Perry accuses Bernanke of treason for FED efforts to stave off recession.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/us/po … perry.html
I have looked into what the Fed has been doing, and I have come to the same conclusion, Fed policy is destroying America. Quantitative Easing and zero interest rates for the Banksters are not benefical to America and assist in the continued extraction of wealth from this country.
Current Fed policy eliminates the American middle class by denying the next generation any resonable access to capital, and done for an exteneded period of time, will crush the middle class completely and put an end to upward mobilty in American society.
The Fed's low short-term interest rate is the second line of defense against a recession. The first is government spending. That is orthodox economics accepted by just about all economists.
Ralph: Interest rates MEAN something.
Sure, with the rates at 0% (for 3+ years, it looks like it's going to be 5+) NUMBERS will go up. People WILL be employed, things WILL be built.
But it won't be sustainable. People aren't saving money; resources aren't being produced to aide production; money is losing value...
there HAS to be a bust. It's not just "the Austrian Business Cycle", it's "logic".
The fed is manufacturing a horrendous bust. It will be a triple dip - but this one's going to be big because they can't really inflate much more - gold is already at 1830/oz.
Paper isn't money because it doesn't sustain value (this last comment seems irrelevant to the idiots who are making the busts, but not to people who understand that interest rates mean something).
Buy a gun, start a garden, and guy silver/gold. It sounds stupid, but it's true.
These ideas are the ones accepted by the mechanistic, Keynesians but not Monetarist, Neo-Classical, Chicago School or Austrian School economists. Keynesians got it wrong during the last Depression they caused and they are getting it wrong now.
Defense on Recession. So hows that working out?
Quanitative Easing would be called monetizing the debt if it were done in a Zimbabwe. It is a dangerous notion but one loved by those who believe that a centrally directed economy is a good idea.
and how did that staving off recession go in your part of the country?
Not so well here.
Nor here, thanks to the Republicans' refusal to permit a sufficiently large stimulus package and Obama's ineffectual leadership.
He is cut from the same cloth as Bush. At least he can pronounce simple words better than Bush could. I doubt he has a shot at the presidency. But lets face it....The GOP is bringing a bunch of Taxi drivers to the show. They need to bring some real candidates to the table. Sure people complain about Obama. But what options do we have?
He did not accuse Bernanke of treason. Fact is fact.
Since Rick Perry's wife goes to our gym in Austin I get to hear all about their european Yacht cruises, holidays overseas, new house purchases, etc, etc. nice to glean a look in to the lives of policians lol. It doesn't seem like they are getting hit too hard by teh recession lol, or at least their expense accounts are not. It seems like they do a hell of a lot on what his wage is meant to be.
Too bad that HE gets the media spotlight even though Ron Paul has been saying this for 20+ years!
It's pretty obvious that Perry is just saying this to strip fans from Ron Paul in the future Romney/Perry v. Obama/Biden election. Too bad he doesn't have a history of such rhetoric to stand on like Paul does.
The media sucks. So does the Fed.
Ron Paul 2012.
Which one of those man-made islands does Ron Paul want to be president of?
I hope you'll remember Paul in 5 years when the economy tanks again.
Why? Are you saying he'll no longer be with us?
Did you notice he thanked the person you desribed as a super liberal? You should understand these terms before tossing them into a conversation.
Well I agree partly. Paul sure has rhetoric, no record, but plenty of rhetoric
Perry is another Bush. Plain and simple. The US doesn't need another Bible thumping moron who believes in talking snakes and thinks the economy can recover through prayer.
Bush is a Rhodes scholar compared to this nitwit.
and all this time I thought Bush was a Rhode Island red rooster with a suit on, or FogHorn LegHorn.
Perry did get a D in Economic Principles when he was in college, so I wouldn't expect him to know much more than what he's been told by tea partiers or some fed conspiracy documentary.
At least Bush did not sell off parts of the country to foriegn governments like Perry did
Perry has sold several highways and toll roads, several properties once owned by the state, not ot mention TXU, our utlities provider. As a Texas resident it ticks me off we pay tolls to a foreign entity when out tax payer monies paid in full to build those roads
http://www.zimbio.com/Governor+J.+Richa … exas+Roads
Well? The costs are probably still included in our debt, so they are probably not paid.
There is maintenance to consider.
Actually Texas has a gas tax that goes into a fund for future roads. A road is not started unless it is paid for at the start or by its completion. Exceptions are road that are paid for but may need to expand before funding will be available, those roads get tolls. Like In Dallas, 121 and the North Dallas Tollway have tolls, but have just went through years of exteding those roads and added bridges over many miles. Without the tolls the roads never would have been extended. 121 was sold to Citra of Spain and has a 50 year contract to collect tolls
That is the road that will allow cargo to be unloaded in Mexico and shipped throughout the States?
