Anonymous:

I'm sorry you don't want to "openly debate" Ron Paul's libertarian philosophy. Given that it's the central pillar of his campaign, I think it should be debated. Proponents such as yourself should be ready and eager to do so.

The fact is, that during the Great Depression, unemployment reached 24%. We've seen nothing even CLOSE to that since the federal government began actively managing the economy. The dot-com bubble and sub-prime debacles are NOTHING in comparison.

As to social security, sure there are problems that need to be sorted out. But no one seriously disputes that it is needed and that it has alleviated poverty, especially among the old and poor.

Oh, and of course, what about civil rights? Do you seriously believe that we should have left Alabama and Mississippi to decide who could vote or eat in a restaurant?

And what about worker safety? Should we leave it to South Carolina to cut all safety regulations to the detriment of states that do care about worker safety?

If you're going to actively promote a candidate on a website, I think you need to be able to counter my arguments. (And if you don't believe my facts, feel free to show me that they're wrong.)

You say that I can't change your mind. (I assume you mean that no matter what facts I bring to you that undermine libertarianism.) Is close-mindedness also part of Ron Paul's message?

I think this is a really interesting thread, and hope to hear more on this matter, as I'm very interested in Jersey City History. The local library has some amazing collections of old photographs and illustrations dating back to the 17 century.

But speaking of the 60 & 70s, Being a GenXer, I can't really give 1st hand info on how life was here in the 70s, but my whole family lived in Jersey city, and half of them moved out in the mid 70s because of the crime and conditions in JC. My family, mostly italian, with some irish thrown in, moved from downtown to the marion section in the 60s.

I think it's hard to rate crime now, compared to that in the 70s. Yeah, a fight is still a fight, but the population is different, the times are different, weapons of choice, different. I think it's hard to just compare numbers. I think every generation of young guys in new jersey neighborhoods have their tales of neighborhood heroics, if you will. I think a major change in that involves more kids getting shot, instead of losing a fight to come back the next time. I think a lot of that has to do with social changes.

I do find it odd, to the point of citizens watching out for each other. I grew up in a mostly all italian neighborhood, and knew everyone on my street, young and old. And yeah, I definitely felt a sense of community and presently try to bring that into the relationships i have with my neighbors now.

There are a few people on my street, that I think "get it". And we have a cool relationship where, we only know each other by first names, but will help each other out here and there, either carrying something into the house, or watching someone's car if it's dbl parked for a minute.

But as a whole, I feel that old school concept of "the block" has diminished. I think a lot of factors play into that. Mainly because , and speaking about my neighborhood in dwntwn JC, a lot of the residents now aren't from a neighborhood like that, and don't understand. I think a lot of people are transient, so they don't have much personally invested in their neighborhood as people who's families have lived there for years. From the moment I moved back to Jersey City, I found it odd, that I'm the only white guy on my street who has a Jersey accent. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it just feels weird.

As much as I hate to bring it up, but i think racial segregation has a lot to do with it too. In the 70s i think neighborhoods in JC were more segregated than say, downtown JC is now. Italians had their section, Irish theirs, Blacks, and PR's theirs. I think some of the older folks still find it comforting to watch out for their own, so to speak. Even though, I disagree with this mentality, I understand it. I know where I live now, was an almost all pr/dom neighborhood just a few years ago, and I think it's cool that some of the older neighbors have warmed up to me being here. I show respect to them, and they give it back.

I also think a big part of this has to do with society as a whole. With big screen tvs, and internet, people spend more time in their house and less time on the porch talking to neighbors, or listening to a ball game on the radio.

All in all, i think the good parts of JC in the 60 and 70s have a chance of returning. As the newer residents settle in, it will be interesting to see if they go about their transient ways, or show more respect to their neighborhoods. I think only time will tell, and I personally hope some of the new transplants adopt that jersey mentality that they missed growing up and restore the neighborhood pride that these areas once had, at least this time I think it won't have to do with race, and there's something really special about that.

You might want to check out The Drug Policy Alliance. http://www.drugpolicy.org/homepage.cfm

It sounds like it might give you some good ideas about the steps you want to take for change.

