An Aggie President?

An Aggie President?

Neal Boortz
June 20, 2011

Whoop! Whoop! Oh HELL yes.

There was a lot of buzz over the weekend about Texas Governor Rick Perry. The general consensus is that he would be ranked near the top of the field if he decides to enter the Republican contest. There is a lot for the people of the country to learn about Governor Perry. I’ve known him for about six years, and I think you will like what you see in many respects. One thing for sure … if Perry joins the race he and Herman Cain will lead the pack in passion and personality.

Here’s something for you to think about while considering Rick Perry. He’s in his 11th year as the Governor of Texas. The nation’s CEOs rank Texas as the NUMBER ONE state in which to do business.

Here’s a number that may impress you. It’s a number relating to private sector job creation in the U.S. That’s what we’re concerned about here, isn’t it? Our long-term unemployment picture under The Community Organizer is worse than it was during the Great Depression. It would be pretty nice to see some strong private-sector hiring right now. So let’s look at private sector job creation over the last year and compare Rick Perry’s Texas to the rest of the nation:

Jobs Created In Texas: 265,000

Jobs Created In the 49 Other States: 266,000

OK, progs … take a shot at THAT number.

Can’t remember the lady’s name – but I heard a “Democratic strategist” say that the excitement over Rick Perry is an indication of the weakness in the Republican field. I think she got this one right.

By the way, according to the 2010 Census there are 13,408 Democratic Strategists in this country ready with makeup and waiting for a call from a cable news channel producer.

I should talk.

I disagree with Boortz. I do not think the Republican field is weak. There are many in the field with some excellent ideas and some that have real-world experience at turning failing enterprises around or in running successful private sector businesses or both. There are some with extensive political experience (not necessarily a good thing in all cases) and a decent track record in politics.

Given this and the fact that Elmer Fudd could beat Obama if the economy is still in the tank next November, I'd say we're sitting pretty good this early in the race.

dblboggie wrote:I disagree with Boortz. I do not think the Republican field is weak. There are many in the field with some excellent ideas and some that have real-world experience at turning failing enterprises around or in running successful private sector businesses or both. There are some with extensive political experience (not necessarily a good thing in all cases) and a decent track record in politics.

Given this and the fact that Elmer Fudd could beat Obama if the economy is still in the tank next November, I'd say we're sitting pretty good this early in the race.

So, what's your take on Perry?

I personally think he'll be a strong candidate if he indeed runs. He just needs to shut up about religion and all those other conservative social issues.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I disagree with Boortz. I do not think the Republican field is weak. There are many in the field with some excellent ideas and some that have real-world experience at turning failing enterprises around or in running successful private sector businesses or both. There are some with extensive political experience (not necessarily a good thing in all cases) and a decent track record in politics.

Given this and the fact that Elmer Fudd could beat Obama if the economy is still in the tank next November, I'd say we're sitting pretty good this early in the race.

So, what's your take on Perry?

I personally think he'll be a strong candidate if he indeed runs. He just needs to shut up about religion and all those other conservative social issues.

I'm not sure right now. I don't know enough about him. I've heard that he has a couple of weaknesses, particularly on the illegal immigration issue. Illegal aliens in TX get in-state tuition breaks and I've heard that Perry is not opposed to Bush-style immigration reform. I don't know if any of this is true, I'll have to get digging into the guy's record myself I guess, that is if he enters the race.

dblboggie wrote:I'm not sure right now. I don't know enough about him. I've heard that he has a couple of weaknesses, particularly on the illegal immigration issue. Illegal aliens in TX get in-state tuition breaks and I've heard that Perry is not opposed to Bush-style immigration reform. I don't know if any of this is true, I'll have to get digging into the guy's record myself I guess, that is if he enters the race.

He was a Bushie when it came to illegals. Now he's done a 180 on that issue after getting his ass kicked after his election before the last. He came out in favor of no extra border patrols and all the other issues. Then conservatives reamed his ass. Then he changed. On other issues, he's the man.

I would like to see how he explains that change of heart before I would be convinced that it was heartfelt.

But one certainly can't argue with his results on the Texas economy. And that is, without question, the single most important issue for 2012.

dblboggie wrote:I would like to see how he explains that change of heart before I would be convinced that it was heartfelt.

I'd like to see that also. But it won't hurt him as much as Romney on his HC bill in Mass.

dblboggie wrote:But one certainly can't argue with his results on the Texas economy. And that is, without question, the single most important issue for 2012.