No, that is the Texas corridor project. That project will build a new road that will parrelel I35 and end in Toranto Canada
The cooridor project was origanily put in the dumper in the 2000s, but currenty has 26 new bills in the Texas legislature. If it get approved, Texas will build it with our tax money and Citra of Spain has already put themselves into postion to take it over after completion and put tolls on the road for 50 years
Are you from Texas? The interesting thing about those toll roads is there is alternate route. We don't have to use them and judging the traffic I see when I am on them not many people do. I use the toll road when I am in a hurry because there is no traffic.
I live in Plano and I am very familiar with these roads. No traffic on the tollway? You must not drive it often or you do not drive it during peak hours. I use to have an office at 17440 in Addison. I would always work late so not to sit in the parking lot I would see out my window. And as for the tollway, one can take Preston Road, but then you have to deal with all the lights and traffic. It would take twice as long to take compared to the tollway. As for 121, I am not sure you could give an alternate route from say McKinney to Lewisville.
I am in the Austin area, the toll roads are never busy here. Alternate routes are full of traffic but not enough to get excited about.
Wait a minute. You said "those toll roads" and you are in Austin. You were trying to tell me about "alternate routes" and you do not even know those roads.You also claim to "be on those roads" I metioned and you do not even live here. So basicaly you were commenting on someting you knew nothing about.
Here is what I said in my previous post
"Like In Dallas, 121 and the North Dallas Tollway have tolls"
I think that made it quite clear where I was talking about.Would you not agree?
I know that you are new here so I will give you some advise. First, check your profile once in a while. If you did, you would see I am the only one that is following you, so the chances someone who is following you being untruthful is almost zero. Next, read the profiles of the person you want to resond to, they can give you insight into who you are about to respond to.
If after reading the profile, you are not sure, read a few of their hubs, that is a total give away Sorry if I was short with you, but I am tired of a lot of those here that respond just for the sake of trying to argue. I can tell you are not one of those.
Must have missed the part where you said where you were. No I am not here to argue, I just think the current crop of Presidential wannabes are lacking and the one lacking the least is Perry. Ron Paul has been consistent in his views over the years but has zero chance of winning, I have to go with the one closest to my way of thinking. Sad but true.
I understand. I am not totaly against Perry, but I have a lot of queations on his policies. I was leaning towards Huntsman. I think he has what this country needs right now, but he was to silent at the debates so I have pulled back a little. He is still at the top for me, but that is based on the same theory as you right now, the lesser of all evils. I am not sold on Paul, I see right through him. He talks the talk, but does not walk the walk. He does not write bills, he co sponsers. So he jumps on the bandwagon and whenit passes he come here and claims it was his bill. Guess he does not know how easy it is to lookup and read the bills. Not many do, but I do. I look forward to you reading some of my hubs. Good luck here
In case you did not know, Bush and Perry hate each other. There are not even close as to being the same
and yet the Texas economy is doing so much better than the rest of the country...that nitwit may be on to something...
Texas is benefiting from oil and from cheap labor. This has little or nothing to do with Perry. The state is at or near the bottom on education and other public services, literacy, etc.
That evil federal stimulus didn't hurt either. Perry had his snout in the trough as soon as it was filled.
Gov. Perry didn't seem to have a problem requesting and accepting 17 Billion in stimulus dollars for his state. He rejected federal funds for unemployment benefits as being "too restrictive." Then, as his unemployment fund was running dry, he borrowed money from the Federal gov't to cover the shortfall. Great fiscal strategy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … 03544.html
We all wish for a miracle candidate who will fix everything - such a candidate doesn't exist. As for Perry - he just dissolved on contact.
Ah, liberal Keynesian economists!
When: Things go against what you think is true, make up an argument that seems plausible to deny it.
When: Things are seeming to go properly, say that it's because you're awesome.
When: Everyone begins to notice that your policies are doing NOTHING, demand that it's because we didn't do your policies ENOUGH (Krugman wanted a $10 trillion increase in the money supply).
It's called "Confirming Bias". The Austrian School is well aware of the game.
Why doesn't Krugman want to debate Robert Murphy, even though there's some $70,000 that would be donated to charity if he just debated Murphy?
-- It's because KRUGMAN IS WRONG.
"Why doesn't Krugman want to debate Robert Murphy, even though there's some $70,000 that would be donated to charity if he just debated Murphy?