Those who were here in the 1970s have diverse and interesting memories of the time period--but I'd love to hear from the residents of the 1950s and 60s, those who witnessed the erasure of entire neighborhoods for "urban renewal" (not unlike the Upper West Side of NYC), not to mention political corruption, tenement and factory fires, civil unrest, "white flight," etc. These issues were in the local headlines throughout the era and so cannot be a total mystery to us today.

The New Jersey Room has a file of 1960s and 1970s photos showing a forsaken, written-off Jersey City: dilapidated buildings, litter-clogged curbs, and a deserted waterfront.

So was Jersey City worse off back then?

A drug-related shooting that occurred in 1972 is no different than a drug-related shooting in 2007. A mugging now was a mugging then. Abandoned tenements, empty lots, chromium-laced soil--they were here then and they are here now.

But gone are the mom and pop stores of the 1970s, the generational businesses (only a few remain) that were started up nearly a century before. Gone are the old ladies who sat on their porches with extension cord-powered TV sets (you might still see this at the outskirts of Jersey City, in Greenville or the Western Slope). Gone are the gun-less gangs of youths (it was all fists once, sometimes sticks).

Will we look back thirty years from now and wonder: Was the first decade of the new millennium worse than it is now? You can bet we'll be reflecting on the open-air drug trades on MLK Drive and Ocean and Randolph avenues; the proliferation of guns; the unchecked violence in schools; the affluent though mostly transient populations; the city's runaway, rather reckless development; failing hospitals; flooding; the endless battle to save historic landmarks; etc. etc.

The 1970s in Jersey City was a decade, we must remember, that showered us in false hopes (the Journal Square Transportation Center, Route 440) and slow starts (the brownstone revitalization movement). While it is true that everyone knew everyone in neighborhoods--some might say they all "looked out" for each other--it is also true that social barriers prevented true integration and unity.

It really was the best and worst of times.

Does anyone know if there is a traffic camera at the intersection of Marin and 18th Street?

My wife and I bought a house on York Street near City Hall in 1974 and our friends typically stare in disbelief when we tell them that this area was cleaner and safer then than now. Our 80 year-old tenant would put on a sheriff?s badge and go outside and holler at kids if she saw them hanging around. Our theory is that crime increased because more affluent people came to the area and became targets. Not all blocks were safe though. The Montgomery Gateway, in particular, was an area that we avoided because of the rows of burned-out houses.

Btw, I?m not sure what city Xerxes is referring to, but Ocean Avenue was and still is Ocean Avenue. The former Jackson Avenue is now MLK Drive. There is no MLK Blvd in Jersey City.

Quote:

I beg to differ. I lived on Lexington avenue near Westside in the seventies and it was a lovely, clean, safe place to grow up. I agree that the economy was bad and people didn't have any money, my family definitely included. However, my neighborhood was not a crime ridden ghetto......we left our side door unlocked all day, and we kids and the older teenagers walked all over the place at night. I even hung out in Lincoln park drinking beer at night in the late seventies.

There were a lot of safe neighborhood back then.

And I felt a LOT, LOT safer in my old neighborhood than I do now in Hamilton Park.

Quote:

AMo, thats fine, I respect your opinion on the matter, as you are entitled to one.

I was simply clearing up your misunderstanding of Paul's policy which you incorrectly stated.

I cant agree with you especially regarding the statement that the Federal Governemnt has eliminated wild swings in the economy. I assume you must have been on vacation during the internet bubble of 2000, and you are posting this from another country not experiencing this mortgage/housing/credit bubble so wonderfully executed by the Fed? Not to mention that SS and Medicare solved probelms for the short term, long term they are impossible to sustain which we are seeing now.

Again, Im not trying to make this an open debate, because I dont expect to change your opinion, nor will you change mine.