The results speak for themselves.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I would like to see how he explains that change of heart before I would be convinced that it was heartfelt.

I'd like to see that also. But it won't hurt him as much as Romney on his HC bill in Mass.

You're right about that. I cannot believe that Romney doubled down on RomneyCare. This alone makes him highly suspect on the topic of ObamaCare.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:But one certainly can't argue with his results on the Texas economy. And that is, without question, the single most important issue for 2012.

The results speak for themselves.

They do indeed.

TexasBlue wrote:[

He’s in his 11th year as the Governor of Texas. The nation’s CEOs rank Texas as the NUMBER ONE state in which to do business.

This is what baffles me. How does that qualify him as a President? The CEOs would rank a state with no workers protection/safety, environmental or laws against hiring illegal aliens as the number one state to do business in. That doesn't always mean its what's best for the people. In all the debates about Presidential issues, it's always about creating job growth. Don't get me wrong, job growth is one of, if not the most important thing right now because everybody would benefit from that, but what about other issues such as education, tweaking the HC System so that it's better balanced between providing care and leaving medical institutions enough freedom to make profit, what about trying to eliminate the immense trade deficit the US has?

BubbleBliss wrote:This is what baffles me. How does that qualify him as a President?

What qualified Obama to be president?

BubbleBliss wrote:The CEOs would rank a state with no workers protection/safety, environmental or laws against hiring illegal aliens as the number one state to do business in. That doesn't always mean its what's best for the people.

Back it up. What lack of laws are there for workers protection? Safety? Environmental? In case you didn't know, the state has to abide by federal laws on those issues. If you're equating workers protections with the lack of unions in Texas, that's a non-issue.

BubbleBliss wrote:In all the debates about Presidential issues, it's always about creating job growth. Don't get me wrong, job growth is one of, if not the most important thing right now because everybody would benefit from that,

Job growth is a premiere and number one issue for all Americans right now. Just because I have a job now doesn't mean that it'll be there at this time next year. Nothing is safe right now. Nobody's job is secure. In the real world of jobs, anyone is expendable. If there's no growth, then everything else you typed below means jack shit.

BubbleBliss wrote:but what about other issues such as education, tweaking the HC System so that it's better balanced between providing care and leaving medical institutions enough freedom to make profit, what about trying to eliminate the immense trade deficit the US has?

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:This is what baffles me. How does that qualify him as a President?

What qualified Obama to be president?

That's not an answer to my question. I'm asking how the vote of CEOs qualifies somebody to be President.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:The CEOs would rank a state with no workers protection/safety, environmental or laws against hiring illegal aliens as the number one state to do business in. That doesn't always mean its what's best for the people.

Back it up. What lack of laws are there for workers protection? Safety? Environmental? In case you didn't know, the state has to abide by federal laws on those issues. If you're equating workers protections with the lack of unions in Texas, that's a non-issue.

What do you mean back it up, that's just logical. If there is anything that will save a company costs, the company will prefer that place, even if those measures hurt the population or the environment. Why do you think so many companies outsource their production to Mexico? Because in Mexico, there are little to no safety laws. That's a blessing for companies but a curse for the workers/the population.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:In all the debates about Presidential issues, it's always about creating job growth. Don't get me wrong, job growth is one of, if not the most important thing right now because everybody would benefit from that,

Job growth is a premiere and number one issue for all Americans right now. Just beacuse I have a job now doesn't mean that it'll be there at this time next year. Nothing is safe right now. Nobody's job is secure. In the real world of jobs, anyone is expendable. If there's no growth, then everything else you typed below means jack shit.

Do you really want a President who has a solid plan to fix the economy but no plan for what to do after he fixed it????

What I'm saying is that while economic growth is the most important thing right now, other factors have to be taken into account as well. Like I've pointed out, some factors that lead to economic growth don't always play out well in the end for the population. If there was a state that allowed cartels and price fixing, CEOs would vote that state as the best state to do business in, yet that would do nothing short of hurting the population. So you see, a vote of CEOs doesn't really count for much. A vote of the CEOs in connection with general feelings of workers towards their work place, benefits, etc. would do a lot better.

BubbleBliss wrote:That's not an answer to my question. I'm asking how the vote of CEOs qualifies somebody to be President.

