Browsing this Thread:
1 Anonymous Users
Re: Any Democrats for Christie out there? |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
The idea that an organized minority can petition the government to get what it wants is actually the strength of democracy.
It can be paid for, you just don't want to.
Posted on: 2009/10/4 15:03
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Any Democrats for Christie out there? |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That's actually the problem with democracy; so many special interest groups spend everyone else's money -- we have none left.
Posted on: 2009/10/4 3:34
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Any Democrats for Christie out there? |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
But what is not important to you is important to someone else. And their support for the projects and programs you believe are important come with the trade off of your support the projects or programs they deem important; that is the essence of a democracy-- many difference factions diluted in power agreeing to a compromise.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 23:12
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That's where you're wrong. It's not that complicated. Thinking it's complicated just makes sure that nothing changes and more and more of other people's money gets spent on questionable things. You should read the link to the state budget that Ianmac posted. You'll see all of the things the govt spends money on and you'll find a lot of places to cut to choose from.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 22:45
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Or: 4. Over-simplifying a complex problem, as you did by saying "it's easy, just cut spending", without actually articulating how to go about doing that, is about as useless an answering the question of "how to get to the moon" by telling the person to build a rocket ship, without actually telling them how to build the rocket ship. It's cute how you extract the politics out of an entirely political problem.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 18:49
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Rereading it, I misspoke as well. I was doing the math of the TPK authority's proposal, not Corzine's. Sorry.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 18:31
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Yes, you are right. I misspoke, the increase of 800% would be over time, through 2022 not 2012. And, no, the 800% figure is not just republican spin. The Star Ledger also used 800% heavily in their reporting. As I pointed out in the first link I pasted: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008 ... eeking_ways_to_scale.html And I never said NJ is an awful place to live. Did I say that in any of my posts? I said NJ is poorly run. Poorly, poorly run.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 18:06
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Any Democrats for Christie out there? |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Shelly,
Thank you very much for that information, I mean that sincerely.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 17:19
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Thanks for the links. Here's what I would do: Instead of raising $1.081 billion in new taxes, I would not have any of the spending increases listed on page 55 which account for $619 million. I would take the remaining $462 million out of the items shown on page 46 (the items where he blew out his 2006 long term spending plan). More importantly, in the new long term plan, I'd put in an annual budget reduction target, let's say 3% a year, which would be given back to the public via tax cuts. How's that?
Posted on: 2009/10/3 17:15
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Here is a list of departments and agencies of the State. Here is the budget. Have at it.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 16:44
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
What to cut is a political decision. That's where the debate should be: Candidate 1 will cut from A, B and C, Candidate 2 from D, E, F, etc. Then the public decides which most clearly reflects their priorities and who is more likely to keep their promises. If you want my personal opinion, all non-essential government function (by essential I mean public safety, the judicial system, municipal utilities, etc) should receive equal across the board budget cuts, to be administered by the department heads. Contractual obligations of course can't be cut, but the impact of these should be made very clear to the public so that when it comes time to re-negotiate these contracts there's a better public understanding of their costs and therefore more willingness on behalf of public officials to to negotiate fairer deals.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 16:05
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Any Democrats for Christie out there? |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Sam S- as a quick point of reference on charter school funding. The NJ school funding formula is not created equal for all municipalities where charters in Newark get pretty decent funding those in Jersey City are funded horribly. Remember charters do notr receive a penny for facilities which is nearly 15% of their budget. Where as traditional public schools do. The NJ charter law states charters should receive 90% of what traditional public schools (Charters are public schools) receive but in fact the state has never funded the letter of the law. Commissioner Davy would tell you this herself.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 15:39
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Any Democrats for Christie out there? |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I think truck tolls might be increasing more. But then again, heavy trucks do more damage to the road then a compact car or even an SUV. Plus, many more trucks are simply passing through the state. But even then I don't know if you hit 800%. AND ITS OVER THE NEXT DECADE.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 15:39
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Exactly, Ian.
Further, Snowcake - According to your NJ.com link"Under the plan offered by the Turnpike Authority, the toll for a typical 23-mile trip on the Turnpike would rise from $1.20 to $1.80 next year, reach $2.70 in 2012 and $3 after 2023. Parkway tolls averaging 35 cents per passenger car would jump to 50 cents next year, 75 cents in 2012 and 85 cents in 2023." I don't even come with increases as big as Ian's - an increase from $1.20 on the NJTPK to $3 fourteen years out is a $1.80 increase, or up 150% from the base. The Parkway increase is 50 cents from a base of 35 cents, or even slightly less than the TPK - something between 140% and 150%. Given that money doubles every ten years at a compounded rate of seven percent, a 140% or 150% increase over fourteen is less than a seven percent annual increase. Hardly breathtaking. The 800% number looks to be a republican sound bite (from the "njassemblyrepublicans" link - I'm sure they found the one spot where a one exit trip would suffer a bizarrely disproportionate increase. You should read your links next time - part of doing your research.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 15:14
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Where is this 800% coming from? "An average three exit trip on the Turnpike would jump from $1.21 now, to $2.05 in five years and $5.80 in a decade, the governor said." The article you are citing points to a 170% increase OVER FIVE YEARS and over 10 years a 470% increase. Since tolls are not automatically adjusted for inflation, these increases are pathetically small.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 14:13
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So Precious Little, why are living here if its so horrible?
