"Federal" as in nation-wide, determined by the government?

And "local" as in the city/community you live in?

Wow, interesting. Almost a 10% difference in taxation.

I was a bit depressed at first when this thread was created, getting the impression that Texas is just backwards and evil, but it's interesting to hear another perspective, that Texas is in many ways successful while being so different from the rest of the country in economical policy.

Correct on both. Federal is the US government as a whole. Local taxes would be judged by each individual city. Most of that is reflected in taxes on property or specific goods (cigarettes, sugary drinks, etc).

Well, it's huge state in both population and size (it's ~700k square km, which is nearly twice the size of Sweden with ~28m people). It's a incredibly popular state for people to move to in order to escape the higher taxes and regulations of states like California.

Cool. The article linked to in the OP was about the size of a book, but I understand that Texas is growing very fast? Do you live there or nearby? Does Texas suffer from a shortage of water like Arizona?

Twice the size of Sweden and three times as many people, wow.

I find this to be so fascinating, the growth of the United States all the way from the early settlers, through the industrial era, when the US was dragged into the both World Wars, and its immense power today as the only superpower. Each time period it became increasingly powerful in relation to the rest of the world. This settler nation, the land of the free, it's so freaking powerful.

NintendoCM said:
Wow, I sure have missed a lot since last reading this post. Although much of what people are saying has been making my blood boil. I'll attempt to respond to all of this in a respectful way.

First off, the rights accusation that liberals and leftist are communist/socialist is silly. I'll agree that a small margin of Liberals and far-left people are communist..however a bulk of Liberals agree with many aspects of capitalism. What we disagree with is crony capitalism. When political leaders and business officials use themselves to get ahead. This is why the top 1% of the nation is crushing the middle and working class. What liberals want, and many moderates should want as well, is to ensure that the wealthy corrupt business are no longer exempt from taxes because they are in bed with a politician. The same goes for politicians who cuddle up with Wall Street in order to get elected. Liberals understand that outright communism doesn't work. History has proven that. The same can be said about crony capitalism as well, people are being crushed. I'm getting severely off topic so I'll cut the economic talk short. I am simply telling conservatives/right that progressives still support capitalism, but we want a safe and fair economy. Not one that has been rigged for the wealthy for years.

How liberal is to ask for more regulation and more taxes? How liberal are the Democrats that lie in bed with the corporations they say they fight against?

The top 1% is where they are (besides of course what political control of economy helping the monopolistic practices of bug corporations) more because they are capable of finding latent needs of the population and sell that while managing the production process.

Companies don't pay taxes EVER. Every single tax you create will either roll back to the product and have customers pay it or if there is no profit to be made the company will just cease to exist and you'll lose jobs and products/services together.

Progressives support government control of market (which is very far from being trully liberal) and several of their progressivism in culture and social aspects comes also at the control of the groups and taking rights from others or using government power to prohibit what they don't like. So neither of that is really liberal.

Now to discuss this idea that Black Lives Matter and Antifa are just as to blame for the chaos that ensued in Charlottesville. Attempting to put together Nazis and White supremacists in the same boat as people who- despite being radical- are fighting for equality- is simply vile. If the "alt-right" didn't have the belief that their skin color makes them superior, no fight would have broken out. Saying there is blame on "both sides" is like saying the U.S fighting against the Nazis is WWII deserve blame since they too caused chaos. It is completely backwards and a disgusting comparison to draw. BLM is a reactionary group in this situation. They have had riots in which I do not personally agree with. But you have to understand the playing field in which they are coming from. BLM has dealt with justice inequality, living inequality, and opportunity inequality for a very long time now. So how can we expect them to sit back and watch a hate group spew hatred and bigotry in the streets. It's sickening to hear our President say "both sides" are to blame and that the "alt-left" is just as bad as racist cowards that are the "alt-right".
USA didn't fight WWII because they believe Nazism is wrong. If that were the case they would be there at the beggining and started to fight when Nazi germany started invading other countries or persecuting Jews.

BLM have caused riots, violence and all even when Nazi weren't involved so there is no point to say they were just reacting to provocation. And please list the legal rights that are denied to non-white american citizen. Don't come with perceived inequality, you are talking about real rights.

And how do you fell when the minority movements have their hate speech against other groups when unattacked? And also when they target the same minority people just because they have different opinions?

I didn't reply to one single poster because I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm simply trying to educate the fact that equating a hateful group of Nazis to counter-protesters to me seems insane. As does the idea that Liberals want communism in the country. The right needs arguments to toss at us, so they make us seem like we're waiting for Karl Marx to come visit us. I am a Liberal who supports capitalism, as are 85% of all the Liberals in this country. This topic was supposed to be about Texas....but it has become yet another Left vs. Right argument. Can their be a winner? Of course not. The right wont change my mind and I wont change theirs. But I hope this rant can provide someone with something, because it made me feel better. I also apologize for continuing to be off topic, but I just couldn't sit still.

You disprove yourself on your own post...

