So how about that Alabama immigration law?

Seems to be working already, just one day in.

See you libbies always say "you can't deport 12 million people."

Alabama has just shown you that you don't need to. Alabama removed the reasons the illegals are there - jobs and free services, like education.

Well they have already pulled their kids from school, and according to the ABC News repost many are leaving.

Funny part is - the are headed to California. You know to hasten our demise.

So libbies after a few months, when Alabama shows the huge reduction in it's illegal population, how many other states will follow suit?

fr -- so you are just as insulting on weekends as you are during the week -- if you are this miserable now just think what it will be like when barry joins the ranks of the unemployed in early 2013.

james, It would seem feisty has a personality issue, doesn't it?

wow! Seldom Seen Sam, what an honor! How's the MW Gang doing these days? wink, wink!

This is a loser for Perry.

All an opponent has to ask ..... "How can you favor a Mexican citizen access to a Texas college over an American citizen living in Iowa, or New Hampshire, or South Carolina or Florida ... "

Perry has tried to appease the Hispanic vote in Texas, just like Obama panders on the national level to a ridiculous level.

Have to stick to your principles if you have them. Libs can get by with this stuff, Perry won't.

Perry has tried to combine the border security issue, which he is strong on, with this. Nice attempt, but separate issues. Perry should shift the discussion to the cost of higher education - why is it so ridiculously expensive?

The salaries and perks of the academia are absurd? I had a brilliant professor for integral calculus who was recruited from Cal Tech, genius that even had rays named after him. Couldn't teach worth a crap, worst I ever had, but made 100s of Ks even back then.

$10,000 - $40,000 a year? And it just climbing and climbing - absurd.

Americans don't need a government loan to be in debt half the rest of their lives, they need affordable higher education.

Anyway, just an idea ...... and a pet peeve.

I am going to agree Bob, this is a mighty liberal sounding approach, mighty liberal.

If any student from another state wants to get in-state tuition in Texas, it's simple. Move here, live here for 3 years, then apply like everybody else.

IF the Fed. gov't. had done its job, we wouldn't be in this mess!

By the feds burying their head in the sand and failing to do their job, the states have no choice but to intervene. They CAN'T pass the buck.

Our "brave" Federal gov't. punted their responsibilities to secure the border back to states. The Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot deny illegal immigrants their "right" to higher education. Texas had to figure out a way to deal with it. We ALL live with the result of unintended consequences.

Did they all arrive in the last three years, did any enter during the 8 years Bush was president you would think he would have at least protected Texas borders, if not AZ. and CA's.

Off topic, but the transportation union will be joining Occupy Wall Street. SEIU has also voted unanimously to participate and lend many types of support.

Organizing is going on nationwide this weekend.

You can see if there is a non-partisan meeting going on near you here:

http://www.occupytogether.org/

As far as the above article, Perry should quite parsing his stance, do the right thing, and endorse the Dream Act.

Ah, the GOP. The party of states rights. Well, except apparently when it comes to how a state chooses to handle education........or gay marriage............or health care...........or marijuana. Ah, the GOP, a Monty Python skit just waiting to happen.

Occupy Wall Street.

You kids are really cute.

What happened? Did Goldman Sachs not pony up the million they gave Obama in 2008 yet?

Citicorp, JP Morgan Chase and the rest of the banking big boys that supported Obama 4-1 last time dragging their feet?

How about the hedge fund guys and the 80% of their money that went to Obama/dems in the last cycle?

Venture capitalist? Heck they not getting a half billion of tax payer dollars for a half million in bundling donations to Obama? Seems the venture socialists in the green biz are still doing well?

Things must really be bad for Obama to turn the SEIU loose on them. (Does the SEIU not know who manages and handles their pension funds - pretty funny)

Anyway, at least Obama still has the big money machine unions, or are they re-thinking, seems Trumpka said something about that a month or so ago ..... spending money on the local level instead? Maybe he was just mad Obama having private guys do his birthday parties?

Anyway .... thanks for the chuckle and good news.

BTW - How do you like all the new bank fees charged to you as a "duh" result of Frank-Dodd Finance Reform?

Maybe you guys can send Dodd and Obama a thank you note.

I guess those wall street protesters want their "fair share."

