Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

Apparently they unloaded right in front of the building that houses many media outlets.
Going to be hard for those media to not cover.
Need to keep this problem in the spotlight
It is a problem for the entire country.

Someone should suggest to Abbott to start with the ones who have a known violent criminal history. Send those to DC as a priority.

 

[Horn6721]

Don't most countries have controlled boarders?

 

[Monahorns]

Don't most countries have controlled boarders?

Of course. But Communism is a global revolution, and the US regime is fighting for it.

In Ukraine too.

 

[guy4321]

Oh goodie!

"Myers is a volunteer with the Interfaith Welcome Coalition, a non-profit that helps migrants traveling through San Antonio with the basics, like buying bus tickets and making phone calls.

Since mid-March, Myers says, on average, immigration officials are leaving 150 to 200 migrants at the bus station every day and 300 to 500 at the airport."

San Antonio is sounding the alarm about ending Title 42 - CNN

 

[Horn6721]

How stupid are people?
SA is only asking for more money to process the hundreds of illegal aliens.

 

[Mr. Deez]

A federal judge rules that charging illegal immigrants less than out-of-state students is unconstitutional. Link.

 

[Horn6721]

So now there will be no more out of state rates. Probably will mean higher tuition for everyone.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So now there will be no more out of state rates. Probably will mean higher tuition for everyone.

Since we were stupid and let the Legislature totally forfeit its control over setting tuition back in 2003, and since the universities are largely run by social justice hacks, you're probably right.

Many thanks to dumbass Aggie Fred Brown and dirty ***** Geanie Morrison (who carried the bill and both Republicans) and another dumbass Aggie Rick Perry for signing the bill into law.

 

[Monahorns]

So the schools set their tuition now?

 

[Mr. Deez]

So the schools set their tuition now?

Yep, as of 2003. It was one of the defining battles of my brief but intense period as a political activist. I personally went to war to stop it and put my whole heart into it. I did my best with what I had, and I came up short. I'm very sorry.

I did avenge that loss by regrouping to defeat the payroll tax in 2005, and I'm proud of that. But I do regret failing on the tuition legislation.

 

[Monahorns]

Yep, as of 2003. It was one of the defining battles of my brief but intense period as a political activist. I personally went to war to stop it and put my whole heart into it. I did my best with what I had, and I came up short. I'm very sorry.

What was the case for and against? Why were you on the side you were on?

 

[Mr. Deez]

What was the case for and against?

There was the public case, which was basically no deeper than the name - "tuition deregulation." Deregulation sounded good, and that was enough to reason for stupid people to go along. Of course, in reality tuition is just as regulated as it ever was. It's just that now, it's regulated by unaccountable regulators rather than accountable ones.

Then there was the real case that people would privately admit but publicly denied, which was that the state was in a budget shortfall and was looking for ways to balance the budget without raising anything people might call a tax. They saw higher education as a possible target. They could cut state funding to help balance the budget and instead of calling for a little fiscal discipline, they could punt tuition powers to the university systems and let them make up the difference leaving the public with no recourse.

Why were you on the side you were on?

Because it was ********. It was government at its worst and rank cowardice being sold on fraud. There was no "deregulation." That was a dishonest gimmick. On top of that, a conservative legislature that wants to balance the budget should cut spending. If it doesn't want to cut it enough, then it should have the balls to raise tuition (or taxes) on its own. It shouldn't permanently delegate that decision to people who don't have to account to anyone. It was dirty governance all the way around. That's why the issue transcended ideology. The most solid conservatives and the most solid liberals ended up on the same side (though for different reasons), and corrupt turds like Geanie Morrison and Fraud Brown teamed up with insider Democrats who were in the sack with the universities to get it done. As you can tell, I'm still pissed about it, and Geanie Morrison personally lied to my people. I'll never forgive that *****.

 

[Monahorns]

There was the public case, which was basically no deeper than the name - "tuition deregulation." Deregulation sounded good, and that was enough to reason for stupid people to go along. Of course, in reality tuition is just as regulated as it ever was. It's just that now, it's regulated by unaccountable regulators rather than accountable ones.

Makes sense. This is the same story as most deregulation schemes. Actual deregulation, meaning more freedom less government intervention, would be a good thing for everyone. However, these schemes usually change the nature of regulation rather than reduce it or make it accountable to a market. The electrical industry is another example.

I think the most important point you make is that the regulators were now not accountable.

Then there was the real case that people would privately admit but publicly denied, which was that the state was in a budget shortfall and was looking for ways to balance the budget without raising anything people might call a tax. They saw higher education as a possible target. They could cut state funding to help balance the budget and instead of calling for a little fiscal discipline, they could punt tuition powers to the university systems and let them make up the difference leaving the public with no recourse.