You simply attempt to make me seem unintelligent when you just twist what I wrote. To your first point...you are absoutely right that Democrats sleep with Wall Street. Which is why I supported Sanders and not Hillary. Hillary showcased the establishement with the Democrats. Never once in my entire post did I claim to be a Democrat, I caucus with them because I agree with their politics more. However I am a Liberal....not a Democrat. Negating what you tried to get me for. Again a majority of Liberals want tax hikes for the wealthy....with tax cuts to the middle and working class. It's pretty easy to level out in that regard. Regulations for certain aspects of small busniess are also important. You need regulation to ensure that these busniesses aren't polluting the earth or damaging the enviornment. I need to see more of the "regulations" you're referring to because you are being very vague.

Real liberals I know of are basically against most if not all government regulation, because we do have a strong position on market self-regulation and that the consumer decide what is important, be it either that they want companies that are more environmental sensible or any other thing.

Again there is no such thing as taxes hikes for the 1% that would alleviate the burden on the middle and basis. Any taxes you put to the corporations or the top level will find it's way to the working class through price hikes or closening of business. The best way to alleviate the burden of middle and basis is taxes reduction through government reduction.

Also I don't have a hatred for the 1%. In fact I commend them for being successful. However certain businesses, usually the wealthiest, have used politics to do some very shady things behind the scenes. That is a tiny factor...and a bulk are simply successful. Since their success is so great I do believe they can pay more in taxes. Thus giving a tax break for the middle class.  

Yes the corporate that uses the government self-benefit certainly doesn't mind "paying more taxes", because for that they have the government sheltering their business from possible competitors through regulation and special benefits, so is it really good to just let them buy by paying more taxes?

You also said that progressives want government control of the market. That is completely untrue. I can tell by you're writing you are nowhere close to progressive, so I understand you know nothing of the goals. The main platform of progressives is social reform, not trying to get rid of the free market. Also progressives aren't trying to rid people of rights, we fight for equality for all. Fight against racism. If you believe allowing racism and bigotry to continue is a right then so be it. 

If what I believe is completely untrue how can you say you doesn't want government control but them before say they have to control in things like environment? That is the lurking lie of progressives that say they don't want control. They will always say that they only want to control very little aspects that are sensitive and then go twisting and increasing that. I can't believe anyone voting for Sanders can say the guy isn't all for more control. Let me tell you that increasing government paying in school is a form of market control and manipulation.

Sure bigotry and racism is bad and if aren't already a crime should become one. Still you haven't showed a single legal right that is denied from anyone in the minorities (although we have cases of rights that are exclusive to some minorities).

Then you really dropped the ball on your issue with BLM. I stated in my post that I haven't agreed with their past riots. I said in Charlottesville they were reactionary. And I never said their inequality was legal. But it sure does happen. So don't for a second pretend that if you are a white male you don't have it easier than a black man or another person of color. That truly irks me. Injustice has plagued this nation since it's inception...and it continues now. Of course the injustice isn't legal, but it absolutely happens. You're nieve if you think it doesn't. 

Have I said that it isn't easier to achieve something if you are born rich or white? Nope. And if a movement does riot and violence without being provoked, that is their common operation so you can't just excuse them with "they are only reacting here". How many Nazi or similar have we seen going to BLM protest to fight and harm them? Isn't it funny that the movements that fight for respect and end of violence is more violent and close minded than even the supremacists?

And please elucidate for me since I'm seeing all wrong how not having any legal inequality do you intend to force this perceived equality without creating legal inequality and/or government control on the market. Because so far you have only been tip-tapping tangent to any point.

For your last point, I don't even know where that came from. Were you just trying to get me or something? But, like and adult would, I'll respond. Hate is untolerated period. If any minority group condemns another I wouldn't stand for it. Persecuting anyone for their ethnicity or beliefs is wrong. It's only when those beliefs are hate filled and simpy pathological should something be done. 

So the feminist movement plagued with man hating people (at least a very big chunck of the public leadership when you see their speaches talk on basis of hatred against men and we seldomly see any other feminist strongly oposing them) and they will shun people like Ayn Rand because she is a real feminist that doesn't buy from the silly paygap and other make beliefe that 3rd wave feminists "fight against"? Or like in Brazil a black "congressman" that is called a term that in Brazil means the black guy that persecuted slaves on the orders of the white owner, because he is right wing liberal, by the black movements and left wing? And none of that see strong oposition from within those groups.

I have seem countless feminists desiring that a girl was rapped so she would start valuing feminism more.

Is that less pathological than the white supremacists? Let me tell... to hate, have prejudice or similar ill conceived look on the different have been common on human history. But to hate against your own kin is a lot more pathological.

After all this, I'm not sure how I disprove myself. I guess if you were looking for ways to make my post a fail. But you sure did grab at straws. 

No more straws than someone who claim to be a liberal, that doesn't want to control market, want more social progress by removing prohibitions, that want the government doing it and vote for Sanders that is even more inclined to socialism than Hillay while saying himself isn't a socialist.