"It's because KRUGMAN IS WRONG."
Evan, in addition to your other talents, are you claiming to be a mind reader?
Murphy is the economist equilavent of an ant crawling up an elephant's (Krugman) leg intent on rape.
70,000 to a charity isn't worth the effort of smashing an ant?
Krugman has been proven wrong time after time after time. Quit praying to your messiah and wake up.
The. Stimulus. Hasn't. Worked. At. All.
Oil and cheap labor. Two things democrats hate. Economies don't work on no energy and expensive Union labor.
It's amazing to me how the right-wing propaganda machine has been so utterly effective in bamboozling the misinformed voter with their continued short term solutions for the quickest buck—while Americans sink deeper into the crapper and then blame Obama.
All we have to do is look at our mutual horizon and realize that America no longer plans for our future—or more importantly, for our grand kids' futures.
A hotter planet; TV and the internet fueling the overwhelming desires of a burgeoning middle class throughout India, China and Brazil—all creating an out of control demand for polluting resources this planet doesn't have.
And what is the Conservative answer?—it's not to "conserve" or invest in energy efficient alternatives; or increase our R&D for new ways to deal with our overpopulation or our deteriorating infrastructure and our disillusioned youth.
No, the right-wingers think it's all about cheap oil and cheap labor—even though cheap labor drove all of the manufacturing to the countries where cheaper labor could be exploited—while big international oil conglomerates (loyal only to themselves and not this country) have bribed our capitulating politicians into giving them corporate welfare.
Simple-minded solutions for the simple-minded—welcome to The United Corporations of America where crapitalism trumps democracy at every turn and people just want to run away from their fears and anxiety with yet more escapist toys and can conveniently project their blame onto a foriegn-fathered mulatto President whom they resent because . . . you pick the reason!
Not if you compare him to George W. Bush and what he inherited from that fool!
He inherited a better economy and lower unemployment. What say you?
Actually Bush inherited an economy going into recession and slowed it down, lets not forget the faux surplus democrats like to attribute to Clinton.
Sure it was. The last 2 years of Clinton's term was with a majority republican congress. What did you expect? Did you find the WMDS?
Let me guess, you voted for Dubya, didn't you?
Edit: Sorry, I didn't check your profile first or I wouldn't have had to ask. Palin too?
No, of course not. But I do expect you do deny any responsibility for electing a guy responsible for thousands dying in Iraq, both Americans and even more innocent Iraqi civilians. Not to mention a huge expenditure from our treasury into the VP's old company. You helped enable all of these things with your choice. And now YOU cast blame on a guy trying to mend your guys blunders? Texas, I should have known.
Per the scietists, our earth is warming due to polutuion. Interesting. See the same scientists said in my youth that pollution is sending the earth into another ice age for the earth was cooling each years. Sorry, they cannot have it both ways. The reality is the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles. They are based on the earth cycle aroung the sun. In some cycles, earth passes closer to the sun, in otheres it cycles fruther than the sun. PERIOD. the rest is just Dem spin to propose EPA regulations on businesses or to push for some other regulation.Remember in the 70s coal driven power plants were emitting to much co2 and polution the EPA regulated coal plant emmissions because they were contributing to the upcoming ice age.. Today, Obama wants to close Coal plants for they are emmitting way to much co2s and pollution they are creating global warming. Perhaps it is because the Dems have been against the Coal industry for more than 50 years. Perfect example of why I say you cannot have it both ways. It's amazing to me how the left-wing propaganda machine has been so utterly effective in bamboozling the misinformed voter. Hmmm that sounds familiar.
"And what is the Conservative answer?—it's not to "conserve" or invest in energy efficient alternatives; or increase our R&D for new ways to deal with our overpopulation or our deteriorating infrastructure and our disillusioned youth"
R&D to conserve our overpopulation? I am affraid to address this one. Are you hinting at population and procreation interferece or monitoring by our Government? Is that what the dems are wanting to do?
And when have the youth of America not been disallusioned. Do you remember the youth protests of the 60s and 70s? Those Disallusioned eventually became our leaders and business owners. Seem to me they turn out alright.
Our deterierating infrustucture did not happen overnight. It took many years and numerous administrations of being ignored by both Dems and Repubs. So much for it being the conservatives fault.
More denial of the facts; continue arguing for your limitations, your narrow-minded focus and ideological biases, and behold — they're yours!
Your name would more aptly be: "Jaundiced American View."
As in typical wizzy fashion, attack and name call when he cannot dispute the facts. The Wiz needs to ease on down the road.