This could be confusing to a libertarian like myself. We believe government subsidy isn't a good thing. It isn't. But in the specific case not everything is what it seems. The state funding came through the Permanent University Fund. It didn't come from taxes as I understand it. It was based on money made from the oil industry which was then invested in the market. So it was a good thing. An actual charitable action where something of value was created, sold, and the money invested. Then the outcome paid the state schools. It was actually a market based solution to keeping college tuition low.

After the change, the funding was transferred to the national student loan type of scheming. I don't know this for sure, but I think Federal funds were then used for education loans. This money didn't come from production or investment but taxes, debt, and money printing. All bad things.

Because it was ********. It was government at its worst and rank cowardice being sold on fraud. There was no "deregulation." That was a dishonest gimmick. On top of that, a conservative legislature that wants to balance the budget should cut spending. If it doesn't want to cut it enough, then it should have the balls to raise tuition (or taxes) on its own. It shouldn't permanently delegate that decision to people who don't have to account to anyone. It was dirty governance all the way around. That's why the issue transcended ideology. The most solid conservatives and the most solid liberals ended up on the same side (though for different reasons), and corrupt turds like Geanie Morrison and Fraud Brown teamed up with insider Democrats who were in the sack with the universities to get it done. As you can tell, I'm still pissed about it, and Geanie Morrison personally lied to my people. I'll never forgive that *****.

I think the key here is that Republicans, which you call conservative above, weren't willing to cut spending. This is the kind of betrayal from Republicans that I have come to expect and disdain. Republicans aren't conservatives when it comes to money. Rarely for anything else either. They spend like Democrats and defend the magnitude of budgets as fervently. One big reason I am a libertarian. Notice I didn't write Libertarian though that is changing.

The only way forward if we don't want catastrophe for ourselves to fight to reduce the size, scope, and power of government. That means the government needs to spend less, maybe even to 1/10 of today. Then eventually 0 if possible.

 

[Mr. Deez]

This could be confusing to a libertarian like myself. We believe government subsidy isn't a good thing.

It's not a good thing, and if they wanted to truly privatize the system, we would have been fine with that. However, if you're going to have the government owning and funding something, the big decisions that affect the public should be made by elected officials. It's the same reason Congress rather than the IRS Commissioner sets income tax rates.

But in the specific case not everything is what it seems. The state funding came through the Permanent University Fund. It didn't come from taxes as I understand it.

It's actually both. The PUF assets have a significant return, and a percentage of that return gets directed to the Available University Fund and ultimately to the universities themselves. However, the state also provides general revenue to the universities.

After the change, the funding was transferred to the national student loan type of scheming. I don't know this for sure, but I think Federal funds were then used for education loans. This money didn't come from production or investment but taxes, debt, and money printing. All bad things.

Certainly a much greater percentage of the universities' funding comes from tuition, and as we know, that's financed heavily through student loan money, which is bankrolled with taxes, debt, and money printing.

think the key here is that Republicans, which you call conservative above, weren't willing to cut spending. This is the kind of betrayal from Republicans that I have come to expect and disdain. Republicans aren't conservatives when it comes to money

To be fair, they did cut spending in 2003 and took a lot crap for it. There was a real budget shortfall, and they closed it with several mechanisms, including spending cuts (and also with increases in federal money after 9/11, hikes in several fees, traffic fines, and tuition, and tapping into the Rainy Day Fund). Personally I didn't like the political claim that they balanced the budget with no tax increases, which was repeated countless times in 2004 and 2006. They balanced it without increasing anything that's called a tax. To me, anytime you make the government more expensive for the public, it's a tax increase.

Nevertheless, the real problem I have with what happened on this particular issue is that instead of telling the universities to tighten their belts during a tough economic time, they made a permanent, structural change and basically let the universities have a long term method to get as much money as they want from the public without accountability to the people or to the market. Again, it's government at its worst.

 

[Monahorns]

If they weren't lying they wouldn't be politicians.

 

[bystander]

Here is something that is absolutely sick and indicative of a major problem brewing south of our border (remember, he want to send an underling to some America's meeting if Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela are not invited).

Mexico president says soldiers did not confront cartel 'to avoid deaths'

"We take care of members of the Armed Forces; we also take care of the gang members, they are human beings," said Lopez Obrador."

