US Politics April: A Series of Fantastically Bad Ideas

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Politics April: A Series of Fantastically Bad Ideas

«‹›153 »

menino: Jul 27, 2006; Pon De Floor

ReindeerF posted:

Texas

I'm going to be moving to Houston for the summer, any good books/journalists/articles I can check out covering the Texas gulf over the last twenty years? Politics, demographics, economics, etc?

# ? Apr 29, 2014 00:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 18:05

ReindeerF: Apr 20, 2002; Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro

That's a good question. Let me check around about that. I do want to plug Houston for you. There are some huge drawbacks, chiefly among them the lack of public transit or planning, but the people are just fantastic, frankly, as long as you can stay off the topic of politics. Houstonians will give you the shirts off their backs if you need help, as often as not. Also, the food is world class - no joke.

I'll get back to you on the question, though, because I'd like to find something that summarizes it as well. Good call.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 00:16

menino: Jul 27, 2006; Pon De Floor

ReindeerF posted:

That's a good question. Let me check around about that. I do want to plug Houston for you. There are some huge drawbacks, chiefly among them the lack of public transit or planning, but the people are just fantastic, frankly, as long as you can stay off the topic of politics. Houstonians will give you the shirts off their backs if you need help, as often as not. Also, the food is world class - no joke.

I'll get back to you on the question, though, because I'd like to find something that summarizes it as well. Good call.

Thanks, I've heard nothing but good things about the place besides that it's a sprawlish labyrinth.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 00:20

long-ass nips Diane: Dec 13, 2010; Breathe.

menino posted:

Thanks, I've heard nothing but good things about the place besides that it's a sprawlish labyrinth.

I moved to Houston last August, and my biggest advice would be to learn to love your car, since you're going to be in it a lot.

Edit: yeah, there are a million good places to get food, you could eat at a new Vietnamese place every day for like 3 months

long-ass nips Diane fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Apr 29, 2014

# ? Apr 29, 2014 00:21

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

menino posted:

Thanks, I've heard nothing but good things about the place besides that it's a sprawlish labyrinth.

It's probably also good to note that it's hot as balls during the best of times and basically at 100% humidity at the worst.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 00:23

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

menino posted:

Thanks, I've heard nothing but good things about the place besides that it's a sprawlish labyrinth.

That pretty much describes Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio. Texas doesn't build upward like New York, we go outward. San Antonio has flat out eaten like six or seven smaller towns/municipalities; they're now completely surrounded on all sides by San Antonio proper, and San Antonio shows no signs of slowing down. The end game is when San Antonio and Austin eventually just flat-out meet up.

computer parts posted:

It's probably also good to note that it's hot as balls during the best of times and basically at 100% humidity at the worst.

We hit loving 99 degrees in some parts of San Antonio today. There is no Spring, we basically go straight to Summer.

fade5 fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Apr 29, 2014

# ? Apr 29, 2014 00:28

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

fade5 posted:

That pretty much describes Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio. Texas doesn't build upward like New York, we go outward. San Antonio has flat out eaten like six or seven smaller towns/municipalities; they're now completely surrounded on all sides by San Antonio proper, and San Antonio shows no signs of slowing down. The end game is when San Antonio and Austin eventually just flat-out meet up.

The interesting thing is despite all the annexations, most of those cities are only slightly larger in area than New York City

# ? Apr 29, 2014 00:33

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

Install Windows posted:

How would the court find it coercive to raise money and give it to the states? You'll really have to show your work there.

Again, you'd need a massive level of popular support to implement this in the first place, which would mean a lack of people with standing to challenge it in court, and the court can't just make decisions without valid cases.

What? gently caress you, no. A) I never wanted to defend this stupid point and B) in no world would the Supreme Court not strike down an attempt to completely upend the foundation of the government without a constitutional amendment. Maybe if there was a constitutional crisis on par with the Great Depression/New Deal and FDR's court packing scheme. That is the only time something like that has happened, after the government suffered a string of losses. loving none of your "legal" arguments even matter, they'd probably grant standing to state governments suing over the appropriations, for fucks sake. I'd prefer gunchat over this dumb derail.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 00:35

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Jagchosis posted:

What? gently caress you, no. A) I never wanted to defend this stupid point and B) in no world would the Supreme Court not strike down an attempt to completely upend the foundation of the government without a constitutional amendment. Maybe if there was a constitutional crisis on par with the Great Depression/New Deal and FDR's court packing scheme. That is the only time something like that has happened, after the government suffered a string of losses. loving none of your "legal" arguments even matter, they'd probably grant standing to state governments suing over the appropriations, for fucks sake. I'd prefer gunchat over this dumb derail.

