Comments on: Dems shouldn’t mess with Texas

By: AlexN5

AlexN5 — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:01:47 +0000

Conservative ideas can resonate with everyone, but that’s not the message that’s being sent from the Republican party. Texas is proof that it is possible to reach demographics that aren’t reached at a national level. It’s not that the Hispanic voting bloc inherently disagrees with the philosophy espoused by conservatives, it’s that other states aren’t implementing policies that are in line with that philosophy. The party as a whole should embrace immigration, as to reap the benefits like Texas has already done. It is also proof that scare tactics don’t work if sensible policies are in place. Voters don’t want to be threatened, scared, or alienated. Texas is doing just fine, other states should follow suit.

By: MoBioph

MoBioph — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 16:21:28 +0000

Don’t mess with federal largess, you may have added. Data compiled by the US Census Bureau (1998 to 2008 being the latest period for which data are available) show that the federal government has been especially generous to the Lone Star State.

The top three recipient states of federal defense spending in 2008 were, in descending order, TX ($63.546 billion), VA ($52.155 billion) and CA ($48.763 billion). In 1998, the first, second and third top recipients in this category were CA ($29.072 billion), VA ($23.079 billion) and TX ($15.994 billion), respectively.

The top three recipient states of total federal spending in 2008 were, in descending order, CA ($299.923 billion), TX ($210.005 billion) and NY ($174.071 billion). In 1998, the first, second and third top recipients in this category were CA ($161.571 billion), NY ($99.766 billion) and TX ($92.019 billion), respectively.

Of the 50 states, TX, which forms the bulk of the 11th (Dallas) Federal Reserve District, enjoyed the biggest proportional increase (2.282-fold) in total federal spending received from 1998 to 2008.

The states with the 2nd and 3rd biggest proportional increase in total federal spending received from 1998 to 2008 were NV (2.281-fold) and AZ (2.257-fold), respectively, both of which lie in the 12th (SF) Federal Reserve District that includes CA, which, at 1.895-fold, trailed 29 other states on that scale.

Among states, NY, which is the largest part of the 2nd (NYC) Federal Reserve District, ranked 43rd with respect to the proportional increase (1.745-fold) in total federal spending received from 1998 to 2008. (At 1.604-fold, ME came in 50th.)

In an unsurprising correspondence, a comparison of job growth among the Federal Reserve Districts shows the 11th performed best, the 2nd performed worst, and the 12th was about halfway between the extremes, as Dallas Federal Reserve chair Richard Fisher has noted.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, although you may wish to choose WA over TX on that score.

By: davezimmerman

davezimmerman — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 04:27:30 +0000

I don’t know how to address all you Texas haters. Texas is doing fine. Has a budget surplus. Perry is recommending it be returned to the taxpayer. Legislature only meets every two years. Think how this would help DC. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the rural area have a say in policy, as opposed to having Chicago run Illinois.
This is the greatest state in the Union. Deal with it.

By: bcartrite

bcartrite — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 00:42:59 +0000

There may be a different subtext here than commentators above are highlighting: Democrats can win the presidency without Texas (e.g. 2008, 2012) but paths to the White House for Republicans without Texas are remarkably few and unlikely. If, as a result, Republicans nationwide are compelled to moderate their positions on particular issues, this is good for the country as a whole. And if, instead, they remain trapped in their narrow ideology and find themselves a permanent opposition, this too is good for the country as a whole. I think we have a rare win-win in the offing!

By: borisjimbo

borisjimbo — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 00:32:00 +0000

Nothing but threats from Texas. Isn’t that what terrorists do?

By: GA_Chris

GA_Chris — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:20:15 +0000

Texas does well because they receive more federal aide than most other states, in particular in form of jobs for federal agencies and a huge energy industry and military spending in Texas…

It’s the people from the Blue northern states who fund this

By: justine1939

justine1939 — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 08:28:08 +0000

Texas used to be a great state, a place my family and I could go to enjoy the lifestyle. But any solidly red state like this, with its Confederate background still in evidence, its support of individual gun ownership, the death penalty, and so many other dangerous Republican policies – well, Texas has become a place to avoid. I’ll connect on flights through DFW if absolutely necessary, otherwise my choice is to stay away from this “whole other country.” On a positive note, I do support their secession from the union. It didn’t work the first time, maybe it will work this time around.

By: ConstFundie

ConstFundie — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 07:23:19 +0000

QuietThinker, I agree, maybe they did pay?

By: QuietThinker

QuietThinker — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 21:03:12 +0000

Really Reuters, why print this piece by professional lobbyists? Lobbyists should at least pay for their own PR pieces.

By: pavoter1946

pavoter1946 — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 15:43:23 +0000

When you think about Texas justice, one cannot help but think of all the executions. And wasn’t it a Texas trooper to did a cavity search after a car stop, in plain view of anyone passing by?

Then, the nonsense about school books. That is hardly a national model. And the huge number of uninsured people, and now the war on women by Republicans.

Sure, that is a Norquist utopia.

I give the article a big oops!