I can easily refute your so called "facts"—ninety-eight percent of the top scientists on the planet agree that both poles are melting at alarming rates and the effects will be catastrophic and irreversible. The oceans are rising and with more autos and coal-fired energy coming to the China & India alone, what I spoke of will happen. And your ideological pig-headeness is another empirical fact.
Show a credible source showing 98% agree on global warming. You cannot because such statements are nothing but opinion mostly on blogs and media reports.
"The oceans are rising and with more autos and coal-fired energy coming to the China & India alone, what I spoke of will happen"
So you admit what you spoke of, well what you spoke of is not facts. Here are real facts on China plants. A report in 2007 claimed that China was opening a new cola plant every week. While that is far from true, what is true is that China is building plants more eco friendly with much less pollution emissions then those built in the US
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world … 1coal.html
So much for your "thoughts". Do some research instead of trying to pass your "thoughts" as facts. And as always, you continue to spin and name call, those do not make anything true either.
It's not only my thoughts, but the thoughts of people who are much more informed than you or I. You are a close-minded ideologue who will only focus on your own biased view—I'm fine with that, but here is an opinion from someone who travels the world and see's what is happening . . .
http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/pol … s.cnn.html
"Show a credible source showing 98% agree on global warming. You cannot because such statements are nothing but opinion mostly on blogs and media reports"
That is what I posted. What do you do? You come back with a link from a CNN interview of a NY columnist(I watched the entire interview yesterday, to bad you did not for you would not have used Friedman as a source) and prove my point. You post the opinion of a journalist. I gave you a factual post from a NASA scientist that proved my point, but you claim I focus on a bias. You have no clue, everyone here knows I am a true independent. I call out and present the facts on everything on both sides of the aisle.
As for traveling the world, there has not many places I have not been to. Before my health issues, I was an extensive traveler, been to and seen more places than you can post in those pictures you post. I would bet you never even left the country. As for your opinions, you are entitled to them. But when you try to pass them off as fact, someone here will call you on that. I know you know that for I have read your attacks and name calling for the last several weeks.
Now since you brought up that interview, Palin is right about getting gas prices down. I am not sure as low as $2 as she claimed, but significantly lower. If Obama would resign the drilling issue he overturned form Bush, the oil produced here will lesson out dependence on foriegn oil, flood the market so that there is a surpluss of product, and that lowers prices
There is no authority available that you will accept because you refuse to accept the truth, but here . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific … ate_change
You continually prove my point. Notice the constant word used"opinion" Mainly becaused nothing in the article was a proven fact. There are no studies shown or used as evidence to back their"opinion". This is a study based on whether or not scientists believe humans are the cause. Nothing about an actual study that there is global warming or scientific facts as to why it is occuring. The only thing this article shows is that Humans did it according to the OPINIONS of scientists
This article is about scientific OPINION on climate change. For public perception and controversy about the scientific consensus, see Public OPINION on climate change and Global warming controversy. For OPINIONS of individual dissenting scientists, see List of scientists OPPOSING the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
Based on two independent studies, each employing different methodologies, 97% of climate experts think humans are causing global warming.
Scientific OPINION on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of OPINION among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed PUBLICATIONS(OPINIONS), and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' OPINIONS, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.
"As for traveling the world, there has not many places I have not been to. Before my health issues, I was an extensive traveler, been to and seen more places than you can post in those pictures you post. I would bet you never even left the country. As for your opinions, you are entitled to them. But when you try to pass them off as fact, someone here will call you on that. I know you know that for I have read your attacks and name calling for the last several weeks. "
I have worked for the U.S. Department Of State in Central and South America as well as in Europe. I'm also a veteran and was in The Tactical Air Command of The U.S. Air Force during the Viet Nam War form 1967 to 1973.
And notice please that I projected no false assumptions about who you are other than the fact (that you've proved here already) that you're still a pig-headed ideologue, blinkered by bias and narrow-mindedness. You can deny it and climate change all you like, but that is certainly your right and i have no problem with it.
Really, you belonged the the 19th Air force?
As always, you continue to just spew attacks when you cannot provide facts. Look as I said you can have your opinion, but we all can see you for who you are. Funny, you claim "You can deny it and climate change all you like, but that is certainly your right and i have no problem with it." but you obviously have a problem with me being correct for you result to kindergarten banter by calling me names " a pig-headed ideologue, blinkered by bias and narrow-mindedness". Certianly not the reactions of someone who works at the State Department. I for the record, I have not denied climate change, I deny global warming BS. This is nothing more than a normal cycle that is coming to an end and global cooling will begin again. Not caused by aresols , but by the cycles earth goes through.
