely dominant within the political structure. People from Houston are different from people in DFW and people in DFW are definitely different from people in Austin. This gives you an advantage over a state like New York where a single large city dominates the states politics and the culture of the people within it is what defines the social handouts etc.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
At least states like Texas can maintain a relatively large economy without incentivising people and businesses to come to the state with suicidally low taxes and benefits.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I like the direction this is taking - it seems that at least in this thread, people favor state over national identity (unless provoked by Euros, then it becomes an 'US vs. them' mindset. The ability for people to move freely through group associations as the argument or foe changes fascinates me.
A state that eventually implodes is not an argument of any sort. If it's not stable, it's irrelevant. Flash in the pan means nothing.
Unless of course you're talking ponzi scheme.
Parts of Texas are still dirt cheap at less than $1000 an acre. As the state becomes more urbanized over time, you'll have your do-gooders who will want to expand Medicaid and other things that are bankrupting my state, California etc. Enjoy the lack of income tax while it lasts as well because it surely won't last forever. Texans like to brag about all the businesses they are stealing from California, but in the end Texas will end up just like Cali because more jobs means more poor people are attracted to the state. More poor people arrive, crime increases until the Turquoises step up and bribe them back into their ghettos.
Yes, Texas sucks because eventually Texas will become California and infested with leeches. It's not like we don't already have a massive border with Mexico just like California and we aren't the second most populous state behind California. By your logic everywhere is eventually going to be a shithole, period.
You go to UT right? Take a trip down to San Marcos and tell me that place isn't ghetto as hell.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
LOLJohnG@lt wrote:
The only thing really going for Texas in the long run is that no one section of the state will ever be able to become completely dominant within the political structure. People from Houston are different from people in DFW and people in DFW are definitely different from people in Austin. This gives you an advantage over a state like New York where a single large city dominates the states politics and the culture of the people within it is what defines the social handouts etc.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
At least states like Texas can maintain a relatively large economy without incentivising people and businesses to come to the state with suicidally low taxes and benefits.
A state that eventually implodes is not an argument of any sort. If it's not stable, it's irrelevant. Flash in the pan means nothing.
Unless of course you're talking ponzi scheme.
Parts of Texas are still dirt cheap at less than $1000 an acre. As the state becomes more urbanized over time, you'll have your do-gooders who will want to expand Medicaid and other things that are bankrupting my state, California etc. Enjoy the lack of income tax while it lasts as well because it surely won't last forever. Texans like to brag about all the businesses they are stealing from California, but in the end Texas will end up just like Cali because more jobs means more poor people are attracted to the state. More poor people arrive, crime increases until the Turquoises step up and bribe them back into their ghettos.
Yes, Texas sucks because eventually Texas will become California and infested with leeches. It's not like we don't already have a massive border with Mexico just like California and we aren't the second most populous state behind California. By your logic everywhere is eventually going to be a shithole, period.
Also:
Population density by state. (per square mile)
1 New Jersey 1,171.1
7 New York 408.7
11 California 234.4
26 Texas 91.3
27 Alabama 91.2
Wait till you reach our density, then you'll get our problems as well.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-28 14:35:55)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I was a bit confused when you accidentally quoted Ken... So I related my response to California. I have edited my response a bit to make it relevant to your quoting of me.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
KEN, my clipboard has been fucking up lately, I quoted and responded to you in my post a few up now. I changed who I quoted to correct it.
Turquoise, to put it quite frankly, hurr durr. You stated why Texas is awesome. How this is an argument for why California is such a great state and why it should not try to be more like Texas, I do not know.
My argument was not that Texas should be like California. I was pointing out how California can be productive yet have problems with debt.
Now, onto another productive state vs. Texas.
Connecticut isn't exactly going to implode. They don't exactly have the lowest taxes either. Their debt isn't too bad either.
woohoo! we're #29! we're #29!JohnG@lt wrote:
lol... Well, if you really want to know how Texas maintains a lot of its unique status economically, it's because they focus on municipality taxation and programs. Each major city has its own methods of dealing with things like crime and poverty. So, the "Turquoises" don't bother with state policy as much as they simply rule things more locally.JohnG@lt wrote:
The only thing really going for Texas in the long run is that no one section of the state will ever be able to become completely dominant within the political structure. People from Houston are different from people in DFW and people in DFW are definitely different from people in Austin. This gives you an advantage over a state like New York where a single large city dominates the states politics and the culture of the people within it is what defines the social handouts etc.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
At least states like Texas can maintain a relatively large economy without incentivising people and businesses to come to the state with suicidally low taxes and benefits.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I like the direction this is taking - it seems that at least in this thread, people favor state over national identity (unless provoked by Euros, then it becomes an 'US vs. them' mindset. The ability for people to move freely through group associations as the argument or foe changes fascinates me.