The Supreme Court can't strike down jackshit unless people have standing to sue over it. That's why you have to show your work.

Again, the "pass giant federal tax increases" part already isn't something you're going to successfully achieve with just 218 reps and 51 senators in favor. It would require massive broad-base support, and that would lead to almost no states where the governments would be willing to attempt to bring a case. It would also be the kind of level of support that makes passing amendments trivial.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 00:39

AsInHowe: Jan 11, 2007; red winged angel

McAlister posted:

If you want to claim a politician married for advancement if his ambitions rather than love how about McCain? He also was in the potus race. But he was a gold digging husband who seduced an heiress.

American Dream.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 00:43

Homura and Sickle: Apr 21, 2013

Install Windows posted:

The Supreme Court can't strike down jackshit unless people have standing to sue over it. That's why you have to show your work.

Again, the "pass giant federal tax increases" part already isn't something you're going to successfully achieve with just 218 reps and 51 senators in favor. It would require massive broad-base support, and that would lead to almost no states where the governments would be willing to attempt to bring a case. It would also be the kind of level of support that makes passing amendments trivial.

If no state would challenge a complete surrender of state budgetary powers (lol, that's in line with history, human nature, politics) why the gently caress wouldn't they just amend the constitution then? That's why this is retarded. And yes I know what standing is stop repeating that sentence over and over again jesus christ.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 00:45

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Jagchosis posted:

If no state would challenge a complete surrender of state budgetary powers (lol, that's in line with history, human nature, politics) why the gently caress wouldn't they just amend the constitution then? That's why this is retarded. And yes I know what standing is stop repeating that sentence over and over again jesus christ.

Because we don't just go and amend the constitution willy-nilly? Why would you need to do it? There's nothing there preventing a broad consensus to agree to do this thing.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 00:49

radical meme: Apr 17, 2009; by Fluffdaddy

Interesting article on how the Tea Party uses all of that money it solicits from listeners to talk radio. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

quote:

The Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund, which blew through nearly $2 million on expenses such as fundraising, polling and consultants in the first three months of this year, is not alone in its meager spending on candidates.

A Washington Post analysis found that some of the top national tea party groups engaged in this year�s midterm elections have put just a tiny fraction of their money directly into boosting the candidates they�ve endorsed.

The practice is not unusual in the freewheeling world of big-money political groups, but it runs counter to the ethos of the tea party movement, which sprouted five years ago amid anger on the right over wasteful government spending. And it contrasts with the urgent appeals tea party groups have made to their base of small donors, many of whom repeatedly contribute after being promised that their money will help elect conservative politicians.

Out of the $37.5 million spent so far by the PACs of six major tea party organizations, less than $7 million has been devoted to directly helping candidates, according to the analysis, which was based on campaign finance data provided by the Sunlight Foundation.

The dearth of election spending has left many favored tea party candidates exposed before a series of pivotal GOP primaries next month in North Carolina, Nebraska, Idaho and Kentucky.

Roughly half of the money � nearly $18 million � has gone to pay for fundraising and direct mail, largely provided by Washington-area firms. Meanwhile, tea party leaders and their family members have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in consulting fees, while their groups have doled out large sums for airfare, a retirement plan and even interior decorating.

The lavish spending underscores how the protest movement has gone professional, with national groups transforming themselves into multimillion-dollar organizations run by activists collecting six-figure salaries.

radical meme fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Apr 29, 2014

# ? Apr 29, 2014 01:53

Ghost of Reagan Past: Oct 7, 2003; rock and roll fun

Just maaaaaybe the 'ethos' of the Tea Party is astroturfing.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 01:54

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Ted Cruz called on John Kerry to resign today over his comments on Israel, at which point John McCain just laughed.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:08

deoju: Jul 11, 2004; All the pieces matter.; Nap Ghost

radical meme posted:

Interesting article on how the Tea Party uses all of that money it solicits from listeners to talk radio.

On that subject, I just read this article from the Washington Post about Palin's dwindling influence in the Tea Party.