 

[Horn6721]

Crap
Supreme Court allows Biden to end Trump-era 'Remain in Mexico' policy

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

Crap
Supreme Court allows Biden to end Trump-era 'Remain in Mexico' policy

they were paying lip service to it anyway. but this is yet another signal to illegal immigrants that this admin has an open border policy. This summer is going to see an even bigger immigration wave. I've always believed the wall was going to be insufficient to thwart Dem administrations. It won't happen under this POTUS but the next time we hold the cards we must implement E-Verify. And then give citizens the right to sue corporations that violate E-Verify processes like the Texas law does with abortion.

 

[OUBubba]

they were paying lip service to it anyway. but this is yet another signal to illegal immigrants that this admin has an open border policy. This summer is going to see an even bigger immigration wave. I've always believed the wall was going to be insufficient to thwart Dem administrations. It won't happen under this POTUS but the next time we hold the cards we must implement E-Verify. And then give citizens the right to sue corporations that violate E-Verify processes like the Texas law does with abortion.

The wall is insufficient for all administrations. E-Verify: Yes. Abortion law applied to immigration: Hell yes! That would make an impact. Cut out the supply and the workers will go back.

 

[Horn6721]

The Wall was never meant to be the ONLY method.
But it is one of several.
Now Biden and Demx have opened the flood gates.
Who will pay for it?

 

[guy4321]

The wall is insufficient for all administrations. E-Verify: Yes. Abortion law applied to immigration: Hell yes! That would make an impact. Cut out the supply and the workers will go back.

Did I miss something that the abortion laws would not apply to immigrants?

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

Did I miss something that the abortion laws would not apply to immigrants?

i think he meant that citizens can take measure to sue doctors, hospitals etc if they aided or did not otherwise follow the Texas abortion law. I've suggested that same sort of citizen enforcement allowance for illegal immigration. Allow citizens to sue the companies that flout immigration practices in their hiring processes.

 

[OUBubba]

i think he meant that citizens can take measure to sue doctors, hospitals etc if they aided or did not otherwise follow the Texas abortion law. I've suggested that same sort of citizen enforcement allowance for illegal immigration. Allow citizens to sue the companies that flout immigration practices in their hiring processes.

What this smart guy said. I'd vote for you for President based on this ticket.

 

[Horn6721]

Bubba
Were you able to provide a link reporting on Hutchinson being threatened to not testify?
It is in the Hecka a Speech thread
I tried to search for link but could not find one
Thanks

 

[OUBubba]

Bubba
Were you able to provide a link reporting on Hutchinson being threatened to not testify?
It is in the Hecka a Speech thread
I tried to search for link but could not find one
Thanks

I only find inferences. Stay tuned. Lordy, I hope there are tapes.

 

[mb227]

I only find inferences. Stay tuned. Lordy, I hope there are tapes.

Inferences? Isn't that like the double, triple and quadruple hearsay that Cheney, et al, allowed under oath?

You know, nothing with a basis in fact but nonetheless thrown against the wall in case someone is stupid enough to believe it...

 

[horninchicago]

mb227 says...

"Inferences? Isn't that like the double, triple and quadruple hearsay that Cheney, et al, allowed under oath?

You know, nothing with a basis in fact but nonetheless thrown against the wall in case someone is stupid enough to believe it..."

Maybe they are holding on to the tapes until Blasey Ford is ready to testify.

Oops, wrong ruse. Sorry!

 

[OUBubba]

mb227 says...

"Inferences? Isn't that like the double, triple and quadruple hearsay that Cheney, et al, allowed under oath?

You know, nothing with a basis in fact but nonetheless thrown against the wall in case someone is stupid enough to believe it..."

Maybe they are holding on to the tapes until Blasey Ford is ready to testify.

Oops, wrong ruse. Sorry!

I read across something on twitter. That's all. Thank the dark lord the right never jumps to conclusions.

 

[Horn6721]

Bubba
Post the "inferences ". We can at least see where your statement
"She had been threatened to not testify" came from

Tapes? You think there are tapes on her being threatened?

Please post in the heckuva thread where you posted she had been threatened

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

Illegal immigration is the single biggest issue we face right now. Forget the woke stuff, forget abortion, forget 2A. If we don't get this under control the Dem's will "demographic" the GOP in Texas eventually and turn TX purple. Once that happens, then they will slowly win on all the other issues because they will eventually have both houses the POTUS and then be able to slowly install Liberal judges again.

Hispanics aren't a monolith, and some will vote their values but at the end of the day, they are still more likely to be democrats. The illegal-immigrant induced purple-ing isn't happening as fast as the Dem's hoped, but it is still happening.

If you ask me, the introduction of universal E-Verify should be the litmus test for a GOP these days.