Because the governor has created a climate for business to thrive. The state wins. The people win. Why? Because there's jobs to be had. You have to remember that these jobs draw uneducated (just high school diplomas) and the college educated. Minnesota is losing corporations due to it's unfriendly business climate. When they leave, jobs and tax dolars go with them.

BubbleBliss wrote:What do you mean back it up, that's just logical. If there is anything that will save a company costs, the company will prefer that place, even if those measures hurt the population or the environment. Why do you think so many companies outsource their production to Mexico? Because in Mexico, there are little to no safety laws. That's a blessing for companies but a curse for the workers/the population.

You making a general statement. There's no proof that I've seen that jobs in Texas are hurting the environment. Not to mention, there's federal laws regulating that issue (as I stated once already).

On outsourcing, then how is it that Texas gained half the jobs created since the recession? If there was a lot of outsourcing, then those job figures wouldn't be what they are.

BubbleBliss wrote:Do you really want a President who has a solid plan to fix the economy but no plan for what to do after he fixed it????

How do know he has no plan for anything other than job creation? You're just making general statements with nothing to back it up. Not to mention, Perry has yet to announce a candidacy. When (and if) he does, you'll be hearing more on what you ask about.

BubbleBliss wrote:What I'm saying is that while economic growth is the most important thing right now, other factors have to be taken into account as well. Like I've pointed out, some factors that lead to economic growth don't always play out well in the end for the population. If there was a state that allowed cartels and price fixing, CEOs would vote that state as the best state to do business in, yet that would do nothing short of hurting the population. So you see, a vote of CEOs doesn't really count for much. A vote of the CEOs in connection with general feelings of workers towards their work place, benefits, etc. would do a lot better.

Bleh. Texas cartels and price fixing????????? Are you serious?????? Price fixing can be prosecuted as a criminal federal offense under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Criminal prosecutions may only be handled by the U.S. Department of Justice, but the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) also has jurisdiction. State Attorneys General can also bring antitrust cases. That's not to say that they don't happen but in today's world, it's not going to be very frequent. But you're making a hypothetical claim here with no basis in fact.

Next!

Either you don't understand my point or you're just ignoring it. What I'm saying is that a vote of CEOs doesn't count for much, seeing that CEOs only think about what's going to give them the biggest profit. It only gives you one angle of something a President (or any politician for that matter) should take into account. You have to find somebody that can balance what's best for businesses and best for the people.
And now you point out to me where I ever said that there are cartels and price fixing in Texas.

BubbleBliss wrote:
Either you don't understand my point or you're just ignoring it. What I'm saying is that a vote of CEOs doesn't count for much, seeing that CEOs only think about what's going to give them the biggest profit. It only gives you one angle of something a President (or any politician for that matter) should take into account. You have to find somebody that can balance what's best for businesses and best for the people.

CEO's vote that way because they are paid to make their company money. They are paid to make sure that shareholders retain shares of stock, which in turn makes the company money... which is what a CEO is paid to do (in part).

BubbleBliss wrote:And now you point out to me where I ever said that there are cartels and price fixing in Texas.

If there was a state that allowed cartels and price fixing, CEOs would vote that state as the best state to do business in,
http://www.superiorpolitics.com/t2084-an-aggie-president#15207

Sounds like you were making a claim.

BubbleBliss wrote:
Either you don't understand my point or you're just ignoring it. What I'm saying is that a vote of CEOs doesn't count for much, seeing that CEOs only think about what's going to give them the biggest profit. It only gives you one angle of something a President (or any politician for that matter) should take into account. You have to find somebody that can balance what's best for businesses and best for the people.
And now you point out to me where I ever said that there are cartels and price fixing in Texas.

I think you are making assumptions about why the nation's CEO's rank Texas as the best state in the Union to do business in. You seem to think that they would, if permitted, offer their employees only slave wages under the most dangerous conditions and would willingly engage in the wholesale destruction of the environment without a care in the world - as long as they were making money. This is just not the case.

First of all, even if Texas permitted such things, there is no way that any business operating like that could get a sufficient number of employees to agree to work under such conditions. You have to remember that competition does not just exist between businesses and the products and services they offer - competition also exists in the labor market and that works in favor of employees. An employee is free to pick up and leave a state where the businesses operate in the manner you imply. They are free to go work for another company that appreciates their skills. Businesses have to compete for their labor resources just like they have to compete in all other aspects of their businesses. Competition is our friend.

What is clear from the degree of job growth in Texas (they have produced half of ALL the private-sector jobs created in the US) is that they have created conditions that favor businesses and employees alike.

