Perry, Hutchison, Medina to Debate

[RPB]

Mrs. Medina was just asked about RKBA.

She really laid it out there saying that the people should be at least as well armed as the government.

Quote: Liberty does not consist in mere declarations of the rights of man. It consists in the translation of those declarations into definite actions. Woodrow Wilson

I agree with her declaration, but her action would be to take away our licenses so we can only carry in our car like she does?
FACT: I've been robbed various times with various bad guys who had at least 2 shotguns and 4 pistols, none of the times was I in my car.

Has she shown ANY legislation she hopes to get passed by the Texas legislature that would still allow us to carry to protect ourselves after she repeals the CHL laws? hmmmm

She wants to end registration of guns in Texas .... wait, we don't have registration of guns in Texas, sounds like a lady that really did her research ...
---

Don't even get me started on her plan to stop the revenues to cities like Pasadena from property taxes on the big oil refineries and chemical plants, and impose higher sales taxes on all of us to make up the difference.

Don't even get me started on how with the sales tax money she wants to give it to Austin to control where to spend it, instead of keeping local property taxes under local control.
I don't want Austin saying "The school in Hidalgo needs new computers, your EMS salaries and Fire Truck can wait" when they disperse our sales tax money..

Don't get me started on how a sales tax is always a regressive tax which taxes poorer people a greater percent than it does Donald Trump according to their respective incomes, while she wants to eliminate the tax on all of Donald Trump type people's multiple properties only for us to make up the difference when I can barely buy material to keep my shack of a home repaired now and will pay higher sales taxes on those materials, and have no say in how they are spent. No thanks, I'll happily pay my $600 a year propery tax and help decide how it is spent ... locally.

Just don't.

She makes grand statements about our rights, or rights we should have, with which I agree.
She doesn't seem to have done her research and make plans that actually benefit us, unless we own the oil companies, refineries and enjoy relinquishing our local rights of control and dollars to a bigger government in Austin.

This is not consistant with her statements about being against bigger government.
In depositions, people look for consistancy to determine if the truth is being told, because the truth is always the truth


I'm not voting for Kay though who doesn't respect humans, and wants to "leave eveything like it is" .... why vote for someone who would do nothing and "leave it like it is" ... not this unprepared "Funky Cold Medina" either.... she's too unprepared and doesn't have any plans that will actually work yet or propposed legislation to protect our right to carry after she takes our licenses away by repealing the CHL laws.

I'm sad, I agree with her declarations of our rights, but she's apparently clueless when it comes to Economics or gun laws or how government works, including, but not limited to how to propose legislation to protect our right to carry after repealing our CHL laws and licenses that took so much time and expense to get, and including Local versus State government. (One is big government, the other is local)

[idrathernot]

Your sir are over generalizing the answers given by Mrs. Medina and imposing your own interpretation.

I agree with her declaration, but her action would be to take away our licenses so we can only carry in our car like she does?
FACT: I've been robbed various times with various bad guys who had at least 2 shotguns and 4 pistols, none of the times was I in my car.

Has she shown ANY legislation she hopes to get passed by the Texas legislature that would still allow us to carry to protect ourselves after she repeals the CHL laws? hmmmm

She wants to end registration of guns in Texas .... wait, we don't have registration of guns in Texas, sounds like a lady that really did her research

Her comment on gun registration is in regards to the Federal Firearms Laws and their licensing requirements. She believes that it is an unconstitutional practice as this authority is not specifically delegated by the US Constitution. She then stated that whatever restrictions that are to be in place were to be put there by the people of Texas which we have done. At NO POINT did she say she was in favor of repealing ANY existing STATE legislation regarding firearms. She has, however, expressed a favorable view of Open Carry without licensing requirements as the RKBA is a fundamental right essential to liberty. I wish I had a citation handy but you can take this from her website "Protecting freedom requires that the people be well armed. Government cannot protect us from violence, we must defend ourselves. On the essential elements of freedom, we must not compromise and we must not surrender. Texans must not compromise and must not surrender their right to keep and bear arms. We must not only nullify federal laws that threaten that right but encourage citizens to be, as Madison encouraged, “trained to arms, as that is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

Don't even get me started on her plan to stop the revenues to cities like Pasadena from property taxes on the big oil refineries and chemical plants, and impose higher sales taxes on all of us to make up the difference.

Don't even get me started on how with the sales tax money she wants to give it to Austin to control where to spend it, instead of keeping local property taxes under local control.
I don't want Austin saying "The school in Hidalgo needs new computers, your EMS salaries and Fire Truck can wait" when they disperse our sales tax money..

