The Texas Miracle (?) that California helped pay for ... (live, costs)

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by TXRyan23

Judging by many of our newer residents, You're in the minority Fontucky, I'm glad there is nothing in Texas that sparks your interests

Look out, we're invading... BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA! Pretty soon you'll be just like California.

You'll have to enjoy it without me, though. I'm staying put.

[TXRyan23]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

Look out, we're invading... BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA! Pretty soon you'll be just like California.

You'll have to enjoy it without me, though. I'm staying put.

It would take a substantial amount of Californians in Texas to make any serious changes though.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TXRyan23

Most states have National Forests.. I have the Sam Houston National Forest about 45 minutes north of me, Granted we don't have redwood trees but we have millions of pine trees..

You're doing the same thing again. The issue isn't that Texas has no national forests, its that it has few of them. Here is a list of US national forests:

List of U.S. National Forests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Texas has virtually none. But the percentages don't tell you about beauty, the national forests in California are some of the most impressive in the US.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Crackin' me up:

From the LA Times:

"While Texas Gov. Rick Perry sucked up to the "tea party," declaring himself opposed to "government bailouts" and prattling about seceding from the union, he papered over his state's budget gap with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act funds, including increased federal handouts for education and Medicaid. So when you, the California taxpayer, hear talk of the Texas Miracle, you should take pride in having helped pay for it.

The supposed superiority of Texas over California in fiscal policy long has been a conservative article of faith. ..."

Michael Hiltzik: What California should learn from the Texas budget crisis - latimes.com

My though on the matter is ...."So what?". It isn't like TX was the only state to get stiumulus money. California got that money, too, and blew right through it.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

I think it's like 8 billion dollars in tax revenue is never returned to Ca. That number I am not completely sure about but it's a lot. The state can make up for that loss in one of two ways; borrow it back from the government or tax the Ca. residents more. With the inability to control spending in the state as it is, we don't need to be subsidizing other states.

I'm not sure if $1 is correct. But if it is, it's a drop in the bucket. California's budget deficit is more than 10X that amount.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

I'm not sure if $1 is correct. But if it is, it's a drop in the bucket. California's budget deficit is more than 10X that amount.

What?

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Illegal immigration has been declining for years,

According to the article you posted, it's bee more like "a few years"...not long enough to be a bona fide trend.

[TXRyan23]

Originally Posted by user_id

You're doing the same thing again. The issue isn't that Texas has no national forests, its that it has few of them. Here is a list of US national forests:

List of U.S. National Forests - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Texas has virtually none. But the percentages don't tell you about beauty, the national forests in California are some of the most impressive in the US.

I'm doing it again ?

You claim Texas is "flat and ugly", Then when a beautiful photo of blue bonnets and several photos of our mountains and hills are posted you change your direction and claim that Californias are bigger and better.

Then when I question the fact that you said California had "impressive natural resources" by asking what exactly those were, You replied that you had national forests. So naturally my reply was that we have them too and that one is 45 minutes north of me and what's you reply ?

California has more, ours is better, Texas has "virtually none."

I'm done arguing with you, Next thing you'll say that California has a larger moon and that it's more impressive then the one we have in Texas.

[.highnlite]

Most states have National Forests.. I have the Sam Houston National Forest about 45 minutes north of me, Granted we don't have redwood trees but we have millions of pine trees..

Sam Houston Forest is 163,000 acres

There are 675,000 acres of National Forest Lands in Texas.

There are 20,000,000 acres of National Forest Lands in CA. 6,000,000 acres of designated wilderness.

When I use the word flat, I am using it in the mountaineers context. While much of Texas is flat as the Central Valley of CA, it does have rolling hills, all less than 3,000 feet in elevation, and much less in gain from bottom to top. For anyone accustomed to the Western Mountains, that is indeed flat.

While in the west part of Texas there are some small mountains, equivalent in elevation to Cerro Noroeste, a small mountain off I 5 in So Cal.

The large picture is, the lack of public land in Texas. Because when Texas was admitted to the Union, it, unlike all other western states reserved all unappropriated lands to itself. There was no Federal public domain land in Texas, the lands which in other western states formed the basis for the large National Forests and National Parks.

There are a number of places in CA, and in other western states where one can take a 100 or 200 mile hike or pack trip in one direction and remain in wilderness land the entire time.

That cannot be done in Texas or other eastern states. To me, that is what makes life worth living, the ability to wander wild land for weeks at a time.

My friend Professor X just returned from a trip to Guadalupe Mts and Big Bend, he spent a week at each one, car camped and saw most of the sites.

Two weeks in say, Yosemite would not be enough to see the place.

I have spent the last 30 years exploring Death Valley National Park, and still have not seen it all.

If you have not been to the wild west, it is time to go.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by TXRyan23

You claim Texas is "flat and ugly", Then when a beautiful photo of blue bonnets and several photos of our mountains and hills are posted you change your direction and claim that Californias are bigger and better.

Again, I was speaking about Texas as a whole. The vast majority of Texas is flat and ugly, the fact that there are a few areas that are nice doesn't change that. You are interpreting my comment in a ridiculous way, namely as a universal generalization and its not. Again, every state has mountains, yet some states are very flat and some aren't.

Originally Posted by TXRyan23

California has more, ours is better, Texas has "virtually none."

I never suggested that Texas has no national forests, just as I never suggested it has no mountains. I did suggest that California has very impressive natural resources, in particular its national forests. Not only does Texas have few national forest land, the national forests it does have aren't particularly impressive. People travel across the global to visit California's natural treasures, the same can't be said of Texas.