Monroe wrote:
Methinks you've had too many PBR's and locavore pickles today-Christie is a 'radical' conservative? Many Republicans would call him a RINO, lol.

Tenure reform was progressive. Pension reform was progressive, but it turns out his compromise with the Democrats doesn't go far enough to save NJ taxpayers. 2% municipal tax caps is working wonderfully for NJ's middle class homeowners, although it can't reverse decades of Democratic led special interest giveaways.

And now Fulop and the other Democratic led money pit towns want more from the supply side suburban taxpayers, as we're learning now what his meetings in AC are about-as I said.

Monroe wrote:
I thought you had a deeper understanding, at least, of Christie. He has no filter, and is honest to a fault. If he was so concerned about his political future, do you think he'd have given Obama the bro-hug after Sandy?

Name me another politician in the US today who had achieved so many bi-partisan, common sense progressive reforms as he has. And he's done it, at times, holding his nose but he fully (unlike, say, Obama) realizes that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
The Brooklyn hipster once again has his knit cap (or fedora maybe?) pulled down so low over his eyes that he can't see the landslide support both Governor's enjoyed in their states-Christie's being even more remarkable, given that it was earned in a blue state. Carry on.

In no part of my statement did I mention either Christie's or Cuomo's popularity. I simply said they are both more interested in running for president than prioritizing their own constituents' needs. Its very easy to be a popular politician. Its much more difficult to do the right thing, something neither Cuomo nor Christie have done.

Monroe wrote:
The Brooklyn hipster once again has his knit cap (or fedora maybe?) pulled down so low over his eyes that he can't see the landslide support both Governor's enjoyed in their states-Christie's being even more remarkable, given that it was earned in a blue state. Carry on.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
RU, you do know that Hudson and Essex counties were the ONLY two that voter for Bab Buono-because she would've done all she could to reverse the progressive changes that Christie has accomplished. And last I looked, the Port Authority was a bi-state agency, and guess who Christie is paired with? His Democrat counterpart, Cuomo. So spare me the crocodile tears when a Democrat Governor shared the raising of the tolls.

I do like the attempt to co-opt the term "progressive."

As for Cuomo, he's a Democrat in name only, and like Christie, is more interested in boosting his Presidential campaign than pursuing the right public policies for the state he ostensibly represents.

Monroe wrote:
RU, you do know that Hudson and Essex counties were the ONLY two that voter for Bab Buono-because she would've done all she could to reverse the progressive changes that Christie has accomplished. And last I looked, the Port Authority was a bi-state agency, and guess who Christie is paired with? His Democrat counterpart, Cuomo. So spare me the crocodile tears when a Democrat Governor shared the raising of the tolls.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
The saddest is part is: WE ALL are paying for this elaborate dinner. Did it really need to be held at the Borgata at Bobby Flay's?

Yet....silence because it's the golden boy.

lefty55 wrote:
Your Govenor Monroe, certainly not mine

Monroe wrote:
Nonsense, suburban taxes have increased at a higher rate than in, say, JC-mostly because the added education costs through state mandates are paid twice by suburban taxpayers-once to pay for their own schools, and another time to pay for Abbott schools. Thankfully our Governor has compromised with the state Legislature to reduce the rate of increase tremendously by the 2% cap.

Monroe wrote:
Really? Please tell me which law would demand that. Besides, my underlying point is that if you removed corruption and waste there wouldn't be so much money wasted, or indeed money could be re-allocated to paying down pensions and reducing state debt to the benefit of all.

The way the law reads now, school systems can decide whether to accept or not out of district students. I don't know of any that accept them.

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Back to my original comment in this thread, I did the numbers. The towns that are meeting received almost $3.5 billion dollars last year from suburban taxpayers to support their school systems. With the exception of a few schools (notably the ones that receive very little state funding!) they have miserable graduation rates. This is education alone, not subsidies of other types.

So the idea of them bonding over shrimp cocktails, prime steaks, and endless drinks to try and figure out how to get suburban taxpayers to pay even more for their failed social experiments isn't far fetched at all, is it?