Quote:
Surely she interviewed real people :) ....And those smiling people in insurance ads or the tongue speakers are giving honest testimonials.
People live in Norwalk and (especially) in Newport because they have to: either they work close enough, or they work, but can't afford living in Manhattan. It's because they save time or money which they *don't* have. You don't move to Stamford because you want to save (and later buy a cosmic flight), but because you are priced out. When this Haughney lady will run out of blind readers' trust, and money, she maybe will move to Stamford. At that point, I'd like to know her more informed opinion.

Quote:

I love this.

So, when a reporter for the NY Times interviews actual parties who have first hand knowledge of their own finances, their responses are "bullshit". But when someone who doesn't know them from Adam makes wild assumptions about these peoples' finances, it's legitimate? Oy.

I also love that Xerxes' conclusions rely on absurd assumptions like "all new yorkers don't have cars". Because those who live in co-ops on the UWS can't possibly afford a car or garage parking. Just because you can't afford it?

And i'll see your real estate taxes assumptions, and raise you a NYC resident income tax factor, which you blatantly avoid.

The lengths to which some people will go to justify to themselves the absurd prices they pay for their crappy apartments in Newport...

Dear Anonymous:

Were it only so simple.

Of course there are examples of federal AND state programs that have been either flawed or outright failures. And the fact that the feds sometimes fail does not mean that the states can address the problems more effectively. But let's look at history. Prior to the federal programs set up during the New Deal, our economy swung wildly, between boom and bust.

Read up on the depressions of 1873, 1893 and the crash of 1927. Only through federal intervention and Keynsian economics, were we able to avoid the mass unemployment and disruption that previously plagued our business cycle. The states individually could not have done anything to manage the national economy.

Look at social security and medicare. These programs reduced poverty dramatically. It was only through a national approach that this happened. I could go on. Look at what the EPA has been able to accomplish. These are national problems that require national solutions.

The old states rights approach that you propose was a complete failure when it came to civil rights, workers safety etc. etc. And for a very simple reason. Left to their own devices, not all states will protect the environment or worker safety and will "race to the bottom" to attract corporate investment -- a problem we have now and would only be made worse by less federal involvement.

There was a huge damaging recession in 1973 and another in 1975. They kept exending unempployment benefits over and over.

The only neighborhoods in Jersey City that were booming were the Unemployment office on Summit Avenue and the Check Cashing shops near Journal Square and the heroin trade on Ocean Avenue (now Martin Luther King Blvd!)

It was a NIGHTMARE.


The only neighborhood that was slightly safe was the the HEIGHTS.

No, the 70's was plug ugly in Jersey City...Manhattan not so bad, FUN even!
How bad WAS it...Jersey City adopted RENT CONTROL.

I read the same article and it gave me a headache...filled with lies and half truth, my guess it is ALL made up.

Imaginge getting a "SLIGHTLY larger apartment in Connecticut" and enjoyiong the thrill of a donut while waiting for a BUS to the TRAIN in Stamford. What's that about an HOUR longer commute each way and $300 a month more...stuff the donut where the sun don't shine!

And that couple that "saves $1000 a month" to commute from NORWALK...HOW.
The co-op they left probably has a FAR smaller RE tax than the house in Norwalk.
How can they save $1,000 per month over the cost of a subway card.
What is the RE tax of a 3 bedroom ranch in Norwalk; what is the cost of taxes...shall we talk abouit the price of a car they must own now to get to buy groceries and get to the station?...and THEN pay to get from Stamford to Grand Central...and THEN buy the subway card when they lived on the Upper East Side!

How in blue blazes can they save $1000 a month

The article is pure bullshit..."realestate speak!"

Yes you can make a good trade now to move to the suburbs...but NO you cannot save money monthly if you must commute into Manhattan to a job. It works for retirees who never want theater or city life again...except as tourists ina $300 a night hotel room.

Quote:

This would be an interesting hypothesis if it were true, but sadly for you it is not.

Ron Paul has been very clear about the fact that one of the biggest problems we face is sending our tax money to the Federal Government who tries to apply a "one size fits all" approach to our problems, after being influenced by all of the lobbyists and special interest groups.