Here is just one contridiction in the scientific community. We were all lead to believe the aresol cans lead to global warming. Then the EPA pushed for a ban or changes in aresol cans. Here is a scientist from NASA who says the global cooling that started in 1945 and did not change till 1978 was caused by aresol cans. Gotta love how the scientic community agrees with each other, but even more is how the EPA and government will pick and choose reports to push there agenda.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur … ature4.php
Evan G Rogers wrote: "...the QEs, the bailouts, and the 0% interest rates have done squat...."
I certainly agree with this. These may keep the economy breathing while a cure is sought but they certainly are no long term solution.
Real prosperity is created mainly through farming, mining and manufacturing. The Mfg'ing sector is where we need a huge effort to be made. Domestic manufacturing, that is, not U.S. companies who make profits on cheap foreign labor in their overseas facilities.
Ridding the economy of the entrenched and self-serving foes of real prosperity will have to be done by the voters. No messiah is going to do it for us.
Rick Perry's K Street Project Sought Earmarks, Federal Funds
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/1 … 29584.html
http://www.truth-out.org/texas-ranks-de … 1313595007
Texas Ranks Dead Last in Total Job Creation, Accounting for Labor Force Growth
Government can't create jobs. Any politician who runs on a "I created jobs" platform will only prove to be a flip-flopping tyrant.
Evan, the government can and does create jobs building and repairing roads and bridges, schools, sending rockets to the moon and through its purchases of various goods and services in the public interest (usually, in the public interest).
You see the jobs, but you don't see the jobs that were taken.
The government had to forcefully take the money from people, then throw it through the beareucratic nightmare, overspend on resources, and then finally start building a road using a non-market pricing system.
Also, the roads might not have been needed (along with the rest). The resources probably could have been sent in a more pressing manner.
It takes more money for governments to build roads than it does for the market, and thus jobs weren't created, they were destroyed.
You're a victim of the unseen. I highly recommend "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
"Government can't create jobs. Any politician who runs on a "I created jobs" platform will only prove to be a flip-flopping tyrant.
From a Rick Perry / Office of the Governor Press Release:
"Gov. Rick Perry today attributed the strength of the Texas economy to low taxes, a reasonable and predictable regulatory climate and an educated workforce, which together have helped Texas employers lead the nation in job creation. The governor spoke at a luncheon for the Waco Chamber of Commerce, where he also announced a $350,000 Texas Enterprise Fund (TEF) investment in Green Star LED, and a $2.5 million Texas Emerging Technology Fund (TETF) investment in ViroXis Corp."
Evan I alway admire your exuberance and constancy to your ideology, but you are incorrigibly delusional if you have interpreted my post as agreeing with you.
You have only one tool in your tool-belt and you try to use it as a solution to every problem you encounter.
You said that he lowered taxes... that's reducing government.
Thus, reducing government led to more jobs.
Thus, more government means less jobs.
Your post pretty much said "government loosened it's tyrannical grip on job stifling, and thus jobs flourished"
So, yes, you agreed with me.
Evan, Perry is pointing out and taking credit for government actions in Texas which created jobs.
The post said that government was restricted, and jobs took off as a result. Wizard of Whimsy's post agreed with what I said.
But the argument that you sent to me - the WPA under FDR - was simply more errors of the following fashion. I'm not going to bother to outline them again.
The following mistakes were made with the WPA argument:
Confirmation of Bias
The Seen vs. the Unseen
Ignoring Unintended Consequences.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that the FIRST depression that the government went nuts trying to cure was also the first one that lasted 10 years?
It's amazing how brainwashed people can be: "Hey! we did nothing about 8 times, and the panics (as they were called) only lasted about 1 year if even... then we tried to do everything we could and the depression lasted about 15 years! Good thing we screwed ourselves hard!"
Also, the vast majority of the money spent during the New Deal was to get votes for the king in states that he hadn't won earlier. If you look at it, the states that didn't vote for FDR got the most money per capita.
