- Joined
- Jan 29, 2011
- Messages
- 11,265
- Reaction score
- 2,921
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You didn't answer the question ... how does one escape poverty in a state where poverty is rampant?TX has among the higest growth in the nation many legals and illegals that are counted in studies. Low taxes, lower reguations, greater growth opportunities abound in TX. Best move I ever made 19 years ago. Keep reading your reports and I will keep living reality.
And that has led Texas to rank 6th highest in poverty.
You didn't answer the question ... how does one escape poverty in a state where poverty is rampant?
I think it's at least as fair as Conservativies lists of cities.And do you think your comparison regarding states is fair?
I think it's at least as fair as Conservativies lists of cities.
What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty? You will always try and defend the indefensible.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? In response to entitlements, you gave a list of the poorest U.S. cities and pointed out most have Democrat mayors. I'm just trying to get you to explain the correlation since mayors aren't responsible for entitlements.Do mayors govern states?
Same thing about Conservatism which does the same.What is it about liberalism that creates such loyalty? You will always try and defend the indefensible.
You raised the issue of poverty. Why are you constantly complaining that other are off-topic for discussing the off-topic issues you raise?This thread topic is about job creation. TX has a net job growth and nationally there is a net job loss since Obama took office.
And despite that, Texas still has the 6th highest poverty rate. You're not making sense. On one hand, you're saying Texas leads the nation in job growth and your saying saying because of that, Texas offers the best opportunity to escape poverty ...By actually getting a job since there are jobs in TX. One doesn't escape poverty by relying on liberalism.
Whether you like it or not Republicans didn't spend 3.6 trillion dollars and although Republicans spent too much they were powerless from 2007-2011. The Obama "Hope and Change" message meant something entirely different to the majority in this country vs what Obama meant and that is obvious today. Obama is and always will be a Community Organizer, not a President.
Now he is getting a lot of help from others who have managed or lead nothing with over the top rhetoric. Think a true leader would condone the following?
You have an amazing ability not to see that you are exactly what you describe.
And despite that, Texas still has the 6th highest poverty rate. You're not making sense. On one hand, you're saying Texas leads the nation in job growth and your saying saying because of that, Texas offers the best opportunity to escape poverty ...
... But given that, Texas still ranks at #6 among the states with the highest poverty rates.
No squirrel moments please.
Both have spent, and spent a lot. There is nothing legimate that you can do to dispute that, which is why you leap around so much I think.
Not articles ... census data.Again, I live in reality, you read articles. Still people keep moving to TX, jobs are still created in TX, and taxes remain low in TX.
Not articles ... census data.
Despite everything you're saying, Texas still has the 6th highest poverty among the all of the states in the U.S.
Yep, Bush and the Congress spent a lot and Obama plus the Congress put that spending on steroids. Obama has created more debt in 2 1/2 years than any other President in U.S. history and we have terrible results to show for it.
Why? I don't know, what is it about Conservatism that creates such loyalty?Amazing, isn't it, that the state still votes conservative? Wonder why that is?
No question Texans as blind to poverty in Texas as you, aren't.Looks to me that the people of TX aren't concerned about that ranking and certainly aren't as concerned about it as you appear to be.
As it was common knowledge and I do know where it went ... or a great portion ... its inconsequential. It was a stimulus to the banks and businesses recovery from losses. Its a search away on google ... and I've already debated the issue. Foreign and national interests were helped. That's what matters. If you like this stuff ... do a search on Q2 600 billion going to foreign banks through their American subsidiaries. So much for credit being available here in the US. Our little contribution to the PIIGS 's problems.
Add 16 trillion in secret loans to derivative gamblers ... now there a bailout.
GAO said:Table 8 aggregates total dollar transaction amounts by adding the total dollar amount of all loans but does not adjust these amounts to reflect differences across programs in the term over which loans were outstanding. For example, an overnight PDCF loan of $10 billion that was renewed daily at the same level for 30 business days would result in an aggregate amount borrowed of $300 billion although the institution, in effect, borrowed only $10 billion over 30 days. In contrast, a TAF loan of $10 billion extended over a 1-month period would appear as $10 billion. As a result, the total transaction amounts shown in table 8 for PDCF are not directly comparable to the total transaction amounts shown for TAF and other programs that made loans for periods longer than overnight.
We've been down this road before. To reach that conclusion, you add Bush's numbers to Obama's. Sorry, but that still doesn't fly. Try something new.
:coffeepap
For the record, the debt nearly doubled under President George W. Bush. Only in that sense could Obama accurately be accused of proposing to double the debt "again."
Obama’s ‘Bumbles’ | FactCheck.org
He's also been shown many times that Obama first budget led to a decrease in spending after Bush's last budget, but he pretends like he doesn't know that and instead, repeats his rightwing talking point that Obama's spending is Bush's on steroids. :roll:We've been down this road before. To reach that conclusion, you add Bush's numbers to Obama's. Sorry, but that still doesn't fly. Try something new.
:coffeepap
For the record, the debt nearly doubled under President George W. Bush. Only in that sense could Obama accurately be accused of proposing to double the debt "again."
Obama’s ‘Bumbles’ | FactCheck.org
Again, I live in reality, you read articles. Still people keep moving to TX, jobs are still created in TX, and taxes remain low in TX.
Bush's final budget ran through September, 2009, at which point the budget deficit was almost $2 trillion.Yep, debt grew from 5.7 trillion to 10.7trillion or 5 trillion added to the debt. Obama debt today is 14.7 trillion so obviously the 4 trillion added to the debt since 2009 is much, much better than 5 trillion added in 8 years. Got it!
He's also been shown many times that Obama first budget led to a decrease in spending after Bush's last budget, but he pretends like he doesn't know that and instead, repeats his rightwing talking point that Obama's spending is Bush's on steroids. :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?