I wish they would publicize the protest. I would love to have the general public get a load of those upstanding citizens.

The 22 year old, never had a job protestor I saw interviewed was name, I kid you not, Pigpen.

Yep American, Pigpen ain't got no job, pays no taxes, but wants his fair share from Wall Street.

His fair share of what?

This must be the Obama nation. Yikes.

Robin, didn't expect to get any recognition... you are dating yourself girl, lol.

I'm no longer an activist, and actually do a little tax work for folks hereabouts. I still day dream a little about those 'precision earthquakes to remove temporary plugs....'. But only after reading the crap that do nothing idiots post to this blog. Activism is dead, and what's left is armchair liberals comfortable in front of their little computer pretending to be outraged. lol, not like the old days eh?

Slow down honey & take a deep breath!

Your Obama Derangement Syndrome is in overdrive!

I've seen some serious spin out of you but this one is PRICELESS! ;o))

A republican candidate offers in state tuition to the children who were brought here by their parents

What part of illegally did you miss?

So, let me see if I understand-

It's crystal clear you DON'T!! lol

I'm off now to enjoy my plaid skies while you sit & stew in your storm clouds...

Ta Ta!

No Joe,

I think only you perceive this article that is over 90% direct quotes as a “struggle” for Gov. Perry.

The Conservatives do struggle with this issue as the clear majority are against what Mr. Perry did in Texas regardless of the reasoning and see that as an indication as what he would do for the country. They also struggle with what President Reagan did about the problem.

Un huh. Pure, unbiased journalism.

Kind of like the hit piece on ignorance, that revealed the AUTHOR'S ignorance.

I'm still waiting on an informative article on the Intercontinental railroad. Can I only take it to South America, or does it go to Europe? Cause, I really hate to fly.

Hey NOJO - you see Obama's Gun Runner document dump last night?

Absolutely classic.

Now the new e mails prove conclusively that the White House was in on the plan, and monitoring it. The White House aid, who was part of the e mail exchange with ATF has been asked to testify in front of ISSa and Grassley.

Now here the golden part - he is "on assignment in Iraq."

Now I've heard of the Chicago Way, but you don't think anything bad would happen to the guy who could directly link Obama to this huge scandal, do you?

Why would a White House Aide need to go to Iraq? Especially this one.

I predict, in light of these e mails Holder goes under the bus by year's end.

No jo your own party is against the Texas dream Act. Yes Perry is struggling with his own party, you do remember them booing him, don't you. Then he called them heartless.

This wasn't an article on how Perry ideal is floating with democrats.

I am actually surprised that there is even one issue that I agree with Perry. The Dream Act is one.

"And, its offered here as a "struggle" for the republican candidate."

Does your screen show something different from mine? I can't find the word "struggle" anywhere in this article. I do, however, see "The explanation was received well by the crowd here.'"

Must be those danged plaid skies screwing up my computer again. Oh, and the pink clouds. Can't forget the pink clouds.

Maybe President Obama has been reading his Bible and took care of the witness, like King David ?

Ok so now we know JoAnne can only read for literal content, not context.

Deep thoughts JoAnne, deep thoughts. :)

Maybe dirp.

Funniest part is the White House withheld a whole bunck of other e mails, citing Executive Privilege.

Now I remember all the way back to 2007, when Bush canned those Attorney Generals. THe dems in congress demanded that Rove and Harriett Meyers testify. Bush asserted executive privilege.

TO which the dems jumped up and down, had a cow and told us that was improper.

Always funny when the shoe is on the other foot.

Any how - the gun walker docs have also exposed that the DEA was allowing the Cartels to smuggle drugs in an sell them. You know so it could stop the importation and sale of illegal drugs.

Can they really be that stupid?

"Ok so now we know JoAnne can only read for literal content, not context."

Actually, Spanky, I have it on good authority - from NoJoe herself, the world reknowned authority on just about everything - that I'm totally lacking in even basic reading comprehension. Despite having graduated cum laude with a major in languages.

Don't tell my boss, okay? I really need this job!

Now here the golden part - he is "on assignment in Iraq."

I predict, in light of these e mails Holder goes under the bus by year's end.

Maybe Obama can get Holder and Chu to hold hands and save some time and diesel.