Don't get me started on how a sales tax is always a regressive tax which taxes poorer people a greater percent than it does Donald Trump according to their respective incomes, while she wants to eliminate the tax on all of Donald Trump type people's multiple properties only for us to make up the difference when I can barely buy material to keep my shack of a home repaired now and will pay higher sales taxes on those materials, and have no say in how they are spent. No thanks, I'll happily pay my $600 a year propery tax and help decide how it is spent ... locally.

Again, this is total fabrication on your part. A consumption tax is THE LEAST burdensome form of taxation on private enterprise and individual citizens. It is easily planned for and enforced uniformly across the entire tax base. It is also the least likely to experience tax hikes as you can not selectively increase the rate on a specific minority section of the voting population as with a business or income tax.

Furthermore, and this is really Mrs. Medina's fault for not clarifying, she does not intent to supplement the loss of property tax via an increase to the general sales tax per say. I have taken the explanation below from her website (I encourage everyone to give it a once over here)

Texas has several options available to repeal property taxes and replace the lost revenues with a sales tax. The major differences across the options depend on defining the sales tax base and the manner in which the sales or consumption tax will be levied. One option is to keep the current sales tax base. However, the current sales tax base is narrow compared to total annual consumption in the state of Texas. If the current sales tax base is used, then the sales tax rate would need to be around 14.5 percent in order for the property tax repeal to be statically revenue neutral. Expanding the tax base, which is a desirable tax reform in its own right, can significantly lower the necessary sales tax rate for static revenue neutrality. The first expansion would incorporate property sales into the tax base. Taxing property only once—at the point of sale—would correct many of the problems associated with property taxes, as well as lower the tax rate burden on all other goods and services subject to the sales tax.

Currently, property taxes are assessed each year based on an imagined (taxable) value of the property; for many homeowners, these include unrealized capital gains. Levying a sales tax when the property is sold corrects for this problem because the sales tax will be based on the property’s transaction price. The prospect of being taxed out of one’s home is consequently removed. The entire property assessment structure is also no longer necessary as the value of the property no longer needs to be estimated. Consequently, broadening the sales tax to include property allows the total sales tax rate to be lower (due to the broader sales tax base) while still removing many of the adverse impacts from the property tax. Alternative tax rates and tax bases that include property sales in the sales tax base are:

• 12.5 percent if the current sales tax base is used;
• 9.0 percent if all services that are taxed in at least one state are taxed in Texas; and
• 6.5 percent if the sales tax base is the total value of goods and services in Texas’ economy, with adjustments to remove non-taxable items (such as government purchases).

For reaming her as bad as you do for not doing her research..... Let's just say that I hope you now have a more informed opinion.

[RPB]

ALL sales taxes are regressive .... understand what that means .... regressive ...

Who benefits the most from getting rid of property tax? Donald Trump and big oil refineries and chemical plants, or the poor person in a shack?
This is inconsistant with her saying she is "for the people, and against big business"

Her proposed actions, or the effect and results of those actions, are inconsistant with her grand delarations, with which everyone would agree.

Medina's site links (and you supplied the same link, thank you) to "her" proposal/plan to eliminate property taxes, and replace those big amounts that big companies pay in property tax that cities use to prvide services to us ...with sales taxes .... Lets see who funded the people constructing "her plan"
Here's the link ... http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2009-...er-posting.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh, TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION
http://www.texaspolicy.com/about_tppf.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well they say ...
Funded by hundreds of individuals, foundations, and corporations, the Foundation does not accept government funds or contributions to influence the outcomes of its research

Guess what?

Texas Public Policy Foundation has received $25,000 from (among others) ...ExxonMobil ... ExxonMobil doesn't think oil refineries and chemical plants paying property taxes to the Cities is irrelevant. They stand to benefit GREATLY ... "we the people" however will be making up that shortage created when they no longer have to pay local property tax..... ok, WHO ELSE is going to?
---

You left these questions unanswered:
Has she shown ANY legislation she hopes to get passed by the Texas legislature that would still allow us to carry to protect ourselves after she repeals the CHL laws?

You don't need to quote her "declarations" to me about protecting our rights, I LOVE her declarations and agree with them. I had hoped she had a plan that could be used to work towards those goals. But her plans are inconsistant with her declarations.