The thing that makes the CEO's "vote" so critical is that these are the people who are responsible for creating not just profits for their businesses, but also conditions that attract the needed labor to produce the products that create those profits.

And don't forget, as Tex has already pointed out, there are federal laws on the books to deal with the issues you raise. This isn't the 19th century or even the early 20th century.

Yet as Tex pointed out, CEOs vote for what's best for the company which is why an angle from the worker's perspective also has to be brought into the picture.

And the competition in the labor market you pointed out, does not apply to the situation the US is in right now. More people are looking for jobs than are being offered. Even qualified, educated people are doing so. That greatly decreases the competition.

BubbleBliss wrote:
Yet as Tex pointed out, CEOs vote for what's best for the company which is why an angle from the worker's perspective also has to be brought into the picture.

And the competition in the labor market you pointed out, does not apply to the situation the US is in right now. More people are looking for jobs than are being offered. Even qualified, educated people are doing so. That greatly decreases the competition.

I disagree with the bolded part. The competition is fierce right now. You haven't been here for over a year or better (correct?). I was out of work for 2 friggin' years and the competition is unreal. I've never ever been without work in my entire life. Ever. Companies are very selective in who they hire right now. It's an employers market. Normally, it's the other way around.

That's exactly my point. Companies can pick and choose their employees and people can't just choose which company they want to work for as much as in regular economic times.

BubbleBliss wrote:
That's exactly my point. Companies can pick and choose their employees and people can't just choose which company they want to work for as much as in regular economic times.

It's not anyone's fault. It's just the way it is. Natural selection. When the pool of prospective employees is so large, the employer can be more selective. I don't blame them.

I applied for a job with the county about 5 months after I was laid off and 500 people applied for that one position.

Rick Perry may know how to balance the Texas budget. He just doesn't do it correctly. Instead, he does it ideologically by slashing funds for education, etc. then using the "savings" to fund his own agendas. He plays nothing more than politics.

i_luv_miley wrote:Rick Perry may know how to balance the Texas budget. He just doesn't do it correctly. Instead, he does it ideologically by slashing funds for education, etc. then using the "savings" to fund his own agendas. He plays nothing more than politics.

What agendas is he funding with the savings?


Here we go again. A state budget is a projected budget for money the state is expected to take in for the next two years (budget cycle). There is no money "saved" as of yet. The spending is decreased for the budget cycle to maintain the hopes that the state will draw in the projected dollars.

So, your statement is ludicrous.

Oh! Oh! Oh! I just read that Texas had included $6.4 billion in stimulus money during its most recent 2010-11 budget. The new spending plan doesn't replace these funds with state money. That money isn't there anymore. It's silly to even think of putting that $6.4 billion in there when it's not around anymore.

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:Rick Perry may know how to balance the Texas budget. He just doesn't do it correctly. Instead, he does it ideologically by slashing funds for education, etc. then using the "savings" to fund his own agendas. He plays nothing more than politics.

What agendas is he funding with the savings?


Here we go again. A state budget is a projected budget for money the state is expected to take in for the next two years (budget cycle). There is no money "saved" as of yet. The spending is decreased for the budget cycle to maintain the hopes that the state will draw in the projected dollars.

So, your statement is ludicrous.

Texas education is a joke, especially in public schools. Everyone involved in education is hand-picked by Perry and are have to follow what he believes. I mean, creation in public school? That's what I'm talking about. Plus, since Texas gets to dictate what the rest of the country uses as textbooks (in public schools), that sets a dangerous precedence. Again, it's nothing more than politics. That's what I'm talking about.

True, Texas gets money. But the rest of the country as a whole suffers - and because of one man.

i_luv_miley wrote:Everyone involved in education is hand-picked by Perry and are have to follow what he believes. I mean, creation in public school? That's what I'm talking about.

Mind giving me an example? Seriously.

The state board of education is an elected body, not an appointed one. It's comprised of 10 Republicans and five Democrats.

i_luv_miley wrote:Plus, since Texas gets to dictate what the rest of the country uses as textbooks (in public schools), that sets a dangerous precedence. Again, it's nothing more than politics. That's what I'm talking about.

The books aren't for national consumption. It's a state issue. Each state dictates what's in the books' curriculum.

i_luv_miley wrote:True, Texas gets money. But the rest of the country as a whole suffers - and because of one man.

I find that funny.

What is an aggie?