So many scandals, I just hope none of the boys come down with a case of the Vince Foster Blues.

Obama really does need to come off the campaign trail and start working on better cover-up efforts, academics aren't any good at this either.

And this the real point to no joe's comments and frustrations. The bias in simply stunning, especially here at FR with the fluff pieces on Mitt's wife, Gingrich going to a cool virtual world place, Huckabee saying he still ain't running, 4-5 stories on Christie saying he still ain't running, Michelle buying treats for the dog ...... sheez.

FR says it is a political site. Scandals that effect elections aren't political stories?

Seems like Watergate made the news. Did Nixon spend $10 million in tax payer money on the little Watergate break-in? Does the death of two American law enforcement officers and the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens not trump Perry's views on state tuition for basically the same Mexican citizenry?

Does Michelle's comments on China lasers trump the importance of Chinese currency manipulation (Heads up FR - they are voting on it next week), intellectual property theft, military build up?

On and on and on ....

It would be disgusting, but then you remember that among the properties owned by GE are NBC and Obama.

They have too much invested, they have so many billions at stake .... and you remind yourself why we come here.

While the libbies continue to entertain each other with silly insults directed to anyone who dislikes Obama, they are missing some good things coming down the road from SCOTUS!

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smack-down of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government. Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election. The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling. As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.' Apparently, the Court has had enough. The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.

First, there is Obamacare, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle. In the Obamacare world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'

Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut, while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii.

And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of Arizona. That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls. A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies. This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Now it also appears that Obama was complicit in orchestration -- along with the ATF, the FBI, the CIA, and the DOJ -- of the "Fast & Furious" scheme to provide thousands of powerful military automatic weapons, small arms and munitions to the Mexican Drug cartels for the sole purpose of creating an internal publicity campaign worthy of repeal of the 2nd Amendment citizen's right to hold and maintain arms for self protection.

This all kind brings a tear to your eyes, eh? Stay tuned libbies! lol!

I still they they are going to need a bigger bus. Biden alone will take up a whole section.

Poor dude on assignment in Iraq. What if he becomes a nameless Navy Seal?

Guess we can always count on Biden to out him. Just a matter of time.

You want a scandal. How about the republicans trying to close the post office in an effort to kill another union and put people out of work.

The only reason the post office is in trouble is because as a parting gift in 2006 the republican controlled congress passed a law requiring the post office to fund 75 years of retirements in 10 years and they have been unable to do the ridiculous. This law is the only reason the post office is in trouble.

Once again it is nothing more than republicans trying to kill good jobs in America. Then the post office can be privatized, employees get less and the rates go up and their rich friends gets richer.

One small item of interest you left out is that fast and furious was started by bush in 2006 and was a program continued by President Obama. You would have thought President Obama would have been safe continuing a bush republican program.

Yeah, AF - that sure is a scandal. The Post Office is a money hemmoraging hole. Old technology, no longer needed.

Whereas the ATF bought guns with tax payer money and GAVE them to mexican cartels, which were used to kill both Americans and Mexicans.

And now the DOJ has circulated a White Paper setting out it's plan to shut the ATF down - laying off all 450 ATF agents.

So, AF - you like scandals? You think the Post office is even a blip on the radar?

Sure it is.

Bye bye Holder.

Oh and it sure looks like CHU is headed under the bus as well.

If Congress had not changed the pension funding rules and
the old rules were in effect the USPS would have a 6 billion dollars surplus.

It takes Congressional approval for the USPS to update
antiquated equipment or change anything.

The only reason the post office is in trouble is because as a parting gift in 2006 the republican controlled congress passed a law ...

The 2006 legislation was passed by a vote of 410 to 20.

Were there only 20 Democrats in the House at that time? Hmmm.

So, let me see if I understand-

A republican candidate offers in state tuition to the children who were brought here by their parents, since those parents were paying the property taxes that support the colleges and universities of that state-

A position that would be applauded by the media, were it taken by a democratic president-

And, its offered here as a "struggle" for the republican candidate.

I think they were suggesting that it sounds like a very liberal policy, one that could have been possibly suggested by a very liberal democrat, and possibly supported by a liberal democratic president named Obama. I'm pretty sure this will be a struggle for Perry's campaign, and if it is not then his constituents must getting more liberal and that would be a bad sign for republicans in the next election.