Quote: Liberty does not consist in mere declarations of the rights of man. It consists in the translation of those declarations into definite actions. Woodrow Wilson

I have read all of her website and links, researched not only her, but those things she relies upon, and her proposed actions however are inconsistant with her stated declarations, perhaps not her own fault, but even politicians can be decieved.

Follow the money, Continue your research, Get back to us when after you do please.

Still, I'm glad they included her too, need to give her more rope ... I'd love it if she actually comes up with something viable instead of relying on studies funded by those who benefit, to our detriment

[sjfcontrol]

Don't get me started on how a sales tax is always a regressive tax which taxes poorer people a greater percent than it does Donald Trump according to their respective incomes, while she wants to eliminate the tax on all of Donald Trump type people's multiple properties only for us to make up the difference when I can barely buy material to keep my shack of a home repaired now and will pay higher sales taxes on those materials, and have no say in how they are spent. No thanks, I'll happily pay my $600 a year propery tax and help decide how it is spent ... locally.

Does Donald Trump have any property in Texas? Thought he was a New York fella.

I don't understand why this argument always brings up Donald. His taxes aren't any of my concern.

On the other hand, you only pay $600 a year in property taxes? You must live in a cardboard box. I pay over 20 times that. My property taxes are roughly 4 times the taxes I was paying in California, and that was for a house worth about 50% MORE than the one I have here.

Besides the outlandish property tax rates, part of the problem is that there is no control over property taxes. Either in the tax rate, or in the process of assessing the properties value. This makes it far too easy for the government to simply raise the rate, or the assessments, or both at whim. If Texas were to keep property tax, it is in desperate need of a California-style "Prop 13" -- which put restrictions on both the tax rate, and how much was allowed for the property to appreciate each year. That way the people can plan for how much they'll have to pay.

On the other hand, it would be far simpler to scrap it in favor of a sales-type tax. The advantage is that it widens the tax base, making it more difficult for the government to juggle the rates. And gets everybody involved in the cost of government.

[RPB]

You are too literal, you do understand the "symbolic Donald Trump" as A person or company possessing a great amount of property, such as the Hiltons (Yes they have hotels in Texas) The Big Oil Companies, Chemical plants, ... etc etc etc.

Their taxes they pay support services like Fire Depts, Ambulances etc on a local level. Those services should be your concern when the cities no longer have that revenue and search for it elsewhere while you pay sales tax to Austin where they'll decide to buy computers in a school in Hidalgo and make you wait for ambulance supplies and fire truck repairs.

If your property taxes are too high, I suggest you protest them and get them lowered, like I did. I live in a small town that doesn't waste, nor require a lot of money, our property taxes are low. There's an incentive to keep them low, we'll vote out the city council. If Sales tax increases, I suppose you could just change governors again, but you still give up that local control, and you'd have to get some local control back from the big government in Austin.. ie CHANGE it back

And the house I'm in? Value of it would be roughly 1.5 million in parts of California, about 1 million in Bellaire, Texas, and about $75,000 here where it is. 3 bedroom, 2 bath, built in 1970s, Brick front, siding on the other sides. 2 Storage sheds, fenced, Updated bathrooms where the showers are 5 foot wide with 6 shower heads in various locations, etc etc ... Our City and County people just keep "power to the people" control over who gets in LOCAL office and where the money goes, which is something we'd lose by sending al our money to austin and asking for some of it back..

I've lived in Bellaire, Lubbock, Richardson, Dallas, Houston, Pasadena and this small city north of Austin where I am now. NOW at least I have a choice what I'll pay in Property Taxes when I choose my Locale, I like keeping things local. When it all goes to a state sales tax, the choices of how much I desire to be taxed, by choosing my locale... are gone.

And, I'll be forced to be contributing to some wasteful spenders in another city by a BIG government in Austin, instead of keeping local control over local politicians, school boards etc and controlling the school board spending and our school local taxes. I'm in a town population about 2,500 (less than my high school was, but twice the sice of the graduating class) I prefer local control where you run into the guy who "might" raise your property tax at the hardware store and know him and he knows who might not vote for him next time if they waste money, instead of some committee in Austin deciding who gets school, Fire, Ambulance, and Police equipment and who doesn't.

Luke 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

I just hope that anyone who agrees with her declarations, as I do, will also think it completely through and research more and count the cost.... and who benefits the most.

I'm NOT saying we don't need tax reform, just that the above stated method isn't in our best interest, not for "joe the plumber" anyway.

[boomerang]

The solution is to cut government spending, not determine the best way to squeeze more blood from a stone.