A state that eventually implodes is not an argument of any sort. If it's not stable, it's irrelevant. Flash in the pan means nothing.
Unless of course you're talking ponzi scheme.
Parts of Texas are still dirt cheap at less than $1000 an acre. As the state becomes more urbanized over time, you'll have your do-gooders who will want to expand Medicaid and other things that are bankrupting my state, California etc. Enjoy the lack of income tax while it lasts as well because it surely won't last forever. Texans like to brag about all the businesses they are stealing from California, but in the end Texas will end up just like Cali because more jobs means more poor people are attracted to the state. More poor people arrive, crime increases until the Turquoises step up and bribe them back into their ghettos.
Austin and Houston are considerably more liberal than much of the rest of Texas. Dallas is about middle of the road, because they have a large blue collar base while having very conservative suburbs like Plano.
The difference between South Florida and North Florida is about the same as between the California coast and inland California.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Self loathing there then... What's your problem with FL aside from the heavy Cuban immigration, millions of senior citizens driving 60 on the interstates, homo's of Key West, UF gaytors, horrendous mosquitoes, 500% humidity... -oh wait. nevermind.eleven bravo wrote:
I absolutely hate the south, kansas and oklahoma. i was born in miami but that doesnt count.
North Florida is part of the South, and South Florida is Cuba a retirement home for Northerners.
Haha you truly are a twat. How do you know what people think? My observation is in relation to people defending or calling out specific states instead of taking a nation-first attitude. Or even that people are suggesting to cut out of the union certain states. It's just an observation - the Californians defending Cali, the Texans defending Texas, the NYer's defending.....well, their respective counties. Then if a Euro comments on how backwards the US is or whatever we will all defend the US because we live here - even though a page ago we were arguing against each other in defense of our respective states. But way to over-analyze it as if I'm trying to make some profound statement. Sometimes I wonder if you have Aspergers.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
This has nothing to do with people "favoring state over national identity" people don't even know what state identity is anymore. This is people arguing over cultural ideals that transcend political boundaries. The idea of these people bleeding on a state flag before the Stars and Stripes is hilarious in this day in age, particularly the people on this forum. Sure they might want to take a two by four to some of the pricks on Jersey Shore but it's because they're fucking stupid, that you would mistake this for "the ability for people to move freely through group associations" is humorous.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I like the direction this is taking - it seems that at least in this thread, people favor state over national identity (unless provoked by Euros, then it becomes an 'US vs. them' mindset. The ability for people to move freely through group associations as the argument or foe changes fascinates me.
This has nothing to do with what I said. Cool sentence br0.The idea of these people bleeding on a state flag before the Stars and Stripes is hilarious in this day in age, particularly the people on this forum.
So? That proves my point. Texas has its ghettos. We aren't so stupid as to dictate out policies to the lowest common denominator.JohnG@lt wrote:
You go to UT right? Take a trip down to San Marcos and tell me that place isn't ghetto as hell.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
LOLJohnG@lt wrote:
The only thing really going for Texas in the long run is that no one section of the state will ever be able to become completely dominant within the political structure. People from Houston are different from people in DFW and people in DFW are definitely different from people in Austin. This gives you an advantage over a state like New York where a single large city dominates the states politics and the culture of the people within it is what defines the social handouts etc.
Parts of Texas are still dirt cheap at less than $1000 an acre. As the state becomes more urbanized over time, you'll have your do-gooders who will want to expand Medicaid and other things that are bankrupting my state, California etc. Enjoy the lack of income tax while it lasts as well because it surely won't last forever. Texans like to brag about all the businesses they are stealing from California, but in the end Texas will end up just like Cali because more jobs means more poor people are attracted to the state. More poor people arrive, crime increases until the Turquoises step up and bribe them back into their ghettos.
Yes, Texas sucks because eventually Texas will become California and infested with leeches. It's not like we don't already have a massive border with Mexico just like California and we aren't the second most populous state behind California. By your logic everywhere is eventually going to be a shithole, period.
Also:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … ty_map.PNG
Population density by state. (per square mile)
1 New Jersey 1,171.1
7 New York 408.7
11 California 234.4
26 Texas 91.3
27 Alabama 91.2
Wait till you reach our density, then you'll get our problems as well.