This part stuck out to me...

quote:

In the first quarter of this year, SarahPAC�s federal election filings show contributions of $56,000 to federal candidates. But with more than $1 million on hand, SarahPAC has yet to dispense the money, most of which comes from small-dollar donors.

deoju fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Apr 29, 2014

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:12

Lote: Aug 5, 2001; Place your bets

Joementum posted:

Ted Cruz called on John Kerry to resign today over his comments on Israel, at which point John McCain just laughed.

Using the term "apartheid" with regards to Israel is on a completely different level than a gaffe. Gaffe would be if Kerry used the term "occupied territories" like Gov. Christie with accompanying swift apology. There is no way that you use the word apartheid without intention to do so. Kerry either decided to use it ahead of time, or more likely, it signifies a policy change coming from up top.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:19

Fried Chicken: Jan 9, 2011; Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

fade5 posted:

That pretty much describes Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio. Texas doesn't build upward like New York, we go outward. San Antonio has flat out eaten like six or seven smaller towns/municipalities; they're now completely surrounded on all sides by San Antonio proper, and San Antonio shows no signs of slowing down. The end game is when San Antonio and Austin eventually just flat-out meet up.

We hit loving 99 degrees in some parts of San Antonio today. There is no Spring, we basically go straight to Summer.

If memory serves Houston is particularly sprawlish because they have anti-white-flight laws that make annexing the suburbs that people just fled to really easy.

It is a pretty nice city though. I mean, if you are looking for super cultural stuff, like a big theatre scene, a House of Blues, big name comedy troupes, and zoos with a huge menagerie, yeah, you will be disappointed, but that's the case for every city except a handful. Houston is like a Texas Indianapolis - easy to navigate (the highway ring makes it a snap to get around), plenty of cheap parking, lots of immigrant small business growth, lots of food, and a fairly small skyscraper cluster at the center. On the weekends it is like 90 minutes to go to the beach, or grab the train to New Orleans if you want to do a long weekend trip. It gets humid, but it is still better than South Carolina in terms of climate.

And what other city is "look for the porno store sign" a completely valid way to navigate down town?

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:22

Fried Chicken: Jan 9, 2011; Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

Lote posted:

Using the term "apartheid" with regards to Israel is on a completely different level than a gaffe. Gaffe would be if Kerry used the term "occupied territories" like Gov. Christie with accompanying swift apology. There is no way that you use the word apartheid without intention to do so. Kerry either decided to use it ahead of time, or more likely, it signifies a policy change coming from up top.

it was a statement at the trilateral commission. A reporter snuck in and recorded it. It was basically Kerry being honest, his version of 47%. He was with other people who know the score and wasn't out to frame things or make a point, so he dropped the charade and said the unacknowledged fact that Palestine has been annexed, it isn't going to get a 2 state, and the Palestinians are 2nd class citizens.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:24

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Fried Chicken posted:

it was a statement at the trilateral commission.

Klaxons currently blaring at full volume in Alex Jones' head.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:28

Dystram: May 30, 2013; by Ralp

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

Just maaaaaybe the 'ethos' of the Tea Party is astroturfing.

Well, yeah, the Tea Party is, and always has been an astroturf "movement" composed of Republicans and "Libertarians" who are, at best, actually just Rockefeller Republicans. Bush embarrassed them so they re-branded themselves into this bullshit Tea Party, and, yeah, they only exist because the rest of us elected a black president.

Dystram fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Apr 29, 2014

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:30

Fried Chicken: Jan 9, 2011; Don't fry me, I'm no chicken!

Joementum posted:

Klaxons currently blaring at full volume in Alex Jones' head.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/27/exclusive-kerry-warns-israel-could-become-an-apartheid-state.html

quote:

The secretary of state said that if Israel doesn�t make peace soon, it could become �an apartheid state,� like the old South Africa. Jewish leaders are fuming over the comparison.

If there�s no two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict soon, Israel risks becoming �an apartheid state,� Secretary of State John Kerry told a room of influential world leaders in a closed-door meeting Friday.

Senior American officials have rarely, if ever, used the term �apartheid� in reference to Israel, and President Obama has previously rejected the idea that the word should apply to the Jewish state. Kerry's use of the loaded term is already rankling Jewish leaders in America�and it could attract unwanted attention in Israel, as well.