You have a country of 300 million very diverse people in terms of geography, nationality, social make up, education, income, and so on...there IS NO one size fits all Federal Government solution that will work for most issues, which is why his main way to solve the problems is to let the state/local government deal with them because they can have more customized and effective programs to do so. While the state/local government is solving these problems, the free market (the one you claim is his end all be all solution) is always allowed to enter with their own solutions.

Go talk to a teacher about the Department of Education's "No Child Left Behind" program, I dont know of one teacher who thinks it is working...in fact they think its causing bigger problems than we had before.

Look at FEMA and how it dealt with Katrina, look at Home Land Security and how much money has been spent.

These are all Federal Programs, and they are all costing tax payers billions of dollars, while not actually solving any problems.

I worked in the toy department of a major department store when I was in high school... it was before everyone was credit-card-crazy and using their Visas for $5 purchases, but it was also 20 years ago and average sales were smaller, and around Christmas we regularly had $30k-$35k per _day_. I dont think there's anything fishy about $27k at Christmas in a store with an average item price of $50.

Mark.

Quote:

That's a good idea. I'm only admitted in NY and NJ, so I can really only answer as to what the law would be if this happened in either of those states. I was curious too, so I asked my boyfriend who is in-house counsel, specializing in workers comp, for the largest insurance carrier in NY state. But it would be good to know what your friend says.

GREAT place. From sitting at the bar in back waiting for the last member of the group to arrive on... great, helpful service all around.


Warm, friendly bartender at the bar. Table service with with wit and personality of Tina Fey.

Food so good, I even ate the SALAD.

Unfortunately, I have a great view of thier festivities, considerign i live on the corner of Summit and Newkirk. You are right about the witching hour. I don't get where these guys came from. i've lived in this neightborhood ofr years, and except fotr occasional issues, it's been good. These guys though, are something else. Really aggressive panhandlers. That, and they congregate right by my garage, so I can't get to my car without getting into a conversation.

Something seems a bit odd here - I have worked in many retail stores and have NEVER seen a store have $27k in cash, especially during the holiday season where the managers should be making more deposits than usual. Sounds fishy - seems like they didn't make deposits in several days and now they have been "robbed" (but not caught on camera). Sounds like someone has some nice holiday cash this year.....

I never really did like GameStop much, so to them I say good job on being idiots and having unsecured deposits late at night with no security whether they are armed or not.

As for the people who were beaten up, well who knows maybe they had the thing planned out and had their friends "rob" them to make off with a quick $27G. Although it sucks they were hurt.

To the thieves, you have quite a bit of money there can I have some?

Quote:

I'm not sure Grove, and now you have me curious, I'm going to email my old mentor who I worked with in retail and is the in-house council. I know workman's comp. covers covers certain things, I'm just not sure if this situation falls into it to prevent civil action. I'll let you know the response.

Cashing Out of New York City

The New York Times
By CHRISTINE HAUGHNEY
Published: December 30, 2007

THERE is a well-worn path between New York City and the surrounding suburbs. Over the years, many New Yorkers have made the move, looking for safer streets, better schools, bigger houses and more room to grow. Now another group is making the trek, and the reason is more squarely focused on money.

People are discovering that with Manhattan?s high apartment prices, they can cash out and get much more for their money outside the city, where the inventory is growing and the prices are falling. Some buyers, not quite ready for picket-fence lives, are even finding pockets of urbanism that didn?t exist outside the city a few years ago.

Stu Woods and Carole Gass are the kind of devoted New Yorkers who thought they would never leave Manhattan. In the 25 years they lived together in their two-bedroom Upper West Side apartment, they savored every stroll in Riverside Park, every shopping adventure to Fairway and every musical performance they could attend as a side benefit of Mr. Woods?s work as a studio musician.

Now they have sold their West 87th Street co-op for $899,000. It went within two hours at the first open house held by Jill Sloane, a broker at Halstead Property.

Mr. Woods and Ms. Gass used the proceeds to buy a three-bedroom ranch in Norwalk, Conn., for $690,000. They?re spending the holidays unpacking their Manhattan memories in their new home and celebrating the fact the they didn?t need a mortgage to buy it.