Posted on: 2009/10/3 14:05
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Ummm, Corzine's plan was to increase the tolls by 800% by 2012. This included adding a tolls to route 440. This is a fact. Do you not listen/read/watch news about New Jersey? http://blog.nj.com/jerseyblogs/2008/01/if_you_didnt_see_it.html http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008 ... eeking_ways_to_scale.html http://www.senatenj.com/index.php/tom ... ike-and-parkway-tolls/988 http://www.njassemblyrepublicans.com/press_release.php?id=85 How is this not in the universe of truth? Perhaps you should do a little research before you open your mouth.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 14:05
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So hot shot, WTF do you want cut from the state budget? The simplicity at which you have "solved" the budget crisis is about as sophisticated as a Dick and Jane book.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 13:59
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Um, that's the second time you've used the toll increase of 800% "statistic" - that's simply not even within the same universe of the truth. I don't say that as a Corzine apologist, just an advocate of accuracy.
The schools are a mess, but as others have pointed out - it's unlikely you are going to "fix" them in the near term (or even long term) by significantly cutting spending. Municipal consolidation needs to happen and it needs to happen soon to now. Quote:
Posted on: 2009/10/3 13:50
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I said: Q: How do you balance the budget? A: Cut spending You said that was like: Q: How do you get to the moon? A: Build a rocket ship and go there Your inference is either: 1. Building a rocket ship and going to the moon requires a many resources and is as difficult to accomplish as cutting government spending, or 2. They're the only ways to achieve their respective goals, or 3. That they're both plans that can be achieved by governments I disagree with you on point 1, because it doesn't take many resources to cut spending and the only reason it's difficult to do is because of political pressure, and point 2 because, while there may be only one way to get to the moon, budgets can also be balanced by increasing spending, but I do agree with you on point 3.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 13:41
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I might agree with you if it wasn't for redistricting. But that's just for the U.S. and State Senate and Congress. I would have voted for a Republican over Healy if I thought he had a chance of winning. But then he'd probably be just as bad. This is Jersey City. As far as Christy, if the Wall Street Journal doesn't like a Republican... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001 ... 04574446900181308412.html Chris Christie's Empty Campaign The GOP candidate tries hard to lose in New Jersey. To the extent that Mr. Christie has deigned to discuss taxes at all, it's usually been to criticize the reform proposals of others. When his primary opponent suggested replacing the state's graduated income tax—the top marginal rate is nearly 11%—with a 2.98% flat tax, Mr. Christie denounced it as a tax hike on working families, even though the average family would see its annual tax bill decline by $1,000. And this week when Chris Daggett, an independent candidate for Governor, promised a 25% property tax cut for all homeowners and said he'd pay for it by expanding the sales tax, Mr. Christie denounced it as a tax increase. If Mr. Christie has some better ideas for reducing the tax burden in the Garden State, he might share the details with voters. His Web site mentions property and income tax relief but offers no details. The race has narrowed in part because Mr. Christie is losing supporters to Mr. Daggett, not Governor Corzine. Mr. Daggett's appeal has grown because he's offering voters precisely what Mr. Christie isn't: A specific plan for controlling runaway taxes and spending. Mr. Daggett lacks the money and name recognition to have much of a chance in November. But he could spoil Mr. Christie's shot at beating an incumbent in a state where voters are clearly aching to punish Democrats who have raised taxes multiple times this decade while populating entire wings of the state prison system. Even if Mr. Christie ekes out a win because Mr. Corzine is so unpopular, the Republican will arrive in Trenton with a mandate to do what he campaigned on—nothing.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 13:09
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
First, when non-essential employees were locked out during the budget crisis, I would not have reimbursed the employees that did not work (which the state did do). Shutting down government for a few days saves quite a bit of money. Second, I would have ended state municipal aid and special municipal aid. If voters want lower property taxes, that should be taken up with their local elected officials that control local property taxes, and municipalities should not be relying on handouts from the state treasury. That said, I would have taken some of the money saved by eliminating muni aid and creating special one time bonus accounts for municipalities and municipal agencies that combined services or municipal borders. For instance, every town in Bergen County doesn't need its own police department with its own police chief and captains and lieutenants and dispatchers and expensive mobile command units. Municipalities that shared services would get a one time bonus. Third, I would restrict school aid to regional districts, and again offer cash bonuses for merging existing school districts. Fourth, I would have raised the gas tax and tolls on the Parkway, Turnpike and AC Expressway so that the department of Transportation broke even. I would not raise NJ Transit fares because when fares go up, fewer people ride mass transit, and when fewer people ride mass transit, the need to build bigger and wider roads increases, which ultimately costs more than the transit fare increases generate. Fifth, I would have increased enforcement and collection of fines for the NJ DEP, which is notoriously lax in following through with large polluters. The above agendas are items the executive branch has a great deal of control over, and which largely can be done without the influence of the legislature. Below would require the legislature: I would push to convert the part time status of the state legislature into a full time job. Currently, state legislators are paid a "Part time" salary which means they can also be lawyers and doctors and lawyers and consultants and lawyers and teachers and lawyers and small business owners. In short, they almost all have some other income source. Many of them are lawyers. Many of them use their positions to garner contracts for whatever business they are in. By contrast, US Congress people can only be employed by the congress (they may collect royalties from books or artistic works or patents), but otherwise cannot earn money on the side as a doctor or as a lawyer or whatever.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 11:58