No, Forest- it shows someone who is not a cardboard cut out of a candidate.

Don't you find it odd that we have reports of the republican candidates records- when there was NOTHING reported about Obama's? When we were told that even asking questions about his voting record in the Senate, or the Illinois legislature, was racist?

Cause, I sure do.

And, to American Firat- lying is NOT good spin.

The record shows that GunWalker was started in March of 2009- when who was president? It sure wasn't Bush.

No Joe,

Here is a CBS report that traces these operations to at least 2008 if not sooner.

“Multiple sources now tell CBS News the questionable tactics were used in more than one operation, and date back as far as 2008 in the Tucson area. One case was called Wide Receiver.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/08/eveningnews/main20040803.shtml

Nice try, but "questionable tactics" which are not specified, and forcing the sale of guns to Mexican cartel members, is not quite the same thing, now, is it.

I noticed that CBS, despite the claim it had "multiple sources" never did a follow up after that early March story.

I kind of wonder if those "multiple sources" were White House sources, who sought to spin the spotlight away from Obama and Holder.

Bet I'm right to be suspicious.

Nice try at spin, Dennis, but the documents are pretty clear.

It's just another Obama screw up. This time, it cost peoples lives, not just their jobs.

No Joe,

Do you really think that all Department operations start and end with a President and his administration? Now that would be an enormous waste of taxpayer money.

Here is yet another report: The investigation, dubbed Operation Stampede began in December 2008, and involved agents and officers from ATF, the San Diego Police Department, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Border Patrol, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, San Diego County Probation Office, and the San Diego District Attorney’s Office. The investigation targeted violent San Diego
gang members that engaged in homicides, robberies, firearms trafficking and assaults.

Throughout the investigation ATF purchased 30 firearms including high-caliber weapons and sawed-off shotguns. Some of these firearms were sold to persons purporting to traffic them to Mexico.

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2009/05/050209-la-undercover-operation-prevents-gun-trafficking.html

No jo, the fast and furious program was an arm of the ATF gunrunner program started in 2006 by bush. Yes the new name fast and furious started in March 2009 but it was still a part of the original gunrunner program bush left in place. Jo you had me questioning what I had read until I got to the part about the 5 year old gunrunner program. Bush was president 5 years ago.

While it doesn't sound like the smartest plan, it is hardly something you can make Obamas fault.

Uh Forrest - how does an illegal alien own property? You saying the have fake documents, i.e identity theft?

Illegals don't pay taxes, other than sales tax.

You know better Forrest.

And sorry AF - it was not until Obama that the ATF started to allow the guns to "walk."

But I know Bush first approved Solyndra, until he pulled the plug.

You ibbies just refuse to take responsibility.

So Americans First - Obama first said the White House had nothing to do with GUn Runner. Yet now it assert a privilege to protect it's e mails.

Huh?

Wait I know Obama is trying to protect Bush's e mails, right? Sure he is.

Fast and Furious was funded by $10 million of stimulus money. IT IS ACTUALLY LISTED!

Bush pass the stimulus?

CBS?

Aren't those the guys whose life long news anchor, somebody named Dan Rather, had to resign for fabricating stories about Bush in an attempt to effect a national election?

You guys are so pathetic. Is there anything you won't try to blame on Bush?

CBS?

Would that be the same CBS who asked the Wasilla Hillbilly all those gotcha questions like; 'What do you read'? lol

CBS?

The same source that No Joe uses frequently?

I knew her sources were not worth reading !!!!!

Actually, Dennis, if you check my archives, (you still can- I have not wiped my history), most often, of the "big three"- I use ABC.

Not CBS.

I find most of their stuff suspect.

Thar "numerous sources" line? With no substantiation? Pretty slippery. Who were the sources, ( STF? White House? Pentagon? No context- just numerous. ).

When I Googled it, all I got were CBS- and wing nut sites.

Pretty suspicious. You'd think the other news organizations would be ALL OVER a Bush connection.

They're not- so, I don't think there is one- no matter how hard you hope there is one.

Obama.

Incompetent. Inept. Corrupt.

Gone in a year and a half, more or less. Lord, I hope it's less.