[chabouk]

The solution is to cut government spending, not determine the best way to squeeze more blood from a stone.

This.

[chabouk]

I agree with her declaration, but her action would be to take away our licenses so we can only carry in our car like she does?

Really? You've studied her position, and that's the impression you got?

She doesn't want to "take away our licenses", she wants to eliminate the requirement to have a license in the first place. You wouldn't be restricted to car carry, nor would she. She made the point that she'd like to carry in the grocery store too, but she follows the law, and the law doesn't allow that.

[RPB]

I agree with her declaration, but her action would be to take away our licenses so we can only carry in our car like she does?

Really? You've studied her position, and that's the impression you got?

She doesn't want to "take away our licenses", she wants to eliminate the requirement to have a license in the first place. You wouldn't be restricted to car carry, nor would she. She made the point that she'd like to carry in the grocery store too, but she follows the law, and the law doesn't allow that.

"Eliminating a requirement to have a license in the first place because I believe we already have the right" is a nice goal, a good sounding declaration.
However, that goal will not be accomplished by her intended action to repeal the CHL laws. And Governors really don't legislate, and she doesn't seem to have a plan about how to alllow anyone to carry, other in their car, like she does. The law DOES allow me to carry in a grocery store, because I have a license to, and it's my impression that she stated she wants to repeal the CHL laws, invalidating the privldge (license is a priviledge) I earned and paid for that privledge to carry in a grocery store, she wants to repeal the CHL laws, so I can then carry only in my car, like she does??? I've been robbed twice, once by 2 guys with .38s, another time by 5 guys with 2 shotuns and 3 pistols, BOTH times were in a STORE, and neither time was in my CAR.


Yes, I read her website, watched the debate, studied all the links her site links to, researched "where the money comes from" a little deeper than just the reportable campaign contributions, and wasn't impressed.


I saw a lady who makes declarations about us having rights, but no plans or legislation drafted that coud impliment or put action to any of her declarations.

I mean I can say a Declaration ... "Everyone should have a right to free bluebell Ice cream, This is TEXAS dang it and God created cows, He didn't sell them, He gave them to mankind !!!!" Sounds good to me, most people would agree with free ice cream .... how would that be implemented though? .... looks like an idealistic clueless lady to me so far.

The CHL laws create our priviledge to carry in more places than the Motorist Protection Act does.
Repealing the CHL laws eliminates that.
She hasn't given any plan/proposed legislation to allow "just any tom dick and harry, mental or not, because they have a right to without needing a license" to carry unlicensed that I've seen.
She must believe in the Motorist Protection Act, which gives us the right to carry in our car, since she does, I didn't see her saying she wants to eliminate those laws ...."because we all have a right to anyway" ..... why not?
Yet she wants to repeal the CHL laws for that reason ....
I'm not sure if she smells fishy, or is just clueless, or just doesn't have a plan and is reciting a bunch of "It ought to be this way" statements that sound good, but won't or can't be implemented

I agree with all her declarations .... WE all "ought to have the right to" do this and that .... but declarations alone, without actions (and I don't see any of hers working) dont make a government that is effective.

That's why I started with the Woodrow Wilson quote, I LOVE her Declarations, I'm sure EVERYONE does, but I fail to see any viable actions she is proposing, only eliminating priviledges would be the result/effect of eliminating the CHL laws..
I'd like to see ANYthing that is viable from her, as far as intended actions to support her Declarations.

Quote: Liberty does not consist in mere declarations of the rights of man. It consists in the translation of those declarations into definite actions. Woodrow Wilson

I am probably headed to a gun show this weekend. Got some deacons who rented a table there I may go help.

[chabouk]

I think you're frustrated that she doesn't offer a more detailed plan for achieving those goals, but you explained yourself that the governor has no legislative power. So, any "plan" would be meaningless. The only way a governor can advance an agenda is through the bully pulpit and arm-twisting.

"Eliminating a requirement to have a license in the first place because I believe we already have the right" is a nice goal, a good sounding declaration.
However, that goal will not be accomplished by her intended action to repeal the CHL laws. And Governors really don't legislate, and she doesn't seem to have a plan about how to alllow anyone to carry, other in their car, like she does. The law DOES allow me to carry in a grocery store, because I have a license to, and it's my impression that she stated she wants to repeal the CHL laws, invalidating the privldge (license is a priviledge) I earned and paid for that privledge to carry in a grocery store, she wants to repeal the CHL laws, so I can then carry only in my car, like she does??? I've been robbed twice, once by 2 guys with .38s, another time by 5 guys with 2 shotuns and 3 pistols, BOTH times were in a STORE, and neither time was in my CAR.

