Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Texas leads the nation in job production because of 17+ years of Republican governors — George W. Bush and Rick Perry — and conservative legislatures.

They have kept taxes and regulations low.

When it comes to the economy, Rick Perry runs rings around President Obama.

The left cannot stand the facts and so Matthias Shapiro at Political Math spent 4 hours pouring over records to find some way of discrediting Rick Perry’s job performance.

Seriously, 4 hours.

And he failed to find the magic hole in the Texas economy that discredits Rick Perry’s economic development efforts.

From Matthias Shapiro: “Note: If you are going to comment and you want to introduce some new objection to the Texas job numbers, you MUST provide original data. I spent about 4 hours digging through raw data to write this post. I don’t want you to point to some pundit or blog post and take it on their authority, because I’ve already researched several idiot pundits who are talking directly out of their asses when it comes to the data. I want you to point to the raw data that I can examine for myself. This means links. I refuse to waste any more of my time on speculative bullshit or ‘Well, I’ll wager that the Texas jobs don’t really count because…’ If you’re willing to wager, take that money and put it towards finding the actual data. In short, put up or shut up.”

The assertions he knocked down:

1. “Texas has an unemployment rate of 8.2%. That’s hardly exceptional.”

But Matthias Shapiro wrote: “We can see that Texas has grown the fastest, having increased jobs by 2.2% since the recession started. I want to take a moment and point out that second place is held by North Dakota. I added North Dakota to my list of states to show something very important. North Dakota currently has the lowest unemployment rate of any state at 3.2%. And yet Texas is adding jobs at a faster rate than North Dakota. How can this be? The reason is that people are flocking to Texas in massive numbers. Starting at the beginning of the recession (December 2007), let’s look at how this set of states have grown in their labor force.”

I would add that Barack Obama would love to have the unemployment rate down to 8.2%. That would mean 1.4 million more people would be employed.

2. “Sure Texas has lots of jobs but they’re mostly low-paying/minimum wage jobs.”

But this is not true. He wrote: “Texas median hourly wage is $15.14 — almost exactly in the middle of the pack (28th out of 51 regions). Given that they’ve seen exceptional job growth (and these other states have not) this does not seem exceptionally low.”

I would add that newly created jobs are lower paying compared to old jobs. Also, Texas is a right-to-work state.

3. “Texas is oil country and the recent energy boom is responsible for the incredible jobs increase.”

That is a valid point. TGIF — Thank God It’s Fracking.

But many other states — most notably New York state — are banning or severely restricting fracking.

This is the summation of his argument against Perrynomics:

I’ll leave you with my personal favorite chart. I mentioned at the beginning that Texas is seeing high unemployment in a large part because they’re growing so damn fast. The problem with this from a charts and graphs perspective is that it leaves worse states off the hook, making them look better than they actually are. Looking at unemployment alone, we would conclude that Wisconsin has a better economy than Texas. But Wisconsin is still 120K short of it’s pre-recession numbers. The only reason they look better than Texas is because 32,000 people fled the state.

During that time, 739,000 people fled into Texas. Anyone who takes that data and pretends that this is somehow bad news for Texas is simply not being honest. At the worst, I’d call it a good problem to have.

So, to give something of a better feeling for the economic situation across states, this chart takes the population of the states I selected above and judges the current job situation against the population as it stood at the beginning of the recession.

Using that metric, Texas would have a very low unemployment rate of 2.3%. But the fact that unemployment in the United States is fluid means that the unemployed flock to a place where there are jobs, which inflates its unemployment rate (at least in the short term). It’s not a bad thing for Texas… it just looks bad at first glance.

And… that’s it.

You may have noticed that I don’t mention Rick Perry very much here. That is because Rick Perry is, in my opinion, ancillary to this entire discussion. He was governor while these these numbers happened, so good for him. Maybe that means these jobs they are his “fault.” Maybe the job situation is the result of his policies. Or maybe Texas is simply the least bad option in a search for a favorable economic climate.

So in the end, even though Matthias Shapiro knocked down all the false claims, he could not quite bring himself to credit the governor.

It seems pretty clear to me.

Rick Perry has been governor of Texas for more than a decade. In that decade, Texas has grown so fast and so vigorously that it is adding 4 congressional seats in 2012, a reward for economic success.

Barack Obama is from Illinois, where he toiled in the state legislature for a decade. Illinois lost another congressional seat.

NDSUFREAK wrote:here is another site about the, now 18, negatives pitted against Gov Perry that are all refuted by a blogger who has cross referenced sources and other comments from websites that first reported these negatives to Gov Perry.

http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/07 ... negatives/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is a really long, but worth it type of read if you are on the fence about Gov Perry. It is a pretty unbiased article in comparison to others that are out there.

Wedgebuster wrote:

NDSUFREAK wrote:here is another site about the, now 18, negatives pitted against Gov Perry that are all refuted by a blogger who has cross referenced sources and other comments from websites that first reported these negatives to Gov Perry.

http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/07 ... negatives/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is a really long, but worth it type of read if you are on the fence about Gov Perry. It is a pretty unbiased article in comparison to others that are out there.

Nobody is on the fence freak, you either eat up that uber-christian bullshit or you wipe boogers on it. Perry has no chance, mainly because he reminds of G.W. Bush who couldn't beat Superhornet or Helen Hunt in a new presidential matchup, only Perry actually BELIEVES the **** he pukes out, Bush just said these things to jerk off his base and get elected.