Spanky I never said anything about them owning property, I never defended this policy at all, I said it is a political problem for Perry because it is too liberal, hell it is too liberal for me so I know it will be a problem for Perry, and that is all I said, well I did add that if the country is now this liberal Obama will win.

Uh - how many citizens are short changed?

THere are only so any spots at these schools. Each taken by an illegal alien is one less for our children.

There are so many resources. Illegals steal our resources.

They need to go. It's sad as it applies to kids, but sometimes you have to do things that make you sad.

So Americans First - do you not read the news, or just ignore the stuff you don't like?

The DEMS don't have the votes to pass the bill. There are at least 6, and likely more DEMS in the senate that will not vote for Obama's job bill.

Now these just happen to be the ones up for re-election this year.

Coincidence? I think not.

But you gotta stop blaming the republicans - Obama tried to craft a bill that would allow him to pit him against the Republicans. Problem is, his bill does not even have the support of his own party.

But you already know this, right AF?

If, the big if the American Jobs Act ever did get to the senate the articles I read seem to think the numbers would be there to pass in the senate.

The problem is the house, republicans even some democrats are afraid to raise taxes on the richest even though 75% of the people want them to. It appears they are more worried about donations from the rich than what the people think.

The tea people while aligning themselves with the rich claim to want a government for the people. Tax cuts for the rich only benefit the rich.

In JFK's time the rich were taxed at 90% and no one claimed class warfare and socialism. In those days you were Americans supporting your country, true patriots.

In 1963, President Kennedy:" the paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and revenues too low; and the soundest way to raise revenue in the long term is to lower rates."

And tax rates were lowered from 90% to 65% on the highest earners. And the economy turned around. Tax cuts work. Tax cuts benefit everybody. Benefiting everybody is patriotic.

So a tax rate of zero would increase revenue, Candice? Where is the point of diminishing returns? I am fairly certain that we're past it if you look at renevue as compared to GDP "growth"...

Sorry, Paul. I'm going with JFK on this one. Low taxes (as opposed to raising taxes) will better benefit the economy, and therefore the people.

In the current environment where revenues are down, and growth is down, and our debt and unemployment is high, we'll be better off cutting non-essential spending to get the house in order. This will accomplish two things: shore us up fiscally and financially; and give confidence to the people that the government is caring for the taxpayer's money with some fiduciary responsibility.

Do this, and a tax increase later on, in better times, will be more acceptable to the people paying taxes.

So you believe that a TAX rate of ZERO would increase revenues? That's retarded. Try answering my question on REVENUE, then we'll discuss spending.

Candice: Read what you posted again. Carefully. The tax rates in Kennedy's day were around 90%. Now, Paul is asking you the germane question. Tax rates are as favorable as they have ever been for the wealthy, and the middle class is disappearing because of it. There is no argument that can be made that corporations or investment income suffers from a confiscatory tax like in JFK's time. So, do you want a tax rate of zero, and if so, were you planning to be the first one out patching your road in front of your house?

Dear Paul and NewDay.

I'm sorry. I didn't answer the question about ZERO taxes because I thought Paul was just being rhetorical and a little over dramatic. My apologies.

No. Of course not. Tax rates cannot be zero.

Low rates are better for our fragile economy than raising taxes.

President Kennedy was speaking during a time when tax rates were confiscatory, true. The concept in general, however, is also true. The soundest way to raise revenue is to lower rates --- or maintain low rates, in the case of our current day.

Raising taxes in a precarious economy is not a good idea. Even Mr. Buffett thinks so.

It's not a germane question- it's hyperbole masquerading as a question.

No one has ever suggested tax rates of zero. Even the fair tax, which would repeal the 16th amend,net, requires a national sales tax that everyone would pay.

The Laffer Curve is based on a very fundamental principal- there is a "sweet spot" that generates the most income for everything. The trick is finding it.

So, we use graphs- one of the most basic is that of a sports venue. The idea is to charge the admission that puts the most butts in seats, with the owner of the venue charging the highest level per ticket to maximize revenue.

Charge too much, and you have empty seats. Charge too little, and the venue is full, but you have not maximized revenue.

That is the general idea behind the Laffer Curve- what tax rate MAXIMIZES government revenues.