It wasn't the only controversial comment on the Middle East that Kerry made during his remarks to the Trilateral Commission, a recording of which was obtained by The Daily Beast. Kerry also repeated his warning that a failure of Middle East peace talks could lead to a resumption of Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens. He suggested that a change in either the Israeli or Palestinian leadership could make achieving a peace deal more feasible. He lashed out against Israeli settlement-building. And Kerry said that both Israeli and Palestinian leaders share the blame for the current impasse in the talks.

Kerry also said that at some point, he might unveil his own peace deal and tell both sides to �take it or leave it.�

�A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens�or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state,� Kerry told the group of senior officials and experts from the U.S., Western Europe, Russia, and Japan. �Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution, which both leaders, even yesterday, said they remain deeply committed to.�

According to the 1998 Rome Statute, the �crime of apartheid� is defined as �inhumane acts� committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.� The term is most often used in reference to the system of racial segregation and oppression that governed South Africa from 1948 until 1994.

Former president Jimmy Carter came under fire in 2007 for titling his book on Middle East peace Palestine: Peace or Apartheid. Carter has said publicly that his views on Israeli treatment of the Palestinians are a main cause of his poor relationship with President Obama and his lack of current communication with the White House. But Carter explained after publishing the book that he was referring to apartheid-type policies in the West Bank, not Israel proper, and he was not accusing Israel of institutionalized racism.

�Apartheid is a word that is an accurate description of what has been going on in the West Bank, and it�s based on the desire or avarice of a minority of Israelis for Palestinian land,� Carter said.

�Injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn�t advance that goal [of peace],� Obama said. �It�s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it�s not what I believe.�

Leading experts, including Richard Goldstone, a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court who led the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008 and 2009, have argued that comparisons between the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and �apartheid� are offensive and wrong.

�One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues �apartheid� policies,� Goldstone wrote in The New York Times in 2011. �It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.�

In a 2008 interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, then-Sen. Barack Obama shot down the notion that the word �apartheid� was acceptable in a discussion about Israel�s treatment of the Palestinians:

�There�s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn�t advance that goal,� Obama said. �It�s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it�s not what I believe.�

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told The Daily Beast that Kerry was simply repeating his view, shared by others, that a two-state solution is the only way for Israel to remain a Jewish state in peace with the Palestinians.

�Secretary Kerry, like Justice Minister Livni, and previous Israeli Prime Ministers Olmert and Barak, was reiterating why there's no such thing as a one-state solution if you believe, as he does, in the principle of a Jewish State. He was talking about the kind of future Israel wants and the kind of future both Israelis and Palestinians would want to envision,� she said. �The only way to have two nations and two peoples living side by side in peace and security is through a two-state solution. And without a two-state solution, the level of prosperity and security the Israeli and Palestinian people deserve isn't possible.�

But leaders of pro-Israel organizations told The Daily Beast that Kerry�s reference to �apartheid� was appalling and inappropriately alarmist because of its racial connotations and historical context.

�One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues �apartheid� policies,� Goldstone wrote in The New York Times in 2011. �It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.�

Yet Israel�s leaders have employed the term, as well. In 2010, for example, former Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak used language very similar to Kerry�s. �As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic,� Barak said. �If this bloc of millions of �Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.�

�While we�ve heard Secretary Kerry express his understandable fears about alternative prospects for Israel to a two-state deal and we understand the stakes involved in reaching that deal, the use of the word �apartheid� is not helpful at all. It takes the discussion to an entirely different dimension,� said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, an organization that has been supportive of Kerry�s peace process initiative. �In trying to make his point, Kerry reaches into diplomatic vocabulary to raise the stakes, but in doing so he invokes notions that have no place in the discussion.�

Kerry has used dire warnings twice in the past to paint a picture of doom for Israel if the current peace process fails. Last November, Kerry warned of a third intifada of Palestinian violence and increased isolation of Israel if the peace process failed. In March, Democrats and Republican alike criticized Kerry for suggesting that if peace talks fail, it would bolster the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

�It�s in the Palestinian playbook to tie Israel to these extreme notions of time being on the Palestinian side, that demographics are on the Palestinian side, and that Israel has to confront notions of the Jewishness of the state,� Harris said.

Kerry on Friday repeated his warning that a dissolution of the peace process might lead to more Palestinian violence. �People grow so frustrated with their lot in life that they begin to take other choices and go to dark places they�ve been before, which forces confrontation,� he said.