Perry will earn more boogers by far, than votes.

NDSUFREAK wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
Nobody is on the fence freak, you either eat up that uber-christian bullshit or you wipe boogers on it. Perry has no chance, mainly because he reminds of G.W. Bush who couldn't beat Superhornet or Helen Hunt in a new presidential matchup, only Perry actually BELIEVES the **** he pukes out, Bush just said these things to jerk off his base and get elected.

Perry will earn more boogers by far, than votes.

He has results and a lot of political experience to back him up...unlike someone else that is currently president when he was running. Doesn't stand a chance for nomination or winning general election you say? Frankly, if everything stays the way it is and President Obama keeps givings "jobs" speeches without results it won't matter who is opposing him in 2012.

NDSUFREAK wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
Nobody is on the fence freak, you either eat up that uber-christian bullshit or you wipe boogers on it. Perry has no chance, mainly because he reminds of G.W. Bush who couldn't beat Superhornet or Helen Hunt in a new presidential matchup, only Perry actually BELIEVES the **** he pukes out, Bush just said these things to jerk off his base and get elected.

Perry will earn more boogers by far, than votes.

He has results and a lot of political experience to back him up...unlike someone else that is currently president when he was running. Doesn't stand a chance for nomination or winning general election you say? Frankly, if everything stays the way it is and President Obama keeps givings "jobs" speeches without results it won't matter who is opposing him in 2012.

89Hen wrote:So much hate from the left (at least Wedge).

Wedgebuster wrote:

89Hen wrote:So much hate from the left (at least Wedge).

Not hate, I just don't trust religious retards. Any religious retards.

89Hen wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
Not hate, I just don't trust religious retards. Any religious retards.

You must live in a very small world. Doesn't something like 87% of the US claim to be religious?

Wedgebuster wrote:

89Hen wrote:So much hate from the left (at least Wedge).

Not hate, I just don't trust religious retards. Any religious retards.

Wedgebuster wrote:

89Hen wrote: You must live in a very small world. Doesn't something like 87% of the US claim to be religious?

How many claim to be religious retards?



See, that's the difference. If you think 87% are going to vote for Rick Perry I got some lake front property for you just downstream from town.

89Hen wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
How many claim to be religious retards?



See, that's the difference. If you think 87% are going to vote for Rick Perry I got some lake front property for you just downstream from town.

I don't know anyone who claims to be a religious retard and where did I say anyone would vote for Perry? I'm just saying if you hate religious people, you live in a very small world.

bulldog10jw wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
Not hate, I just don't trust religious retards. Any religious retards.

How about incompetent retards like BO?

AZGrizFan wrote:

bulldog10jw wrote:
How about incompetent retards like BO?

He's fine with them.

Wedgebuster wrote:I don't hate, that is more your style.

I just feel in the majority of this country that does not want some religious retard with his/her finger on the button talking to "god" about whether to push it or not. We all know you have no problem with that given your post history here, but just because you need invisible friends and pedophile clergy to get you through your life does not make you a person with a "large" mind. In fact in my eyes, quite opposite.

Wedgebuster wrote:

89Hen wrote: I don't know anyone who claims to be a religious retard and where did I say anyone would vote for Perry? I'm just saying if you hate religious people, you live in a very small world.

I don't hate, that is more your style.

I just feel in the majority of this country that does not want some religious retard with his/her finger on the button talking to "god" about whether to push it or not. We all know you have no problem with that given your post history here, but just because you need invisible friends and pedophile clergy to get you through your life does not make you a person with a "large" mind. In fact in my eyes, quite opposite.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
I don't hate, that is more your style.

I just feel in the majority of this country that does not want some religious retard with his/her finger on the button talking to "god" about whether to push it or not. We all know you have no problem with that given your post history here, but just because you need invisible friends and pedophile clergy to get you through your life does not make you a person with a "large" mind. In fact in my eyes, quite opposite.

Perhaps you'd be believable if you hadn't typed the REST of that post.

Wedgebuster wrote:
Just because I think they are retards does not mean I hate them

bulldog10jw wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
Just because I think they are retards does not mean I hate them

Very true. You like BO, so you obviously don't hate retards.

Wedgebuster wrote:

bulldog10jw wrote:
Very true. You like BO, so you obviously don't hate retards.

I do hate you but not because of the fact that you are a retard, but because you suck as a poster and always have.

I don't hate, that is more your style.

Wedgebuster wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:


Perhaps you'd be believable if you hadn't typed the REST of that post.

Just because I think they are retards does not mean I hate them dummy, use your U. of Idaho reading skills, and comprehend, sheesh.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
Just because I think they are retards does not mean I hate them dummy, use your U. of Idaho reading skills, and comprehend, sheesh.

Yeah...I didn't think you'd see the irony in your post. Never mind....you're obviously not smart enough to even try to explain it to you.

Wedgebuster wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Yeah...I didn't think you'd see the irony in your post. Never mind....you're obviously not smart enough to even try to explain it to you.

Palin went to Idaho too, didn't she.

Wedgebuster wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Yeah...I didn't think you'd see the irony in your post. Never mind....you're obviously not smart enough to even try to explain it to you.

Palin went to Idaho too, didn't she.