The proof that lower rates =higher revenues has been proven over and over- by Reagan and by Bush. Why was there increased deficit spending and addition to the debt during their tenures?

Increased spending by congress. They are like shopaholics- the more money you give them, the more they overspend.

They're also LOUSY stewards of our money- witness the oversight of the Energy department- shoveling tax dollars to Obama donors, under the oversight of Obama donors.

One of the first things Christie did in my state was to being in an outside auditor to go over the state's books- the first time it's ever been done. That auditor just found $26 million dollars no one knew we had- going back to the 1960s- in just the highway fund. Seems that they over bonded for projects, and the monies just sat in accounts, with no one knowing it was there.

I seem to recall an article some time ago, that at the Federal level, there are billions of uncommitted funds just sitting around.

Not good stewardship.

The next president needs to being in outside auditors to do the saw, and apply ALL such uncommitted funds to the debt. That would be retiring T-bills and bonds, which is just good, common sense. Then, we need to undertake the elimination of redundant departments and regulations- which GAO says is about $200 billion. Then we need to cut back to 2006 levels in every single department- which includes the White House staff- and their paychecks.

After all of that is done, we can talk taxes.

Candice: do you recall a time in our history when we have LOWERED taxes during a time of war? No. This is not an issue of confiscatory tax. One of the biggest problem is that people are not spending money because they are constantly worried about their jobs, due to the Republican attacks on the few worker protections left. It is totally disingenuous to suggest that the wealthy are harmed by paying taxes equal to the other classes. Unless, as I said before, you want to be the guy out patching your own road. It will be coming to that soon.

But, Newday.....we're not "at war." We're just involved in these pesky "overseas contingency operations."

People are not spending money because:

--They don't have any - 12 million unemployed.

--If they have jobs, they are afraid for them. The economy is not getting better. Big businesses are spending more and more money on compliance with new regulations - (I know this because the company I work for will be spending $220 million over the next two years to comply with Dodd Frank, and that's just on the rules they've gotten around to writing). And business is slow. I don't think it's because of Republicans attacking worker protections.

--There is no confidence in the near future, which could be due to the lack of positive leadership and constant political bickering.

--Since the financial melt down, people have learned to save rather than spend. While not helpful to the economy and society as a whole, this is actually a good thing.

I'm not the only one who thinks raising taxes right now is a bad idea.

07-11-11 - Steny Hoyer: "Everyone agrees raising taxes in our fragile economy is not wise."

08-02-11 - MSNBC Tom Curry: "Obama’s preferred course of action would be to allow today’s tax rates and tax preferences to continue for people with incomes under $250,000, but to raise taxes on people with incomes above $250,000. But doing that would reduce future revenue by $1.8 trillion and thus increase future budget deficits."

09-30-11 Warren Buffett: He said he isn't talking about raising taxes on people who make $250,000 a year. He suggested raising taxes a limited number of Americans who make the majority of their income from capital gains. “What I’m talking about would not apply to someone that made $5 million a year as a baseball player or $10 million a year on media. It would apply only to probably 50,000 people out of 309 million who have huge incomes, pay very low taxes. There should be a policy that applies to people with money who earn lots of money and pay very low rates. If they earn it by normal jobs what I say would not hit them at all."

no joe - exactly.

When the government starts proving they will be good stewards of tax payer money, they will have an easier time asking for more.

The bigger question was about the point of diminishing returns on lowering tax rates. The Laffer curve doesn't answer the question either.

A 90% Tax rate on all income over $10 million is hardly confiscatory. Can we stop acting like anyone ever paid 90% taxes on ALL of their income here in the USA. Why does everyone decide to become so irrational when discussing income taxes and government spending?

The implied contract from the Corporate Masters of the Republican Party has been "lower our taxes, and we will create JOBS, such JOBS as the world has never seen." They have refused to uphold their end of that social contract. It is time to QUIT taking the word of these people who are out for one bottom line....their own. Raise tax levels back to Clinton's time, and quit being bullied by people like the Koch brothers.

And while I realize you are being facetious, those soldiers involved in "pesky overseas contingency operations" that are killed are still dead. Let's have respect for that, shall we?