The widening gap between prices in Manhattan and the suburbs is what Ms. Gass said put this move into the ?realm of possibility.?

?A couple of years ago, I think it wouldn?t have been an even swap,? she added. ?We would have had to pay much more.?

Ms. Gass and Mr. Woods estimate that after taxes and train fare, they will have about $1,000 more a month to spend than they did before.

Brokers agree that the deals are being found in the suburbs.

?You can negotiate better in the suburbs because their market is ? at best ? flat, and there?s a lot of inventory,? said Dottie Herman, the president of Prudential Douglas Elliman. ?The prices of the city haven?t gone down. They keep going back up.?

New Yorkers are moving for reasons that are markedly different from those of 20 years ago. In 1990, when Jonathan Miller, the executive vice president and director of research of Radar Logic, a real estate research company, and his family moved to Connecticut from Manhattan, they were concerned about safety. ?It wasn?t a move to save money,? he said.

Manhattan real estate prices are showing few signs of slipping. In fact, data from Prudential Douglas Elliman show that buyers spent an average of $1.37 million for a Manhattan apartment in the third quarter of 2007, a 6.3 percent increase compared with the same period last year.

Certain family-size apartments were more expensive than ever. Apartments with three or more bedrooms on the Upper West Side jumped by 46 percent to an average price of $4.5 million in the third quarter, according to Brown Harris Stevens.

The numbers stand in stark contrast to those of the suburban market. Figures released on Wednesday by Standard & Poor?s/Case-Schiller showed that prices for single-family homes in the New York City area dropped by 4.1 percent in October compared with October 2006.

Local real estate analysts see many signs that prices have dropped. Homes in Westchester and Connecticut are taking longer to sell, according to data tracked by the Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage in Danbury, Conn. Even in coveted suburbs like Darien, Conn., the number of houses under contract dropped by 23 percent in November compared with the year before, the Darien Board of Realtors said.

New Jersey sellers face even more problems: statewide, house prices have dropped by about 1 percent a month in the last several months, said Jeffrey Otteau, the president of the Otteau Appraisal Group in East Brunswick.

Buyers in Long Island?s most desirable suburbs are finding that they can get some of the best deals: Radar Logic?s figures show that median prices on the North Shore dropped by 7.7 percent in the third quarter compared with the same period last year.

Buyers are finding luxurious condos in the suburbs that they could not afford in Manhattan.

Jean Hassmer had been searching for an apartment similar to the one-bedroom co-op she owned on the Upper East Side, except that she wanted a doorman and slightly more space. But she couldn?t find anything in her budget ? less than $500,000.

Then, in downtown Stamford, Conn., she saw a new 800-square-foot one-bedroom condo at the Classic that was within her budget. She now has a doorman, more space, sweeping views of woods, a private gym and rooftop swimming pool, a shuttle to take her to the Metro-North station, and free coffee and bagels while she waits for the bus.

She estimates that an apartment with similar perks would cost at least three times more in Manhattan. She also concedes that it was hard to leave. ?If I could afford what I have in Stamford in the city,? she said, ?I probably would still be in the city.?

Even more willing transplants to the suburbs are surprised at how much less they are paying today than they might have just six months ago. Gary and Leslie Corrigan were able to buy a three-bedroom house in Darien for $635,000, though it had originally been listed at $659,000. Their mortgage is higher than the $2,000 they were paying in rent for a one-bedroom apartment on the Upper West Side. But they?re happier to own the house.

Janine Tienken of Kelly Associates Real Estate, who represented the Corrigans as a buyers? agent, said that a similar house nearby with an extra bathroom and a slightly larger yard had sold eight months earlier for $702,000.

Three or four years ago, houses like the Corrigans? sold for far more, she said. As she put it: ?Sellers are more negotiable now. They?re not giving it away. But they?re listening.?

Buyers are finding that the suburbs are far more competitive than some parts of Brooklyn, which used to be the neighborhoods of choice for buyers priced out of Manhattan.