The secretary of state also implied, but did not say outright, that if the governments of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu or Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas left power, there could be a change in the prospects for peace. If �there is a change of government or a change of heart,� Kerry said, �something will happen.�

Kerry criticized Israeli settlement construction as being unhelpful to the peace process and he also criticized Palestinian leaders for making statements that declined to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.

�There is a fundamental confrontation and it is over settlements. Fourteen thousand new settlement units announced since we began negotiations. It�s very difficult for any leader to deal under that cloud,� Kerry said.

He acknowledged that the formal negotiating process that he initiated and led since last summer may soon stop. But he maintained that his efforts to push for a final settlement will continue in one form or another.

�The reports of the demise of the peace process have consistently been misunderstood and misreported. And even we are now getting to the moment of obvious confrontation and hiatus, but I would far from declare it dead,� Kerry said. �You would say this thing is going to hell in a handbasket, and who knows, it might at some point, but I don�t think it is right now, yet.�

Kerry gave both Israeli and Palestinian leaders credit for sticking with the peace process for this long. But he added that both sides were to blame for the current impasse in the talks; neither leader was ready to make the tough decisions necessary for achieving peace.

�There�s a period here where there needs to be some regrouping. I don�t think it�s unhealthy for both of them to have to stare over the abyss and understand where the real tensions are and what the real critical decisions are that have to be made,� he said. �Neither party is quite ready to make it at this point in time. That doesn�t mean they don�t have to make these decisions.�

Kerry said that he was considering, at some point, publicly laying out a comprehensive U.S. plan for a final agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, in a last-ditch effort to forge a deal before the Obama administration leaves office in 2017.

�We have enough time to do any number of things, including the potential at some point in time that we will just put something out there. �Here it is, folks. This is what it looks like. Take it or leave it,�� Kerry said.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:31

Joementum: May 23, 2004; jesus christ

Fried Chicken posted:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/27/exclusive-kerry-warns-israel-could-become-an-apartheid-state.html

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. I know Kerry said it and I get why he felt comfortable saying it in that setting. I just can't wait to see what Jones does with this because reading too much into the Secretary of State talking about Israel at a secret meeting of the Trilateral Commission is the man's raison d'etre.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:36

Gen. Ripper: Jan 12, 2013

Joementum posted:

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding. I know Kerry said it and I get why he felt comfortable saying it in that setting. I just can't wait to see what Jones does with this because reading too much into the Secretary of State talking about Israel at a secret meeting of the Trilateral Commission is the man's raison d'etre.

Wait, so Jones doesn't dogwhistle about the ~~Jews~~ Zionists leading the Illuminati and headquartering in Israel? :confused:

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:42

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Fried Chicken posted:

If memory serves Houston is particularly sprawlish because they have anti-white-flight laws that make annexing the suburbs that people just fled to really easy.

No, it's because they've tripled the population of their metropolitan area in 40 years.

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa26420.asp

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:44

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Fried Chicken posted:

If memory serves Houston is particularly sprawlish because they have anti-white-flight laws that make annexing the suburbs that people just fled to really easy.

It is a pretty nice city though. I mean, if you are looking for super cultural stuff, like a big theatre scene, a House of Blues, big name comedy troupes, and zoos with a huge menagerie, yeah, you will be disappointed, but that's the case for every city except a handful. Houston is like a Texas Indianapolis - easy to navigate (the highway ring makes it a snap to get around), plenty of cheap parking, lots of immigrant small business growth, lots of food, and a fairly small skyscraper cluster at the center. On the weekends it is like 90 minutes to go to the beach, or grab the train to New Orleans if you want to do a long weekend trip. It gets humid, but it is still better than South Carolina in terms of climate.

I don't know about comedy troupes but Houston has at least a moderate theater scene, a House of Blues, and a reasonably adequate zoo with the usual selection of apes and elephants. That said, it is basically the Devil's taint from April to November, so be prepared to sweat.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:49

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

computer parts posted:

No, it's because they've tripled the population of their metropolitan area in 40 years.

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa26420.asp

Yea I'm not sure where the race thing came in, the city loving exploded in less than a generation and for a little but everyone went 'oh god whaaaaat do I dooooo' and just sprawled.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:52

TK-42-1: Oct 30, 2013; looks like we have a bad transmitter

computer parts posted:

No, it's because they've tripled the population of their metropolitan area in 40 years.

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa26420.asp

They also have no zoning so theres no rhyme or reason to any of the city.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:56

PeterWeller: Apr 21, 2003; I told you that story so I could tell you this one.