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
First, when non-essential employees were locked out during the budget crisis, I would not have reimbursed the employees that did not work (which the state did do). Shutting down government for a few days saves quite a bit of money. Second, I would have ended state municipal aid and special municipal aid. If voters want lower property taxes, that should be taken up with their local elected officials that control local property taxes, and municipalities should not be relying on handouts from the state treasury. That said, I would have taken some of the money saved by eliminating muni aid and creating special one time bonus accounts for municipalities and municipal agencies that combined services or municipal borders. For instance, every town in Bergen County doesn't need its own police department with its own police chief and captains and lieutenants and dispatchers and expensive mobile command units. Municipalities that shared services would get a one time bonus. Third, I would restrict school aid to regional districts, and again offer cash bonuses for merging existing school districts. Fourth, I would have raised the gas tax and tolls on the Parkway, Turnpike and AC Expressway so that the department of Transportation broke even. I would not raise NJ Transit fares because when fares go up, fewer people ride mass transit, and when fewer people ride mass transit, the need to build bigger and wider roads increases, which ultimately costs more than the transit fare increases generate. Fifth, I would have increased enforcement and collection of fines for the NJ DEP, which is notoriously lax in following through with large polluters. The above agendas are items the executive branch has a great deal of control over, and which largely can be done without the influence of the legislature. Below would require the legislature: I would push to convert the part time status of the state legislature into a full time job. Currently, state legislators are paid a "Part time" salary which means they can also be lawyers and doctors and lawyers and consultants and lawyers and teachers and lawyers and small business owners. In short, they almost all have some other income source. Many of them are lawyers. Many of them use their positions to garner contracts for whatever business they are in. By contrast, US Congress people can only be employed by the congress (they may collect royalties from books or artistic works or patents), but otherwise cannot earn money on the side as a doctor or as a lawyer or whatever.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 11:58
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. And think about it...WHY are we losing private sector jobs in NJ? Is it because the economy is in the toilet and it's too expensive to work and live in NJ? Why is that? Why are people leaving or planning to leave in NJ in droves? If you really think that NJ is not broken, that we should continue to spend spend spend and not take a hard look at our budget and find out ways to STOP SPENDING, then I really wonder if you truly are a NJ resident who pays attention to NJ news and issues and not NY. This is basically 90% of everyone in this area...people who think they are "New Yorkers" and have no idea what is going on in the state you actually live in.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 11:38
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
While that makes for a fun little anecdote, it doesn't actually give us a whole lot of information. Are these "public sector" jobs all actually employees of the state of New Jersey? Who is counted as a public sector job? Might this include not-for profit employees? Federal employees? Employees of public agencies? Also, are you certain this doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the state suddenly lost a whole bunch of [private sector jobs in the months leading up to the article?
Posted on: 2009/10/3 11:29
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
http://blogs.app.com/inthemoney/2009/ ... conomy-oh-for-the-decade/ Buried deep within today’s story about New Jersey’s unemployment rate was this nugget: The state this decade has lost 100 jobs. Not yesterday. Not this year. This decade. The information, courtesy of Rutgers economist James W. Hughes, breaks down like this. The private sector has lost 70,200 jobs. The public sector has added 70,100 jobs
Posted on: 2009/10/3 11:21
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Any Democrats for Christie out there? |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I'm not sure why you all are holding the Governor accountable for decisions made by local school systems. If you don't like the way your local school system is run, then vote for new Board of Education members.
New Jersey spends so much per student not because of state policy, which, again, has very little influence on local systems, but because there are so many local school districts. There are 605 School districts but only 566 municipalities. 14 of those school districts are non-operating districts, which Corzine has actually begun eliminating. If everyone really wants per pupil spending to go down then local school must combine into regional schools. One major obstacle to this is that many school districts were created in order to foster segregated schools, or to create super wealthy districts that eliminated the poor. NJ Taxpayers are still paying for this legacy.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 11:21
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You're actually not following my logic if that's what you think I meant by that analogy.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 11:13
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I like the way you think. Spending = rocket science. Following your logic, unless your a rocket scientist (are you?), you can't control your own spending.
Posted on: 2009/10/3 11:07
|
|||
|
||||
Re: Uh, no, no, no, no and no |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I like your approach. It's kind of like asking "how do we get to the moon?" and answering it with "easy, design a rocket ship and fly it there."
Posted on: 2009/10/3 11:03
|
|||
|
||||