Could Texas Gov. Rick Perry be mulling move to ... California? (Santa Clarita: real estate, credit)

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by ProjectMersh

If you are naive enough to give Perry all that credit for the economic growth in Texas since 2000, do you then give Bill Clinton credit for the phenomenal economic growth which occurred under his watch (1993 to 2000)?

You mean during the time that the Republicans ran Congress?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by mbell75

God no, and Im not alone. Obama's new approval rating is a pathetic 41%, tied for the worst in history. If Obama had turned things around, his approval rating would for sure reflect that. If you REALLY believe Obama has turned things around, you are sure drinking that liberal Democrat Kool Aid

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

Tell me what Obama did to make things better? Also please tell me what Jerry Brown did to make things better in California?

Well thank'ee kind fellers! Youse just made my point for me.

I never said Obama or Brown did anything good to make things all better. Didn't say they didn't neither. I said: the economy turned around during their tenure.

Now, if you're gonna say Perry gets the credit for Texas' upswing in growth just cause he was the rooster in the chicken coop when the hens started layin' - then same goes for Obama and Brown.

On t'other hand, some folks might say the hens had some side action going', if you know what I mean.

Give credit where credit's due across the board. Or start lookin for the back door men

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by mbell75

God no, and Im not alone. Obama's new approval rating is a pathetic 41%, tied for the worst in history. If Obama had turned things around, his approval rating would for sure reflect that. If you REALLY believe Obama has turned things around, you are sure drinking that liberal Democrat Kool Aid

I take this to mean that you don't believe the 'official' US unemployment figure (currently 6.3%, down from nearly 10% in early 2010).

If that's the case, then why should anyone believe the "miraculously" low Texas unemployment numbers, given that they're produced by the very same BLS that publishes the federal figure?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by mbell75

Big deal. The Texas economy is booming and it's GDP will soon overtake CA's if it continues to grow at the pace it is. Cities like Midland and Odessa, TX recently grabbed the #1 and 2 spots for cities with the fastest growing economies in the US. As the article itself says

"But there is some good news in the report. As a percentage of the state economy, Texas’ debt ranks 39th.
That’s because, unlike so many of the others with large debts, Texas has a booming economy and a relatively small state government."

Sure beats the Democratic way of failing. CA is about the only Democratic led state who's economy is thriving and that's only because of the sheer size of this state. Besides, our GDP was actually down 2% this year from last.

Colorado and Washington, also.

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

You mean during the time that the Republicans ran Congress?

When Bill Clinton was President, the economy boomed and the deficit shrank.

In 2001, Clinton was replaced with a Republican President. The economy slowed, slipped into a recession (a minor one, but still a recession) and the deficits exploded.

The only changed variable? Swapping out that Democratic President for a Republican President.

And the 1990s boom began well before January 1995 (when the GOP took control of Congress) and even longer before anything they did could have an effect).

[dexter14]

Originally Posted by pch1013

I take this to mean that you don't believe the 'official' US unemployment figure (currently 6.3%, down from nearly 10% in early 2010).

If that's the case, then why should anyone believe the "miraculously" low Texas unemployment numbers, given that they're produced by the very same BLS that publishes the federal figure?

Obama and the Dems are doing it with smoke and mirrors. Over 345k Americans have given up looking for work this last year alone, which means they are no longer counted as "unemployed". This helps to drop the unemployment numbers significantly. Then the jobs that have been created are mostly low paying, part time jobs like 15-20 hours a week. Don't drink the Kool Aid.

[dexter14]

Originally Posted by ProjectMersh

If you are naive enough to give Perry all that credit for the economic growth in Texas since 2000, do you then give Bill Clinton credit for the phenomenal economic growth which occurred under his watch (1993 to 2000)?

I think Clinton was one of the best Presidents in history. If there were no term limits, he would probably still be President and we would be in much better shape.

[8to32characters]

IME, there are lots and lots of Texas transplants in Southern California--to my surprise, actually.

FWIW, I never met a single, solitary Texan in all the years (30+) I spent in Rhode Island, Florida, and Georgia.

Even in Arizona, where I live now, you don't really meet all that many Texans, especially compared to Southern California. I find that surprising, too, since Arizona is geographically closer to Texas and slightly more culturally similar (e.g., guns, trucks, country music seem more popular in Arizona vs. Southern California, although Arizona is very irreligious compared to Texas and the South).

To my understanding, there's been a strong pipeline between California and Texas since the Dust Bowl era--maybe even longer, so it wouldn't surprise me if Perry got the Hell outta of Dodge in retirement. Wouldn't you after all those years living in Texas? I lived in Plano for a year in the recent past, and I wanted to leave by about Day 2. Texas is a hellhole.

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by nslander

I'd say it’s more absurd to run up the credit card in the name of “fiscal responsibility”.

Or worse, tax and spend and still run up the credit card. At the present time neither party can lay claim to fiscal responsibility. They both need to pull out a dictionary to relearn the meaning.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by Unsettomati

When Bill Clinton was President, the economy boomed and the deficit shrank.

In 2001, Clinton was replaced with a Republican President. The economy slowed, slipped into a recession (a minor one, but still a recession) and the deficits exploded.

The only changed variable? Swapping out that Democratic President for a Republican President.

And the 1990s boom began well before January 1995 (when the GOP took control of Congress) and even longer before anything they did could have an effect).

So what you are saying is that in 2001 when Bush took over the economy fell apart?