Shame on you Ralph. We all know that education is measured in this country by dollars spent which has little or nothing to do with the actual result. The latest figures I have seen indicate that Texas spends over $11k annually per classroom student with a student population approaching almost 15 million children. Name me some other states dealing with that student population...there are very few. Student to teacher ratio is at just over 14 students per teacher which I would consider in the range of reasonable. The literacy aspects here in Texas has much to do with our on-going problems with illegal immigration and our federal governments desire not to solve our border security problem. Do you really think Iowa is suffering much in that area in terms of student literacy? As in anything, it helps to compare apples to apples and the comparisons drawn for education success rate measured in money spent per capita and literacy certainly are not level playing fields when it comes to Texas and the rest of the nation. Perry, at least, has arrived at the proper conclusion that more money spent does not necessarily yield an increase in intelligence retained. Educational spending has been the mantra for the more than half a century that I have been here and I do not see the bang for the buck....in fact I see it going other way...more money spend, less education received. I for one am proud that Rick Perry and Texas will not top the list of money spent on education. On a relative scale, many of the states have never even come close to seeing the issues in education that Texas is faced with on an annual basis...the complexity is enormous and one does not even have to look beyond the city limits of Houston to see that. Perry has at least the courage and the integrity to face that issue and call it what it is rather than spinning to save his own butt. I think we have seen more than enough people in Washington who know no other skill than spinning words and spending money and look where it has left us. Then again, I did have a lapse of memory in making that statement. After all, Obama is a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard Law...now we can see the product of good money thrown after bad. WB
Texas Where We Stand
http://www.window.state.tx.us/comptrol/ … wws0512ed/
Texas is #49 in verbal SAT scores in the nation (493) and #46 in average math SAT scores (502).
Texas is #36 in the nation in high school graduation rates (68%).
Texas is #33 in the nation in teacher salaries. Teacher salaries in Texas are not keeping pace with the national average. The gains realized from the last state-funded across-the-board pay raise authorized in 1999, which moved the ranking from 33 to as high as 26th in the nation, have disappeared over the last five years.
Texas was the only state in the nation to cut average per pupil expenditures in fiscal year 2005, resulting in a ranking of #40 nationally; down from #25 in fiscal year 1999.
Texas is #6 in the nation in student growth. The general student population in Texas public schools grew by 11.1% between school years 1999 and 2005, with the largest percent of growth seen among low income and minority children.
Between school years 1999 and 2005, the number of central administrators employed by Texas public schools grew by 32.5%, overall staffing in public schools grew by 15.6%, while the number of teachers grew only 13.3%.
From fiscal years 2002 to 2006, average tuition and fees at public universities increased 61.4%. Average tuition and fees at community colleges increased 51.3%.
From fiscal years 2002 to 2007, the Texas state budget was cut in terms of real dollar, per-student funding for universities by 19.92%; for community colleges the per-student cut was 35.29%.
California has nine nationally recognized research institutions; New York has seven; Pennsylvania has four; while Texas, the second most populous state in the nation, has only three.
Out of Texas’ 145 public and private higher education institutions, only one private institution, Rice University, ranked among the nation’s top 50.
The number of students attending Texas colleges and universities increased by 23.6% from Fall 1999 to Fall 2005 with the highest growth in community and technical colleges.
Nothing like injecting a few facts into the discussion.
None of those facts took into consideration countless variables.
How many states have to fight a failed Federal Drug Policy on their borders?
How many states have to fight horrendous diversity in population?
Stats aren't the end-all to a discussion.
"Stats aren't the end-all to a discussion."
Stats aren't the end-all, but they are a good place to start.
You and Ron Paul may populate your island as homogenized as you wish. You may have a problem though; I don't think anarchists do all that well with the ladies.
Shame noone injests the facts Texas was last when Bush was Govenor and during his term before Perry, it went from 50 to 24. Under Perry it has gone down but Wayne is partly right. Immegration since 2001 has really had a hard impact, not to metion all the Katrina people that left LA and now count Texas as home. They have severly impacted the entire entitlement system as well as the school districts
Oh - here I am quoting QE1, QE2, the Bailouts, the Future QE3, and the 3-5 year long stint of 0% interest rates...
What a fool I've been!!
Hey, Krugman: remember when you wanted a $10 trillion increase in money to help bolster the economy, and then, when it didn't happen, you blamed everyone for being too timid?
It did happen.
$16 Trillion of stimulus since 2007 has failed to do a damned thing.
Ralph, I know damned well that this won't change your mind. But everyone else who looks at this data WITHOUT BIAS will CLEARLY see that Krugman, Keynes, Bernanke, Greenspan, and all the other nincumpoops in charge of your money are COMPLETELY WRONG.
... and you said that the Austrian Economists are religious zealots? You can't even admit that some $20 trillion worth of stimulus on top of 3 year 0% interest rates have done squat to help "the economy".
Bow before your false god, Ralph.
Over $17 trillion in monetary easing over the past 4 years, and nothing but inflation to show for it.
Krugman is wrong. Keynes is wrong.