Your problems are not your population, it's your supremely idiotic politics. The two are not related.
You failed to see the original point then. If California has such obscene problems with debt to the point it is unstable, all else is irrelevant. It is not a viable political/economic plan.Turquoise wrote:
I was a bit confused when you accidentally quoted Ken... So I related my response to California. I have edited my response a bit to make it relevant to your quoting of me.
My argument was not that Texas should be like California. I was pointing out how California can be productive yet have problems with debt.
Now, onto another productive state vs. Texas.
Connecticut isn't exactly going to implode. They don't exactly have the lowest taxes either. Their debt isn't too bad either.
I don't see what your point is about Connecticut.
This is the point, people aren't attacking/defending states, they are attacking/defending cultural ideals. rdx isn't ripping on the actual mass of California, he is ripping on the liberal faggotry that makes up a large part of California. He could care less about California itself, it's about the idiotic ideologies that have taken root there. To mistake the two means you make flawed conclusions about how alliances shift when a common enemy presents itself - the enemy is always opposing ideologies on this board, actual state/national identities serve only as a heuristic to determine those ideological allegiances.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Haha you truly are a twat. How do you know what people think? My observation is in relation to people defending or calling out specific states instead of taking a nation-first attitude. Or even that people are suggesting to cut out of the union certain states. It's just an observation - the Californians defending Cali, the Texans defending Texas, the NYer's defending.....well, their respective counties. Then if a Euro comments on how backwards the US is or whatever we will all defend the US because we live here - even though a page ago we were arguing against each other in defense of our respective states. But way to over-analyze it as if I'm trying to make some profound statement. Sometimes I wonder if you have Aspergers.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
This has nothing to do with people "favoring state over national identity" people don't even know what state identity is anymore. This is people arguing over cultural ideals that transcend political boundaries. The idea of these people bleeding on a state flag before the Stars and Stripes is hilarious in this day in age, particularly the people on this forum. Sure they might want to take a two by four to some of the pricks on Jersey Shore but it's because they're fucking stupid, that you would mistake this for "the ability for people to move freely through group associations" is humorous.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I like the direction this is taking - it seems that at least in this thread, people favor state over national identity (unless provoked by Euros, then it becomes an 'US vs. them' mindset. The ability for people to move freely through group associations as the argument or foe changes fascinates me.
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
This has nothing to do with what I said. Cool sentence br0.The idea of these people bleeding on a state flag before the Stars and Stripes is hilarious in this day in age, particularly the people on this forum.
KEn-JENNINGS wrote:
people favor state over national identity
ive been consistent and calling the idea of secession pretty far out
Tu Stultus Es
You're discrediting an entire economic structure over a referendum system? Look, Flaming, the original issue at hand was that rdx was suggesting America would be better off without several of its most productive members. Now, while it is true that getting rid of California right now might help us fiscally, his argument was not one primarily regarding debt. He was suggesting that California was leeching off of the system. My stats clearly showed that to be untrue. California's debt problems are state-related, not federal. They aren't sucking up more federal funds than they contribute, but they are running a major deficit in their state budget because of their referendum system.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You failed to see the original point then. If California has such obscene problems with debt to the point it is unstable, all else is irrelevant. It is not a viable political/economic plan.
My point is that Connecticut shows you can have high taxes, be productive, and not have massive debt issues or have businesses fleeing your state.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
I don't see what your point is about Connecticut.
attacking the state = attacking the "cultural ideals" of that state. Why would anyone talk shit on the 'state'? I hate Colorado because it is a square state....not because of the ideals commonly associated with the state, just because of the shape. derp derp.
if you hate Colorado, i don't want to know how you feel about Utah . . .
Colorado is my second favorite state, behind Cali.
most states would be a fucking mess without the feds.
Especially Texas.
aliens from outer space would unite the worldKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I like the direction this is taking - it seems that at least in this thread, people favor state over national identity (unless provoked by Euros, then it becomes an 'US vs. them' mindset. The ability for people to move freely through group associations as the argument or foe changes fascinates me.
Last edited by jsnipy (2010-05-28 15:28:37)
Of the states I've been to, Colorado is my fave.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Colorado is my second favorite state, behind Cali.
i love my state, but i gotta sayKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
attacking the state = attacking the "cultural ideals" of that state.
there are some seriously fucked up cultural ideals here. the predominant religion doesn't have a stranglehold on the state anymore, but it still is the vast majority.
i grew up in California, and by all acounts i got out at a good time - 1991.
you got out right before LA county saw its spike in homicides
Tu Stultus Es