Job Truniht posted:

There's no way they could ever pay engineers enough to relocate to loving Dallas.

Dallas is full to the gills with engineers of various sorts. And it already hosts a ton of corporate HQs. It's also surrounded by suburbs full of big cheap houses and well funded public schools. Suburban Dallas is paradise for affluent white people, and they're doing a great job of gentrifying the city center into a weekend playground. They built a yuppie park over a freeway for God's sakes!

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:57

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

PeterWeller posted:

Dallas is full to the gills with engineers of various sorts. And it already hosts a ton of corporate HQs. It's also surrounded by suburbs full of big cheap houses and well funded public schools. Suburban Dallas is paradise for affluent white people, and they're doing a great job of gentrifying the city center into a weekend playground. They built a yuppie park over a freeway for God's sakes!

You can't gentrify an area that wasn't already a run down and past its prime area.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 02:58

Illumination: Jan 26, 2009

Gen. Ripper posted:

Wait, so Jones doesn't dogwhistle about the ~~Jews~~ Zionists leading the Illuminati and headquartering in Israel?

No actually he's the one that gets labelled a Zionist shill by certain folks.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 03:13

ReindeerF: Apr 20, 2002; Rubber Dinghy Rapids Bro

computer parts posted:

No, it's because they've tripled the population of their metropolitan area in 40 years.

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa26420.asp

Places like Kingwood were created specifically to help urban refugees migrate to the suburbs, some amount of which was definitely white flight. The annexation of places like Kingwood (and Clear Lake) was a response to that. Houston didn't just grow in population terms, it - unlike cities such as Dallas and Atlanta - undertook a specific policy of annexing the poo poo out of every suburban community that didn't incorporate. That's part of how it ended up being like the fourth largest city (something like that) in land area in the US. Phoenix and Jacksonville are the other two real cities atop the list and Phoenix's expansive boundaries encompass mainly desert.

The fact that the suburbs that Houston annexes don't incorporate to prevent this, and the reasoning behind why they don't, are supreme irony when met with annexation. It's basically poetic justice.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 03:15

Gunshow Poophole: Sep 14, 2008; OMBUDSMAN
POSTERS LOCAL 42069; Clapping Larry

Install Windows posted:

You can't gentrify an area that wasn't already a run down and past its prime area.

I lived at akard and the dart line for two years, "run down and past it's prime" describes downtown Dallas perfectly.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 03:22

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

whitey delenda est posted:

I lived at akard and the dart line for two years, "run down and past it's prime" describes downtown Dallas perfectly.

You can't be past your prime when your prime never happened.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 03:25

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Joementum posted:

Klaxons currently blaring at full volume in Alex Jones' head.

...Is there a time that they're not?

# ? Apr 29, 2014 04:01

Gunshow Poophole: Sep 14, 2008; OMBUDSMAN
POSTERS LOCAL 42069; Clapping Larry

Install Windows posted:

You can't be past your prime when your prime never happened.

Bb b b but Neiman's! (Dallas is a shithole nobody should ever go there regardless of how much you are paid)

# ? Apr 29, 2014 04:25

Gen. Ripper: Jan 12, 2013

GreyjoyBastard posted:

...Is there a time that they're not?

They've been blaring ever since ~~January 20, 2009~~ ~~November 4, 2008~~ ~~June 3, 2008~~ ~~January 3, 2008~~ February 10, 2007.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 04:32

Shageletic: Jul 25, 2007

ReindeerF posted:

Take a look at everything between Atlanta and San Diego and then check out which state has either the first or second most Fortune 500 HQs (and de facto in cases where it's not official), which city has the second most behind NYC, where the busiest international port in the country is, the world's largest medical center, the country's largest university (and a close runner up for second), etc. Texas has spent the last 100 years stocking up oil money and using it to lure in every single business and person it can and it's worked specifically well because of how poorly governed the other states are, frankly. Texas is poorly governed lately in terms of the social initiatives, no doubt, and it's not a great place to be poor. It also turns out that Rick Perry's a corrupt chowderhead who has been funneling money around and trying to hide debt, but look at this list: Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona (etc). Atlanta itself has done quite well, but Georgia's basically a joke outside of that in business terms. If you know anyone from any of the states between GA and TX who is at all educated, you'll find that about 90% of them haul rear end for somewhere else and about 75% of those go to Houston, Austin, Dallas or Atlanta. Florida picks up a bit too.