The fact that Texas had the largest growth in population from 2000 to 2010 and total job creation was 1.1 Million during the same years says leads me to believe that Perry has a little bit of an edge on Obama. Less government is the key to a better economy.
"The governor of Texas is despicable. Of all the crass pandering, of all the gross political kowtowing to ignorance, we haven't seen anything this rank from Gov. Goodhair since…gee, last fall.
Then he was trying to draw attention away from his spectacular failure on public schools by convincing Texans that gay marriage was a horrible threat to us all. Now he's trying to disguise the fact that the schools are in free-fall by proposing that we teach creationism in biology classes." —Molly Ivins (1944-2007)
How I miss her!
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/08/ric … olly-ivins
Wow, Molly Ivins is dead. The one bright spot in the last four years.
Kinder, Küche, Kirche and anyone who criticizes is wished dead?
Didn't wish her dead, won't miss her. She was a manure slinger and not much more. So dismissing a despicable person like Molly Ivins is sexist? You see her sex, I see her politics. Your assumption drips of its own kind of sexism.
Sorry My quote was about Perry's Agenda, not about Molly's gender. But as a writer if you make people react with passion about what you write negative or positive, you must be getting the message across and she did.
I met Molly Ivins a few times I ranked her right up there with Madalyn Murray O'Hair, she was just a very unpleasant person.
Not the times I met her. I never read her articles because of her abrasiveness in person. I am glad that you posted I was informed yesterday that I should do a little research on people posting so I checked your profile and had a question. Are you from Michigan?
Rick Perry is yet another ideological champion of a failed and discredited worldview. If "small government" (of the kind promoted by the libertarians and the neoliberal conservatives) really led to widespread prosperity, then why didn't America keep its small government? Why did it create an income tax? Why did it create a variety of programs and initiatives in the early to mid 20th century? Why, when income taxes were higher on everyone (especially the very rich) in the mid 20th century, did the US economy do so well?
Why has America become richer, safer, healthier and better educated as government has grown over the last 100-150 years?
Ideology and the real world rarely match up, whether it's the borrow-and-spend, flat-footed, pathetic, helpless idealism of Obama and Pelosi, or the pathologically anti-tax, stubbornly fact-denying clueless idealism of Perry and Bachmann.
This begs the question, then: who would you like to see as the next POTUS?
I would like to see Ron Paul myself. I know the ? was not posted to me but what the hey. I have an extra 2 cents
I'm a died-in-the-wool Liberal, but I have to admit I agree with a lot of things on his agenda.
He makes sense and all the media is ignoring him. That tells me they are afraid of him.
No, they are just being realistic in recognition that he isn't going anywhere.
It must sting to have to insult a man who predicted the economic catastrophes that have recently befallen us, yet wake up every morning and defend those who didn't see it coming from a mile away.
My comment was not intended as an insult to Ron Paul but only as an explanation of why he's not getting the time of day from the media. I actually admire him and agree with him on many things, as I do you, Evan.
Jon Huntsman, but I know he will not be on the ticket.
Huntsman, really? Didn't his clone just drop out? Isn't his other clone Mitt Romney?
He is neither. He has a long history in Washington, he is extremely strong on foriegn policy, former Govenor and more.
Huntsman worked as a White House staff assistant for Ronald Reagan, and he was appointed by George H.W. Bush as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce. Seems we need some commerce these days. United States Ambassador to Singapore from 1992-1993. Huntsman served as Deputy United States Trade Representative under George W. Bush, launching global trade negotiations in Doha, Qatar in 2001 and guiding the accession of China and Taiwan into the World Trade Organization.
Huntsman was elected Governor of Utah in 2005 and won re-election in 2008 with nearly 78% of the vote. During his tenure, Huntsman cut taxes by more than $400 million—the largest tax cut in the state's history—and Utah was named the "Best Managed State in America" by Pew Research Center. While governor, he also served as chairman of the Western Governors Association and on the Executive Committee of the National Governors Association. On August 11, 2009, he resigned as governor to accept appointment by Barack Obama as the United States Ambassador to China.
That guy who listens to scientists? I think he's a closet Democrat.
"This begs the question, then: who would you like to see as the next POTUS?"
Oh, I don't know. Stephen Colbert. At least then we would have some amusement while the country tanked. LOL.
But certainly none of the frontrunners have anything to offer (Bachmann, Romney and Perry). I didn't vote for Obama the first time around, and I probably won't this time either. It's a real shame.