Ludovic and Fabienne Ledein, who live and work as jewelry designers in Dumbo, visited nearly a dozen lofts in Dumbo, Red Hook and Williamsburg looking for something to buy for less than $600,000. They needed enough space to work at home and to put up friends and relatives from Europe.

But what they wanted cost more than twice what they could afford. Still, they resisted the suburbs because they wanted a home that had an urban feel and would enable them to live around other artists.

They found their answer in Westchester County, in New Rochelle. For about $600,000, they bought 1,350 square feet in the newly renovated Knickerbocker Lofts, a converted factory downtown that was built 117 years ago. They liked what they saw and the fact that there was an artists? collective nearby. They estimate that the 30-minute Metro-North ride to Grand Central will take as long as the subway from Dumbo to Midtown on bad days.

They have no illusions that when they move in in February that suburban life won?t come with its frustrations, as anywhere else would. ?I just see it as an answer without spending $1.5 million,? Mr. Ledein said.

Even buyers with that kind of money to spend are finding that the math makes more sense in the suburbs.

Barbara Pagliuca, a broker with Houlihan Lawrence in Chappaqua, N.Y., recently helped one family who had been looking for a 1,400-square-foot apartment in Manhattan. The couple, who owned a two-bedroom apartment on the Upper East Side, needed more space because they were expecting their second child.

When they started looking around in Westchester, they found that prices had dropped by about 10 percent in the last few months and that more homes were now into their price range.

Earlier this month, they closed on a 5,000-square-foot house in Chappaqua for $1.665 million, which was $84,000 less than the original listing.

Ms. Pagliuca said that in the long run, the couple was happy with the price because the house was in a good school district. ?They?re obviously going to pay more tax on a house,? she said, ?but they?re not going to pay tuition? for private schools.

In 1981, Russell and Cindy Demers met and became engaged in Manhattan. The couple now live in Scottsdale, Ariz., but they want to return to live in the New York City area after they retire in a few years. ?Our feeling was that we need to buy now, even though we won?t be living in it for another five, six, seven years,? Mr. Demers said.

The couple spent six weeks e-mailing and talking by phone with a Manhattan broker about finding a two-bedroom, two-bath apartment with a view for about $1.5 million. Last summer, they toured apartments in Midtown and Hell?s Kitchen, around Madison Square Park and on the Upper West Side, but they found they would have to pay $1.8 million to $2 million for the space and amenities they wanted.

The Demerses found what they were looking for in Jersey City, where there are also a lot of new condos. They put down a deposit on a $1.412 million two-bedroom, two-bath apartment with a home office at 77 Hudson Street.

?We could have afforded Manhattan,? Mr. Demers said, ?but we didn?t want to compromise too much.?

Edmund and Fun Li, who live on the Lower East Side, started searching for a house on Long Island after briefly looking for a two-bedroom in Manhattan. They have a budget of $600,000, and in the last six months, they narrowed their search to Merrick, where they have found that sellers have cut their prices in their range by as much as$25,000.

With help from their broker, Rhoda Nadell of Prudential Douglas Elliman, they narrowed their list even further. They want a house within a 10-minute walk from a train station, a finished basement and a gas stove, which they favor for cooking Chinese food. They?re confident that the market will only continue to work in their favor.

?Unless we see the perfect house, we?ll wait,? Mr. Li said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/realestate/30cov.html

QUOTE "We had a complete melting pot of an older neighborhood, with Italians, Irish, Polish, German - all races and backgrounds," he said. "It was amazing."


This definition of all races and backgrounds is hilarious. All kinds of whities is what this person meant.

Quote: I'm not sure if a lawyer told you that, and I'm not sure what the laws are in San Jose, but no, that's probably not correct. Foreseeability is irrelevant. If an employee is an injured, while performing their work duties AND the injury arose out of them performing their work duties, their injuries are covered by worker's comp, there's no need for a lawsuit.

(The risk that the company was taking wasn't a lawsuit, but was the risk that their worker's comp insurance rates would go up because the employees are in a more dangerous situation. Just like your car insurance rates go up when you move to Jersey City from the suburbs.)