Paul: why do people become irrational discussing taxes and spending. Simple. No one understands it. Our fault on that too. Why should you have to hire someone to figure out what you owe for living in the United States? Past time to find a reasonable and understandable way to pay for what we use.

The person you hire to figure out what you owe is in business to save you money on your tax bill. The "complexity" of the tax code has created this niche industry. No one hires a tax preparer so that they can PAY MORE in taxes. They are paid to know what the old and new loopholes are in the code.

Would you prefer to pay an AMT rate that is graduated from 10% to 99% on income from $40 grand , in steps, up to $20 million?

Newday. We can raise tax rates to the levels they were at during Clinton's administration, but only if we could couple that with a booming economy, a soaring stock market, a flurry of new product innovation and high employment. When our economy is stable and strong - raise taxes. Doing so now would do more harm.

Few on the right are talking about lowering taxes from current levels for working people. Lowering corporate tax rates to level the global playing field and repatriate jobs and money is the policy most are pushing for.

I agree with you. It is past time we find a reasonable and understandable way to pay for what we use.

Oops, Paul, sorry did not see your response. Was outside for a game of Wubba with my collie. He won.

I'm not going to pretend that I know the answer to the way to reform taxes in this nation. I simply don't. I would like to see a system that is less dependent on the needs of special interest, that have the money to lobby Congress to do it their way. We need x amount of dollars to pay for this government to run. How do we get those dollars in, without burdening those least able to pay? I don't know. But would love to see some ideas.

I just love it when libbies talk taxes.

You guys are the best.

Fact is they get a whopping $2.5 trillion every year. And we know, because they admit to it, that they waste 1/2 of every dollar they get.

But sure let's give them more. I'm sure they be super careful with the new money, right NewDay?

Cause they ned to give more Green loans to Kaiser and the Pelosi family.

Still cranky, Spanky? Love it when you decide that you can put words in my mouth. Now, get outside, get some sunshine, go to Little Italy where the food and drinks are good, and stop trying to insinuate that you know what I think.

As opposed to Obama, who is "hopping from one stage to another" campaigning for the job he is not doing.

Or did I miss it? The jobs bill passed? No need for him to say, have a chat with all those dem senators that said they will not vote for it?

Naw, JoAnne - campaigning is far more important right now.

Bit other than that - fantastic point.

Spanky -

Thanks for actually helping me make my fantastic point. Until such time as the laws make every political office in the country limited to one term, or prohibit anyone currently holding an office from running for any other office, or limit "campaigning" to the week or month before the election, comments like Governor Perry's are pretty silly, don't you agree?

Politicians campaign. And most campaigning consists of criticizing each other. Wow. Film at eleven.

As to your point about term limits I agree completely. I just don't know which comment from Perry you are referring to.

But you point was to slam Perry for not governing. Given that he is in the race with Obama, who is doing the same, that seems misplaced.

Perry does not have a Jobs bill - that still has ZERO co-sponsers in either the HOuse of Senate, that he says must be passed now.

They don't "get" in-state tuition, they get to PAY the in-state tuition rate. Stop using phraseology which makes it sound like they are "getting" some kind of freebie or gift. If you had to rustle together 75% of your net worth to pay for a discounted eduction, would you not be a highly motivated student? Is that not what we want in this country?

Paul as compared to a resident of Cali that goes to Texas, they are getting a FREEBIE - they pay far less than the legal, out of state resident.

Seems totally fair, and in line with immigration law.

Answer the questions I asked.

A comparative "freebie" is an oxymoron. The kid from Cali going to Texas for an education is already paying too much for too little, but his parents probably got the money to pay his way from profits made off the backs of illegal immigrants.

Oh yeah, that must be it.

Easy solution - get the illegals out of here and there would be none to exploit.

Oh well, let's just sit back and watch what happens in Alabama. See Alabama does not want anyone to exploit illegals so it is compelling them to move along.

My guess is they will be leaving Alabama and will be heading off to college in Texas!

Two questions:

1. Why would any Cali kid want to go to a public college in Texas? I thought Cali had lots of state universities?

2. Why would anyone illegal or legal want to move to Alabama?

If you are not asian, you are not getting in to a UC school. Even the state Us are vastly overcrowded.

Plus UT has one of, if not the hottest chicks anywhere.