I just did a page search for the words Chris Christie, and I see no one has mentioned him. (Gov. of New Jersey)
He is one I would probably support. He is not an ideologue (like Bachmann and Perry), not a zealot (like Bachmann and Perry), he actually believes somethings and seems to have his heart in the right place (unlike Romney), he is pragmatic and centrist (you have to be as a Republican governor of a state as liberal as NJ), and he knows a thing or too about fiscal policy, economics, cutting deals, but getting real things done (unlike Obama).
Plus he's a fat ass, so he'd definitely get the fat vote (which is like 2/3 of the country).
Even Ben Stein feels he need to study up on economics.
Fry......Fry......Fry.......Perry......Perry......Perry...... Guess he took the Ferrari out for a ride
Ben Stein sucks at economics! Here he is not only NOT predicting the crash, but laughing at those who DID predict it AND giving everyone HORRIBLE investing advice:
And he sucks at foreign policy! Ron Paul suggested we stop giving out foreign aide to all countries, including Israel, and Stein called him an Anti-Semite on national TV:
... anyway, at least he apologized for the first one: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/busin … ref=slogin
He also said that he agrees with Perry on almost every other aspect, he even thought he had a good chance of being President one day (Shudder)
You can thank Ron Paul for the fact that we know that the Federal Reserve dished out over a trillion dollars directly to wall street banks in secret, previously unpublished loans.
Ron Paul 2012 - the reason we know what the hell the fed is
Actually we can thank US Senator Bernie Sanders. As in typical Paul fashion, he jumped on the bandwagon of what someone else has started and tries to take credit for it. Just like with all the bills Paul claims to have written, he was nothing more, than a co-sponser. But tries to claim the bill was his.
http://www.ronpaul.com/congress/legisla … e-hr-1207/
Oops, look at that. Paul has been working for it for the past 30+ years or so.
H.R. 1207: Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009
111th Congress: 2009-2010
To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX14]
This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.
Well we see this is a bill from 2009. Senator Bernie Sanders has been raising this issue since 1998. So Paul s bill is 11 years after Sanders first brought it up. I am sure I could find more people that talked about this issue before Paul
Now Paul does not have 30+ years elected experience. He was first elected in1976 and served till 1984 when he was voted out. He was not an elected official till he was re-elected in 1996 till now. Well I know I am not good at math, as evident by a past thread LOL, Seems to me he has been in office for 22 years, not 30+. Oops
The bill wouldn't have existed or passed without Paul. Deal with it.
Nothing like changing the suject. Look evan, I said a while ago we would agree to disagree on Paul. I respect your choice, you are entitled. But he is nothing you think he is and he does nothing. I would almost bet he did not author the bill, but just sponsored it
I'll tell you who's ignorant on economic policy, Obama and all of his team... oh wait... they all quit, except for the tax cheat Geithner who will be leaving soon, like roaches when the lights come on they're all running away from the damage they heaped upon the American people! Yeah, they inherited this "mess" a 5% unemployment rate an 8 trillion dollar debt, and a AAA+ credit rating and what did Obama produce? A 17 trillion dollar debt, a 9.4% unemployment rate, and a credit downgrade!!!! Then he has the NERVE to say things would be worse if he didn't act!!! Unbelievable!!!
by Ralph Deeds 9 years ago
Herman Cain gave Amanpour an earful when he said what she skirted in her question about Perry and his hunting ranch bought in the 1980s that had a big rock that was painted over. Cain said I’ll say what you won’t it was called “Niggerhead” and it was painted over but we don’t know when.I told...
by Evan G Rogers 9 years ago
The Young Turks did some searching through Rick Perry's history of becoming a millionaire. Of course, Perry's not the only one benefiting in this way, but it's a pretty damning argument from them against Perry specifically.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuiBmY-v … afe=active
by bettybarnesb 10 years ago
The Apostle Paul in the Book of Acts 17 chapter, stood on Mar's Hill and preached a sermon there in Athens to a people that had built alters to man made gods. Then he passed an area and saw an alter with the inscription, "TO THE UNKNOWN GOD." He remarks were to the Greek that build...
by Evan G Rogers 9 years ago
Hey all,During the last GOP debate (9/7/11), during a commercial break, Rick Perry decided to exchange a few words with the Champion of the Constitution.In order to do so, he had to forcefully lay his hands upon Paul.Looks like Perry can't even TALK to people without getting...
by Longhunter 9 years ago
I started this as a question but perhaps it's better suited for a forum instead. Speculation has begun Obama will possibly drop from the 2012 presidential race, paving the way for Hillary Clinton to step in and "save" the Dems from a royal butt kicking. Do you think this is possible or...
by seanorjohn 10 years ago
Do you think a conservative government would lead us back into a recession?
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|