Aside from insurance rates, it does not matter what steps were taken by the employer to make the job safer because worker's compensation law creates a duty in the employer to cover employees for on-the-job injuries regardless of who is at fault.

I'm not sure, but it might be that you're just disagreeing with me over the use/definition of "negligence." The legal definition includes foreseeable risk, it doesn't mean accidental, which might be a layman definition.

An example might be something like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fires in NYC. That was the same kind of negligence or worse - blocking of doors and fire exits to keep the workers working. (This is "negligence" even though what the employers did wasn't accidental - they certainly could have foreseen that locking fire exits would be a fire hazard.) Today, the injuries and even the deaths that ensued would be covered by worker's comp and employees would not have the choice of suing the Factory.

So, that's the tradeoff of workers comp. Injured workers don't have to "take the chance" of going through a lawsuit where they might win, they might lose, they might never find a lawyer to take their case, they might not be awarded enough money to cover their injuries. Instead they are guaranteed to have their injuries covered by worker's comp.

Why would employers agree to this? Because the other side of the tradeoff is that they're protected from lawsuits by agreeing to provide workers comp to injured workers.

More important than the machinations of Fox News or internet fund raising is Ron Paul's philosophy. He's a passionate and committed libertarian. I fear that many people who rightly seek a fresh, straight-talking candidate who is against the war have overlooked this fact.

Put simply, libertarianism proposes that the government should get out of virtually every aspect of our lives. It shouldn't tax us to build roads, help the poor, sick or elderly and should make no effort to manage the economy. Libertarians place individual rights above all others, including society at large, arguing that if people simply take care of themselves and (if so inclined) worry about issues like poverty and global warming at their pleasure, things will work out just fine. The free market is the cure-all.

I think Ron Paul supporters need to understand that what he proposes is a return to a Hobbesian world where it's every man for himself. He proposes that somehow, the free market will deal with poverty, health and global warming better than the government can. His supporters should look to see if there's ANY historical basis for such a belief. Once they do so, they'll inevitably come to the conclusion that there is none.

Quote:

Grove~ I don't agree with this, if the managers are required as part of the job description to make deposits, and they fail to do what is required of the basic job description they can be terminated. Most large retail organizations( non mom and pop stores) have all deposit slips sent to them on a weekly basis, or check the online banking statements and match against the daily sales records. This is done to prevent internal theft so, if they fail to make deposits when required the manager or acting manager can loose their job.

When policy is set it is the responsibility of the company to make sure that all basics measures are taken to ensure that it is feasible and employee safety is one of them.

Example: I was the DM for a store in San Jose, the bank used for this location was in a bad section of town, poorly lit, and had the the drop box in an alleyway. Our corp. office was located in NYC, they had no clue what the neighborhood was like. This store did not have a safe and they were required to make night deposits. When I visited the store the manger mentioned the banking situation in passing. The moment this was mentioned to me I had an obligation to advise my regional manager. A decision was made to get a safe, and we eventually moved to a bank that deposits were made during normal banking hours. The reason the company reacted so quickly, we were a large company, similar to a GameStop and since we were made aware of a potential situation we had to react to protect the staff and to protect the company. If something ever happened and we failed to make changes to ensure employee safety we could be held liable in a civil court.

I find it very difficult to understand how the company did not foresee a problem here, this is all basic loss prevention 101.
26k is a large cash deposit considering how many people use credit/debit cards. This was either a high volume store or there was many days of deposits that were not sent to the bank. Since employee turn over/internal theft is very common in retail stores Loss prevention plays a major role i, and the very first thing that is done is to ensure that every possible precaution is done to protect the assets and protect the company against any civil action. I can't begin to tell you how many lawsuits I've seen in my 20+ years of retail by both customers and employees.

Quote:

You're right that Worker's comp laws protect employers from suits, but "negligence" doesn't change that - if you think about it, workers comp injuries are almost always a result of negligence.

The only remaining suit, I believe, would stem from an intentional tort (i.e. your employer paid some guy to mug in you in the parking lot). Which I don't think is what happened here.