This article needs to be reposted. First,

quote:

Unless you�ve been to Texas lately, you might have missed just how gigantic its latest oil and gas boom has become. Thanks to fracking and other new drilling techniques, plus historically high world oil prices, Texas oil production increased by 126 percent just between 2010 and 2013. Only a few years ago, Texas�s oil production had dwindled to just 15 percent of U.S. output; by May of last year it had jumped to 34.5 percent, as new drilling methods opened up vast new plays in once-forgotten corners of south and west Texas with names like Eagle Ford, Spraberry Trend, and Wolfcamp. Thanks to the bonanza of drilling, Texas already produces more oil than Venezuela, and is headed to become the ninth-largest producer of oil in the world, ahead of Kuwait, Mexico, and Iraq.

quote:

Meanwhile, Texas accounts for 27 percent of U.S. natural gas production, which is more than the production of any nation except Russia. NASA satellites now record an arc of white light at night stretching from San Antonio to the Mexican border produced by gas flares. As a recent issue of Texas Monthly notes, in once-sleeping towns like Cotulla, where a young Lyndon Johnson taught migrant Mexican children in the 1920s, the population has more than tripled in the past two years, and no fewer than thirteen new hotels have opened, along with numerous �man camps,� to accommodate the influx of oil rig workers.

Though Texas boosters point to the growth of the high-tech industry in Austin, the so-called �telecom corridor� in Dallas, and the growth of health care jobs in Houston, this can�t hide the fact that oil and gas are by far the fastest-growing sources of the state�s economic growth. Between 1998 and 2011, for example, the percent of Texas GDP produced directly by oil and gas extraction more than doubled, according to the U.S. Commerce Department�s Bureau of Economic Analysis. This doesn�t even count the growth of related industries, like oil refining and a petrochemical sector now thriving on the state�s abundant supplies of natural gas. Meanwhile, the share of the Texas economy produced by the information, communications, and technology sectors is 27 percent smaller than it was in 1998.

To be sure, only about 8 percent of the new jobs in Texas are directly involved in oil and gas extraction, but the multiplier effects of the energy boom create a compounding supply of jobs for accountants, lawyers, doctors, home builders, gardeners, nannies, you name it. Saying that Texas doesn�t depend very much on oil and gas just because most Texans are not formally employed in drilling wells is like saying that the New York area doesn�t depend very much on Wall Street because only a handful of New Yorkers work on the floor of the stock exchange.

quote:

The next big question is how much Texas�s growth in jobs just reflects its growth in population. For many decades, Texas has grown much faster in population than the U.S. as a whole, indeed about twice as fast since the 1990s. On its face, there is nothing particularly impressive about a rate of job formation that is just keeping pace with increases in population.

But in the conservative narrative, this population growth is largely driven by individual Americans and businesses fleeing the high taxes and excessive regulation of less-free states. In other words, Texas�s rate of job creation is supposedly more a cause than a consequence of its population growth. If that were true, the Texas boosters would be right to brag. But among the many problems with this story is the reality that, even with an oil boom on, nearly as many native-born Americans are moving out of Texas as are moving in.

For example, according to Census Bureau data, 441,682 native-born Americans moved to Texas from other states between 2010 and 2011. Sounds like a lot. But moving (fleeing?) in the opposite direction were 358,048 other native-born Americans leaving Texas behind. That means that the net domestic migration of native-born Americans to Texas came to just 83,634, which in a nation of 315 million isn�t even background noise. It�s the demographic equivalent of, say, the town of Lawrence, Kansas, or Germantown, Maryland, �voting with its feet� and moving to Texas while the rest of America stays put.

And despite all the gloating by Texas boosters about how the state attracts huge numbers of Americans fleeing California socialism, the numbers don�t bear out this narrative either. In 2012, 62,702 people moved from California to Texas, but 43,005 moved from Texas to California, for a net migration of just 19,697. That�s a population flow amounting to the movement of one village in a continental nation. Far from proving the merits of the so-called Texas model, it shows just how few Californians have seen fit to set out for the Lone Star State, despite California�s high cost of housing and other very real problems. The same is true for all but a handful of Americans living in other states. Net domestic migration to Texas peaked after Hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana and Mississippi, and has been falling off ever since.

quote:

Texas has sales and property taxes that make its overall burden of taxation on low-wage families much heavier than the national average, while the state also taxes the middle class at rates as high or higher than in California. For instance, non-elderly Californians with family income in the middle 20 percent of the income distribution pay combined state and local taxes amounting to 8.2 percent of their income, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy; by contrast, their counterparts in Texas pay 8.6 percent.

