Secessionist Texas Governor now seeking federal stimulus funds

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Texas has known for months that the funds to pay unemployed Texans were running dry.

"The balance is depleting faster than we expected," Texas Workforce Commission officer Ann Hatchitt said.

Texas is now asking the federal government for a $170 million loan so that benefits keep getting paid.

...

The decision is getting extra attention after Governor Rick Perry rejected federal stimulus money that would have replenished the fund ... Many are now questioning that decision.

"That $555 million would that would have come with the stimulus money wouldn't have to be paid back to the federal government and that would have saved business taxpayers money for the next 20 years," said Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin.

...

"We are expecting to need to borrow about $650 million from the federal government through October 1st, to pay for unemployment benefits", Hatchitt said.

http://news8austin.com/content/top_stories...asp?ArID=246375

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And here I thought Texans were recession proof.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

And here I thought Texans were recession proof.

Real men run Texas. Not girly hollywood freaks as in California.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And here I thought Texans were recession proof.

Real men run Texas. Not girly hollywood freaks as in California.

We could send them fruit baskets and granola.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

And here I thought Texans were recession proof.

Real men run Texas. Not girly hollywood freaks as in California.

We could send them fruit baskets and granola.

Texans eat hay.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And here I thought Texans were recession proof.

Real men run Texas. Not girly hollywood freaks as in California.

We could send them fruit baskets and granola.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

And here I thought Texans were recession proof.

Real men run Texas. Not girly hollywood freaks as in California.

We could send them fruit baskets and granola.

You're from Florida, you can send them gator skin thongs. I'll send them money laundering equipment.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And here I thought Texans were recession proof.

Real men run Texas. Not girly hollywood freaks as in California.

Who you callin' a girly freak?

[alienlovechild 75]

Texas wouldn't need the dough if Obama hadn't lied about the rate of unemployment not going above 8% if his stimulus package was passed.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Texas wouldn't need the dough if Obama hadn't lied about the rate of unemployment not going above 8% if his stimulus package was passed.

Damn...that non-citizen's got his grimy hands in everything.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Texas wouldn't need the dough if Obama hadn't lied about the rate of unemployment not going above 8% if his stimulus package was passed.

So you're saying that without the stimulus package the unemployment situation in Texas would be less severe today?

Edited July 17, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[alienlovechild 75]

Texas wouldn't need the dough if Obama hadn't lied about the rate of unemployment not going above 8% if his stimulus package was passed.

So you're saying that without the stimulus package the unemployment situation in Texas would be less severe today?

The stimulus is doing nothing and there are no indications otherwise statistically. The money was poorly spent and done so very slowly which doesn't make for an effective stimulus. The idea any governmental spending is good is silly as it ignores opportunity costs and the crowding out the available capital pool.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Texas wouldn't need the dough if Obama hadn't lied about the rate of unemployment not going above 8% if his stimulus package was passed.

So you're saying that without the stimulus package the unemployment situation in Texas would be less severe today?

The stimulus is doing nothing and there are no indications otherwise statistically. The money was poorly spent and done so very slowly which doesn't make for an effective stimulus. The idea any governmental spending is good is silly as it ignores opportunity costs and the crowding out the available capital pool.

But you're essentially claiming that Texas wouldn't need the feds assistance if there was no stimulus. Or is the erroneous estimate the administration had earlier this year the actual reason for Texas to loose more jobs than it would have otherwise? That just doesn't make any sense.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[alienlovechild 75]

But you're essentially claiming that Texas wouldn't need the feds assistance if there was no stimulus. Or is the erroneous estimate the administration had earlier this year the actual reason for Texas to loose more jobs than it would have otherwise? That just doesn't make any sense.

No more sense than your response which didn't address anything I wrote and went off on a tangent. Every state had financial troubles but the Feds spending did nothing or you'd have come with the stats otherwise. Things are going to get worse and even Obama knows that.

It's not "loose" but lose. I see that all the time on the Internet.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But you're essentially claiming that Texas wouldn't need the feds assistance if there was no stimulus. Or is the erroneous estimate the administration had earlier this year the actual reason for Texas to loose more jobs than it would have otherwise? That just doesn't make any sense.

No more sense than your response which didn't address anything I wrote and went off on a tangent. Every state had financial troubles but the Feds spending did nothing or you'd have come with the stats otherwise. Things are going to get worse and even Obama knows that.

It's not "loose" but lose. I see that all the time on the Internet.

Oh, you pulled the spell card - shows you feel you're in a weak position.

Your statement was that Texas wouldn't need any dough had Obama not mis-projected the peak of unemployment. Explain that, would you? How does a mis-projection of peak unemployment translate into Texas needing or not needing federal assistance?