Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, you can tell it's biased when he states at the start that it's nice to fly in to the United States of America from California.
It certainly doesn't disappoint the the one big run on sentence of idealized life and families in the 1950's. Like visiting Texas and Conservatives is like visiting a group of noble savages in their native habitat.
It's a pretty badly done rip off of Garrison Keillor's fictional people at Lake Wobegon, to the point where I think everyone's insulted.
I think perhaps with the numbers moving here from California :i will not gripe about one leaving .Just as girls gone wild is some peoples pick in videos.
Well, most conservatives would find Texas's government and political culture a vast improvement over California's, but the piece is very biased and the facts have obviously been shoehorned to fit a personal agenda. However, I will say that I didn't find it any more biased than articles about liberals taking field trips to Mississippi to observe the poverty and socioeconomic carnage supposedly being caused by conservative policies.
Notice that the usual pick for a conservatism case study is Mississippi rather than Texas, Utah, Wyoming, or Alaska; the latter four are all growing and well-managed states with cohesive and inclusive cultures and economies, and the latter three constitute the top three states with the least income inequality to boot. Also notice that conservatives usually pick California as a case study in liberal policy causing havoc, rather than Vermont which is a well-managed state with cohesive and inclusive cultures and economies**. The average blue state is in much worse fiscal shape and arguably in worse economic shape than the average red state, but these stories of hellscapes caused by liberal or conservative (or even libertarian*) governments are, in most cases, sensationalism and oversimplifications that are developed by partisan hacks.
*Despite libertarian policies not being enacted or even discussed by governments in the places cited, which include the likes of Detroit or Alabama. Most of these horror stories neglect the social liberal side of the overall libertarian policy agenda (without that side it's a conservative agenda), and neglect the fact that libertarianism, like most policy agendas, requires the rule of law as part of the implementation. A government that is mostly ineffective but still roves around the ruins its policies created violating liberty wherever it can is not a libertarian one by a long shot; this applies to Detroit's situation. We can see glimpses of how people would behave, react, and innovate under a libertarian regime by observing 2010's Detroit, but it stands to reason that the positive citizen-driven non-aggressive organizations and associated actions, especially ones on a large scale, would be greatly impeded by the risk that the government after some period of time will come in and shut you down, a risk that would not exist if liberty was protected by law.
**I would have included Maryland in the growing/well-managed list, but Maryland receives a huge economic boost from the federal capitol, which in turn gets its money from taxes levied on the rest of the country; without that they wouldn't be doing nearly as well. Ditto for Virginia to a lesser extent.
A view of Texas from the perspective of a visiting California resident. PJTV
Texas has a lot poverty, a lot of childhood poverty, a lot of uninsured people, a lot of very low wage jobs, high teen pregnancy rates, etc and so on.
California has some of the same problems though statistically they rank better than Texas on just about every measure.
To me, what good are low taxes or no regulations when your citizens aren't doing well.
Does a state exist just for business interests? Or to also serve the needs of the citizens of that state?
On that measure Texas is not doing all that great when compared to other states, this is not to put down Texas because it is a big growing state and some problems are getting better, but it is not any where near a model for the rest of the nation. Politics aside.
Texas has a lot poverty, a lot of childhood poverty, a lot of uninsured people, a lot of very low wage jobs, high teen pregnancy rates, etc and so on.
California has some of the same problems though statistically they rank better than Texas on just about every measure.
To me, what good are low taxes or no regulations when your citizens aren't doing well.
Does a state exist just for business interests? Or to also serve the needs of the citizens of that state?
On that measure Texas is not doing all that great when compared to other states, this is not to put down Texas because it is a big growing state and some problems are getting better, but it is not any where near a model for the rest of the nation. Politics aside.
conservatives love scape goating out groups. Y'all just can't help it.
I know to you that means something, to me it is irrelevant.
Texas has been poor LONG before it had those 1 million Texans. Texas wasn't some wealthy state with high income highly educated citizens with low poverty. Texas has always been a poor state with high poverty since they have measured those stats.
So scape boating other people for LONGSTANDING Texas problems is irrational.
Bill Whittle speaks the truth like he always does, the CA butt hurt is strong in this thread. I'm off to set something on fire.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.