And unlike in California, middle-class families in Texas don�t get the advantage of having rich people share equally in the cost of providing government services. The top 1 percent in Texas have an effective tax rate of just 3.2 percent. That�s roughly two-fifths the rate that�s borne by the middle class, and just a quarter the rate paid by all those low-wage �takers� at the bottom 20 percent of the family income distribution. This Robin-Hood-in-reverse system gives Texas the fifth-most-regressive tax structure in the nation.

Middle- and lower-income Texans in effect make up for the taxes the rich don�t pay in Texas by making do with fewer government services, such as by accepting a K-12 public school system that ranks behind forty-one other states, including Alabama, in spending per student.

Moving a business to Texas also turns out to have tax consequences that are inconsistent with the conservative narrative of the Texas Miracle. Yes, some businesses manage to strike lucrative tax breaks in Texas. As part of an industrial policy that dares not speak its name, the state government, for example, maintains the Texas Enterprise Fund (known to some as a slush fund and to others as a �deal-closing� fund), which the governor uses to lure favored businesses with special subsidies and incentives.

But most Texas businesses, especially small ones, don�t get such treatment. Instead, they face total effective tax rates that are, by bottom-line measures, greater than those in even the People�s Republic of California. For example, according to a joint study by the accounting firm Ernst & Young and the Council on State Taxation, in fiscal year 2012 state and local business taxes in California came to 4.5 percent of private-sector gross state product. This compares with a 4.8 percent average for all fifty states�and a rate of 5.2 percent in Texas. With the exception of New York, every major state in the country, including New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, has a lower total effective business tax rate than Texas.

quote:

The comparatively low levels of entrepreneurship in Texas in turn help to explain its comparatively low rates of upward mobility over the last generation. Here the evidence comes from a recent study, led by Raj Chetty and colleagues at Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley, which tracked children born into families of modest means in different parts of the country and determined how many of them managed to move up the economic ladder when they became adults. The findings are illuminating.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, for example, children who grew up in families in the bottom fifth of the income distribution had only a 12.2 percent chance of rising to the top fifth as adults. Those who grew up in or near San Diego or Los Angeles had even lesser odds�only 10.4 and 9.6 percent, respectively. It�s depressing that for so many Californian children, the chances of realizing the American Dream are so slim. But California looks like the land of opportunity compared to Texas.

In the greater Austin area, children who grew up in families of modest means had only a 6.9 percent chance of joining the top fifth of earners when they became adults; in Dallas, only 7.1 percent; in San Antonio, just 6.4 percent. Yes, Texas offers more chances for upward mobility than places like Detroit and some Deep South cities like Atlanta. Yet the claim that Texas triumphs over the rest of America as the land of opportunity is all hat and no cattle. Children raised in the postindustrial wasteland of Newark, New Jersey, during the 1980s, it turns out, had a better chance of going from rags to riches than did children born in Houston, which was the best city in Texas for upward mobility during that time.

quote:

This is not an isolated example. Since the early 1980s, Texas has also been falling behind many other states in its income per person. In 1981, per capita income in Texas came to within 92 percent of that of Maryland; now Texans earn only 79 percent as much as Marylanders. In 1981, per capita income in Texas almost equaled that of Massachusetts; now Texans on average earn only about three-quarters of what residents of Massachusetts do. Relative to Connecticut, Texans have seen their per capita income slip from 82 percent to 71 percent.

Per capita, Texans earn 80% of what New Yorkers do, even considering Buffalo.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_may_2014/features/oops_the_texas_miracle_that_is049289.php?page=all

If that's the future of America, count me out.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 05:10

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

Yes Texans, keep on drinking Perry's oil money kool-aid. He was a massive shithead when I was there and he still is one.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 05:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 18:05

Good Citizen: Aug 12, 2008; trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump trump

ReindeerF posted:

Take a look at everything between Atlanta and San Diego and then check out which state has .....
the country's largest university (and a close runner up for second), etc.

As someone who got a degree from the actual largest university in the country, nope.

# ? Apr 29, 2014 05:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Politics April: A Series of Fantastically Bad Ideas

«‹›153 »