Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
liberals don't hate her, they are astonished by her stupidity. palin is truly amazingly stupid. unless it's all an act to keep the spotlight on her. her and bachman should run on the same ticket, nothing would guarantee an obama second term better.
oh give me a break. she isnt stupid and liberals have no concern to judge her intelligence. obama is about as intelligent as a head of lettuce and they happily voted him into power.
but us judging their relative intelligence is a silly game. the obvious reality is that people dont vote based on intelligence. liberals dont like palin because she is an unapologetic conservative and she fires up a lot of normal american conservatives. she was the only positive part of the mccain campaign.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 02-27-2011 at 08:18 AM..
what democrat way failed? there have been republicans mixed in over the past couple decades. no one did math. they didn't fund the pensions and they didn't fund the benefits. they assumed higher returns than are even remotely reasonable assumptions. republicans AND democrats. yes, spending needs to be cut. but that isn't the only side of the equation.
"Finally, the state will pay close to $3 billion this year in health care premiums for public employees (including retired teachers), and that number is rising fast. New Jersey has set aside exactly zero dollars to cover it. All told, in pensions and health care benefits, New Jersey’s “unfunded liability” — that is, the amount the actuaries say it would need to find in order to meet its obligations for the next 30 years — has now passed the $100 billion mark."
What??? Should taxes be allowed to escalate indefinitely???
Democrats have been in charge of the state for the past 8 years and NJ's situation has gotten worse and worse. Even if there were problems 9 years ago, they had 8 years to work on them. If they had been looking out for the tax payer just a little bit, such drastic measures may not have been necessary now. Instead, Corzine was too busy "not being Scrooge" and McGreevy was even more generous to the public sector than Mr. Anti-Scrooge. They made a bad problem much worse. Absolutely NOTHING positive got done under those administrations. We lost businesses. We lost a large part of our tax base while our tax obligations grew and grew. All of our taxes grew exponentially, until it got so bad that even staunch democrats voted in a republican.
8 years is a long time to get things done. You seem to have a double standard here. I'm sure you have no problems assigning blame to the Bush administration for our national situation, so why do you have such a hard time admitting that McGreevy and Corzine failed us?
The buck stops with the leadership, both national AND state.
To those of you who ask "Well how much would YOU propose we tax the rich"? I have not had an answer to this until now ... and my answer is that I feel the incomes should be taxed based on how obscene they are. This means that I agree that in NY/NJ (for example), a $400K salary is not much. But we have greedy slime who make that a pittance. IMO, obscene earnings deserve obscene taxes. $100 Million bonuses on wall street are hurting society more than school teachers or ANY unions.
Why?
Why do you feel that Americans should pay their "share" based on how much they earn, instead of how much they take of what it paid for, or maybe the same share as everyone? Logically, that just makes no sense. The people who are very successful, who are making big time incomes, don't use more of the resources paid for by taxes than do people who are making moderate to comfortable incomes, and probably far less than those who have low incomes. Since they don't use any more, why should they pay more?
Imagine going out for dinner with a couple of friends. The "rich" friend has an appetizer and an entree. The middle friend has the same appetizer, a salad, and an entree, and the low income friend has the appetizer, a salad, entree and dessert. When the check comes, we all know they should each pay for what they had, but would even be ok if they split the check evenly in thirds. Will you instead ask the rich friend to pay two thirds of the bill and the middle friend to pay one third, so the low income friend gets to eat for free? Why should anyone see this as the right way to pay for a dinner, let alone a country?
all i knew in the last election was that i knew i didn't want to vote for corzine and i was pretty certain i didn't want to vote for christie. awesome choice. haha
Why did you not want to vote for Christie?
That's not a snide question, nor is it asked in the spirit of "Well what's wrong with you, you certainly should have wanted to!" I would like to know what it was about the man that made you feel like voting for him wasn't a good idea.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,678,989 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD
What??? Should taxes be allowed to escalate indefinitely???
Democrats have been in charge of the state for the past 8 years and NJ's situation has gotten worse and worse. Even if there were problems 9 years ago, they had 8 years to work on them. If they had been looking out for the tax payer just a little bit, such drastic measures may not have been necessary now. Instead, Corzine was too busy "not being Scrooge" and McGreevy was even more generous to the public sector than Mr. Anti-Scrooge. They made a bad problem much worse. Absolutely NOTHING positive got done under those administrations. We lost businesses. We lost a large part of our tax base while our tax obligations grew and grew. All of our taxes grew exponentially, until it got so bad that even staunch democrats voted in a republican.