As has been pointed out to you multiple times over... you are paying money to keep "those people" away from you. Unless you want them in your schools, you are going to keep paying for them.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Then we're just going to disagree. He's in a position. It's not high, low, or middle. He's a politician who is supposed to serve the people, as they all are supposed to, not just their own ego-driven grab for power. People like you allow them to continue to be in politics for the latter.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
I'll start-did McGreevey tell Fulop his favorite 'rest stops' on the Garden State Parkway in the Woodbridge area?

Booo?
?mostly because Fulop can likely pull better than McGreevey.

Quote:

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

Have you never had a lunch meeting? These people are in high positions. Do you expect them meet the Sizzler?

I sure have, with a private company, using company dollars. This is where you and most people have it wrong when you say "high positions". You put them above citizens, and they're not. They work FOR the citizens. YES, in a perfect world, it would be at XYZ diner. But fools like you let this crap pass because these infallible gods are in "high positions". I expected more from you, Pebs.

No, they use public money to fund these lavish time wasters, all aimed at hoisting Fulop into his gubernatorial run.

I have no idea where your logic got twisted with this, but what world do you live in that mayor isn?t a ?high position?? I didn?t make him a god (seriously? You reference this?) or put him on a pedestal. The guy is in a high profile position, the top ticket in the city.

When I used to travel over to Shanghai often, one of the things it was often expressed was how you put forward your best face (or as Americans say, foot). If the town hall is falling apart and covered in graffiti, what does it say about the town?

Like it or not, Fulop does represent us. That means that when he goes out and about, he?s representing the town and the image of that town. If he calls together a meeting with mayors and this meeting takes place at a McDonald?s, the jokes would be lining up (me included).

I?d be disappointed if the guy was popping bottles of champagne in the back of a strip club on Jersey City?s tab. However, a single dinner talking shop with other mayors? it?s a bit silly to get worked up over the location.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Back to my original comment in this thread, I did the numbers. The towns that are meeting received almost $3.5 billion dollars last year from suburban taxpayers to support their school systems. With the exception of a few schools (notably the ones that receive very little state funding!) they have miserable graduation rates. This is education alone, not subsidies of other types.

So the idea of them bonding over shrimp cocktails, prime steaks, and endless drinks to try and figure out how to get suburban taxpayers to pay even more for their failed social experiments isn't far fetched at all, is it?

As has been pointed out to you multiple times over... you are paying money to keep "those people" away from you. Unless you want them in your schools, you are going to keep paying for them.

Monroe wrote:
Back to my original comment in this thread, I did the numbers. The towns that are meeting received almost $3.5 billion dollars last year from suburban taxpayers to support their school systems. With the exception of a few schools (notably the ones that receive very little state funding!) they have miserable graduation rates. This is education alone, not subsidies of other types.

So the idea of them bonding over shrimp cocktails, prime steaks, and endless drinks to try and figure out how to get suburban taxpayers to pay even more for their failed social experiments isn't far fetched at all, is it?

Monroe wrote:
I'll start-did McGreevey tell Fulop his favorite 'rest stops' on the Garden State Parkway in the Woodbridge area?

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:

Have you never had a lunch meeting? These people are in high positions. Do you expect them meet the Sizzler?

I sure have, with a private company, using company dollars. This is where you and most people have it wrong when you say "high positions". You put them above citizens, and they're not. They work FOR the citizens. YES, in a perfect world, it would be at XYZ diner. But fools like you let this crap pass because these infallible gods are in "high positions". I expected more from you, Pebs.

No, they use public money to fund these lavish time wasters, all aimed at hoisting Fulop into his gubernatorial run.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
The saddest is part is: WE ALL are paying for this elaborate dinner. Did it really need to be held at the Borgata at Bobby Flay's?

Yet....silence because it's the golden boy.

Monroe wrote:
A strategy plan for those towns on how to suck more money from the red suburban towns, no doubt.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
I'm not as dumb as you look bud.