Again, she doesn't want to "eliminate the CHL law", she wants to eliminate the law that makes the CHL necessary. PC 46.02, the whole dang chapter, whatever: you would not be reduced to carrying only in your car.

You, me, Medina, my neighbor without a CHL, my 19 and 20 year olds (who aren't yet eligible for a CHL), could all carry. In the car, to the store, in church, in college classes, etc. Without a license.

[RPB]

I think you're frustrated that she doesn't offer a more detailed plan for achieving those goals, but you explained yourself that the governor has no legislative power. So, any "plan" would be meaningless. The only way a governor can advance an agenda is through the bully pulpit and arm-twisting.

"Eliminating a requirement to have a license in the first place because I believe we already have the right" is a nice goal, a good sounding declaration.
However, that goal will not be accomplished by her intended action to repeal the CHL laws. And Governors really don't legislate, and she doesn't seem to have a plan about how to alllow anyone to carry, other in their car, like she does. The law DOES allow me to carry in a grocery store, because I have a license to, and it's my impression that she stated she wants to repeal the CHL laws, invalidating the privldge (license is a priviledge) I earned and paid for that privledge to carry in a grocery store, she wants to repeal the CHL laws, so I can then carry only in my car, like she does??? I've been robbed twice, once by 2 guys with .38s, another time by 5 guys with 2 shotuns and 3 pistols, BOTH times were in a STORE, and neither time was in my CAR.

Again, she doesn't want to "eliminate the CHL law", she wants to eliminate the law that makes the CHL necessary. PC 46.02, the whole dang chapter, whatever: you would not be reduced to carrying only in your car.

You, me, Medina, my neighbor without a CHL, my 19 and 20 year olds (who aren't yet eligible for a CHL), could all carry. In the car, to the store, in church, in college classes, etc. Without a license.

Yeah, I agree it's a neat idealistic dream, but I don't see that happening. What I see is people with an attitude last week saying they should ban guns around the Capital after last week's event. I don't see an attitude of OK, now EVERYONE carry, all adults carrying to schools where kids are, etc etc etc,, when the law that grants the priviledge to carry is repealed.

I can't see repealing whole chapters of the Penal code either, and though she doesn't legislate, she could have legal staff draft legislation for those who do.

It would take a lot of work revising the code, rather than just deleting or repealing...

I mean just deleting
42 would de;lete such things within the chapter like:
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

Yes, it sounds great, allow people who are too young to legally even buy a new handgun in a store, to carry, because they have a right to. I just don't see repealing the CHL laws as a valid means to that end.

Perhaps she could instead ... repeal the Motorist Protection Act that allows her the right to carry in her car , then everyone could carry anywhere instead of just in cars, without a license. I mean, why Change anything pertaining to licensees if the goal is to allow everyone to carry, leave us alone, and expand the other peoples' rights to carry outside their car or anywhere if she wants to do that.



I'm proud of my license, leave it alone.


See my point? She just isn't making sense when you carry her plans to their logical conclusions considering the reality of the attitudes of general population of the people. I do like and agree with her stated goals or declarations, but her means to achieve those goals are questionable. Her goals are great ... I just don't see it happening. Not when TV news reporters are broadcasting about illegal aliens buying guns at gun shows etc.

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/Gun-show-c ... ghts-issue" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A bright yellow Texas Gun Shows sign hangs outside the entrance of the Crockett Center in the 10600 block of North Lamar where Austin police say at least eight felons and illegal immigrants have walked out with weapons in hand ....Some people would go to certain vendors, attempt to purchase a firearm, and if they were asked to fill out paperwork or do a background check they would bypass them and go to another vendor until they found one that didn't require a background check," said T.J. Vineyard, an investigator with the organized crime division .... The findings were the result of a year's worth of work between police, Federal Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement (ICE) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to target illegal gun trafficking.

You and I know the true "score"/situation on that above, private sales etc.... but I can't see people saying it's ok for your 18 and 19 year olds to carry without a license background check or papers saying they are mentally stable or whatever, when they, being under 21, and felons, and illegal aliens aren't even allowed to walk into a store and buy a gun, especially after last week's UNlicensed, legal gun owning 22 year old carried and discharged a gun at the Capital..... and ... I like her stated goals and declarations of our rights .. .. I just don't see it happening with today's attitudes and with the means she intends to use to achieve them.

[chabouk]

Okay.