So there's probably no law suit to be had here, against Game Stop at least. (Suing the mall might be a possibility though...)

There is something in NJ called an expungement, it allows you to get a criminal conviction or a criminal arrest cleared from your record after a certain period of good behavior. Once your case has been expunged, it also allows you to legally (and "honestly") answer "no" if asked if you've ever been arrested.

Not every type of conviction is eligible, and the length of the waiting period varies. It really depends what the person's "mistake" was. If it was a first time small-amount drug arrest, there's a good chance the case gets downgraded, or he'll go through something like PTI or Conditional Discharge, which is a period of probation after which the case gets dismissed. 6 months after that dismissal, the case is eligible for expungement. Assuming this person has not had any further arrests.

However, if the case involved a lot of drugs ("possession with intent"), or a sale to drugs, it might not be eligible. On the other hand, if the person was 21 or under they might be eligible after a year (the "young drug offender" exception.) It really depends on what the person ultimately pled guilty to, or was found guilty of. Some types of convictions require a 10 year waiting period without any further arrests.

For the most part, violent crimes, sex crimes, etc. are not expungible, but, again, it depends what you ultimately pled guilty to. In NY, convictions can never be expunged.

Here's the NJ laws, if you're interested in reading them (I don't know the owner of this website to know that it's fully accurate/updated.): http://www.njexpungements.com/law.php

I think that you should try getting in touch with Lou Manzo's office. I remember hearing a few months or a year back that he was trying to expand the expungement laws to include more drug crimes. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/manzo.asp

Finally, this isn't legal advice. (This is free, legal advice isn't.) If you think that the person/people you're trying to help might be eligible for an expungement, you should contact a lawyer who does this type of work, and ask him or her about it.

But it's probably better not to waste your time on a petition if there's already a law on the books that does what you're trying to accomplish, or a legislator already working on the same issues.

I wonder if the mall security cctv cameras will show anyone hanging around the store and watching what happens at the end of the day and guess who might have the days takings.
If you look at every store in JC, most stores are an easy target and even I get a couple of employees to accompany me to the bank - I never accept cash from private jobs and arrange electronic money transfers online with clients.

Gamestop might be big business, but operate like small business and it appears they look at every cost-effective way to save money with little regards to employee safety. Gamestop HQ would be VERY aware that they never get invoiced from security co's to deposit money!

What Im trying to do is to stop this society from making/creating further drug dealers. We've become a zero tolerance place. If you mess up, get arrested and become a felon, then your chances of getting a job are between zil and nil. So Im tired of it. I know several ppl that have made mistakes in their youth and here it is years later they are still unemployed because of the felony on their jacket. So if you cant get a job, what is left? welfare? no. welfare doesnt help felons. Ok, so if no job will hire you and welfare will not take you...what does that leave you with? the only jobs that are available to felons are drugs, robbery, etc. More felonies!! So I think its time that they take that off the applications. Let these people have a second chance. Let them go out there and WORK for their money. Allow them to become productive and pay taxes. If we become so intolerant, then we have no one to blame but ourselves when we get robbed or we are annoyed by the dealers on the corners or the sick and suffering who are in need of their drugs and will hurt/kill someone in order to get them.

And for the record, I love a felon. I will support anyone that wants a second chance. AS long as they want to work and pay taxes and live a productive life, then Im all for it. Better to see them working, than to see them hustling.

And please, for those that have their noses high in the sky and look down upon those with a prison record, dont post anything ugly. You have your pet causes and I have mine. One person can make a difference if they want it bad enough. I want to see these people make something of themselves. REGARDLESS of their pasts. Alot of them want to become productive citizens and their past wont allow it.

So if anyone is willing to help me start a petition and show me how to take my next steps. I know what I want to accomplish, I just dont know how to make it happen. I need advice, not criticism or anyone dragging up my posts and placing them up on here. Im not here to offend, but to give others a second chance. I want to build a community not destroy one. So who is willing to lend a helping hand?? Anyone? Dont be shy. Stand up and let your voice be heard!!