Illegals go where they get work. Cali, Az, Texas is over run with them, so they continue to spread. So the rest of the country gets to experience the huge drain on resources they bring.

Bottom line is Mexico is a toilet. Anywhere here is better than there.

And that's a shame.

Illegals and their employers lower the income of the whole community, and illegals do in fact use the resources of the community and there is no getting around that fact. Nobody has ever been serious about closing the border, rounding up illegals and sending them back and they certainly have not punished the people who employ illegals. We need to get serious about stoping the flow in, send the ones that are here out and figure out what to do about the anchor kids. Best I can figure is their parents are the only ones who can stay as long as they have not broken other serious laws and they are on an agricultural work visa.

Everyone should watch "Incendiary". If you could vote for Rick Perry for dogcatcher after seeing it, then you are a partisan moron. It's as if they are PROUD of their IGNORANCE.

Paul,

What part of phraseology of ILLEGAL do you not understand? They need to leave and come back in through the proper channels. Is it like telling the bank robbers that have already broken into the bank but got caught then the president of the bank says...Well, they are already here and so we may as well give them some of the money for their "efforts."

They are the children of the so called failed "bank robbers". They didn't steal anything from you and neither did their parents. They've lived in Texas or the US their entire lives. A small discount for a higher education in the state where they ahd their parents have lived while paying taxes is not going to ruin anything.

Any politician, be it mayor, prosecutor, judge, governor, House or Senate member, has experience in dealing with illegal immigration (and it's after effects). Mabye not as much as the border states, but has dealt with the matter at one time or another.

If I were living in Texas, I'd be screaming bloody murder over my tax dollars going towards illegal immigrants getting an education on my dime. It's wrong. Illegal immigration costs the US taxpayers on more ways than one. Not only are they taking away from a deserving Texas citizen who deserves a better education, they in turn are stealing jobs that honest, legal Texans would be proud to have.

As a US President, Rick Perry would only compound the problem.

Cat

So I guess we can't call the GOP "war mongers" anymore, right?

Call the GOP war profiteers and war criminals, the monger issue is something which can be achieved while out of power.

Why (rhetorical) would you credit Obama for an unknown "victory" and name him a "national security" defender over something that is more than likely going to further destabilize Northern Africa and blow up full in America's face in the not to distant future? Yet, you ignore the fact that Bush finalized the downfall of a despot who regularly murdered innocent civilians by the tens of thousands and who the international community all agreed needed to be gone. In your idiotic bias you referred to that as "attacks countries without provocation" which really demonstrates your ignorance. How (rhetorical) did Libya "provoke" us and Syria did not? Do you even understand your messiah's reasoning for attacking Libya?

There re 260 dead Marines that were killed in a barracks bombing in Lebanon, and the Lokerbie aircraft bombing. Both were claimed / attributed to Ghaddafi.

I'd say those qualify s an "attack".

I would not call the GOP warmongers when the record clearly indicates otherwise. It is the Democrats who regularly lead this nation to war.

As to who is better at national security:

The Democrats are clearly results oriented.

The republikans are clearly fantasy oriented,..... but then that inability to embrace reality is put on stunning display every day on this board by RWNJ's who outwardly blowviate about their parties accomplishments, and yet inwardly are embarrassed by the lack of them.

A republikan parade of self-loathing.

Put another way: How do you logically elect a party to govern whose stated goal is a lack of governance?

How do you logically elect a party to work whose stated goal,.........is to do nothing?

Well I admire your consistency to your position and not giving Perry a pass on this, I think if they are born here they are citizens, and I don't think you can legally deport a citizen. So if I am correct we have to figure out as a nation what we are going to do. I guess you could deport the parents if they are illegal but what if they say ok but I will leave my children in America, what do we do then. We going to change US law, are we going to revoke the kids citizenship, are we going to arrest the parents for abandonment and put them in a US jail, or threaten to deport them and start all over again. We got a problem, and I think we have to get serious about how we are going to handle it. I am all for sending illegals back across the border, I wish we had a very secure border, but I don't wish to see children separated from their parents because they are being deported but the child is a citizen and they would leave the child in America in hopes of a better life for the child. Should we build orphanages for them?

get TO PAY in-state tuition. They aren't getting anything.