8 years is a long time to get things done. You seem to have a double standard here. I'm sure you have no problems assigning blame to the Bush administration for our national situation, so why do you have such a hard time admitting that McGreevy and Corzine failed us?
The buck stops with the leadership, both national AND state.
When it comes to dumb, I liked McGreevy's theory that he could balance the budget by raising cigarette taxes. Apparently he was geography challeged & didn't realize that PA had lower taxes & DE's cigarette taxes were slightly higher than NC's. He also apparently didn't have a clue how easy it is for most South Jersey residents to get to those states. Of course, the icing on the cake was that he apparently was clueless that DE has no sales tax at all, so when South Jersey residents went to DE for cigarettes, they could also grab taxable items for themselves, family & friends & make the trip more profitable.
Why?
Why do you feel that Americans should pay their "share" based on how much they earn, instead of how much they take of what it paid for, or maybe the same share as everyone? Logically, that just makes no sense. The people who are very successful, who are making big time incomes, don't use more of the resources paid for by taxes than do people who are making moderate to comfortable incomes, and probably far less than those who have low incomes. Since they don't use any more, why should they pay more?
Imagine going out for dinner with a couple of friends. The "rich" friend has an appetizer and an entree. The middle friend has the same appetizer, a salad, and an entree, and the low income friend has the appetizer, a salad, entree and dessert. When the check comes, we all know they should each pay for what they had, but would even be ok if they split the check evenly in thirds. Will you instead ask the rich friend to pay two thirds of the bill and the middle friend to pay one third, so the low income friend gets to eat for free? Why should anyone see this as the right way to pay for a dinner, let alone a country?
I am not proposing that income taxes are the only solution. If you read the linked articles I put in that post, you will see that this is brought up. Obviously, Income Tax is not working for the betterment of the society as a whole, at all. My preference would be for a tax on people's assets, with no loopholes at all. And it could be a flat tax on everyone. But based upon the vitriol spewed by both sides on this board, I think we, as a society, need to agree on some other mechanisms by which to pay for services that EVERYONE wants (some want Service A, and some want Service B, but NOBODY wants to give up their own services.
Although the disparity between rich and poor is higher than ever, there is no pity for any of the more unfortunate ... and no matter how much you say every "man" for "himself", there ARE ALWAYS going to be those who, due to circumstances beyond their control, will not be able to "make it". I personally empathize with these people. Now ... getting the folks who CAN control their fates to stop leeching on the system is another problem, obviously.
Personally, I ALSO empathize with the folks in NJ who thought/were told they had a pension, but it was p1553d away/stolen by the bi-partisan crooks who were in office. But now ... like many on these forums, I am obviously repeating myself, so I'll stop here.
It is going to be interesting to see how this all shakes out.
When it comes to dumb, I liked McGreevy's theory that he could balance the budget by raising cigarette taxes.Apparently he was geography challeged & didn't realize that PA had lower taxes & DE's cigarette taxes were slightly higher than NC's. He also apparently didn't have a clue how easy it is for most South Jersey residents to get to those states. Of course, the icing on the cake was that he apparently was clueless that DE has no sales tax at all, so when South Jersey residents went to DE for cigarettes, they could also grab taxable items for themselves, family & friends & make the trip more profitable.
I am not proposing that income taxes are the only solution. If you read the linked articles I put in that post, you will see that this is brought up. Obviously, Income Tax is not working for the betterment of the society as a whole, at all. My preference would be for a tax on people's assets, with no loopholes at all. And it could be a flat tax on everyone. But based upon the vitriol spewed by both sides on this board, I think we, as a society, need to agree on some other mechanisms by which to pay for services that EVERYONE wants (some want Service A, and some want Service B, but NOBODY wants to give up their own services.
Although the disparity between rich and poor is higher than ever, there is no pity for any of the more unfortunate ... and no matter how much you say every "man" for "himself", there ARE ALWAYS going to be those who, due to circumstances beyond their control, will not be able to "make it". I personally empathize with these people. Now ... getting the folks who CAN control their fates to stop leeching on the system is another problem, obviously.
Personally, I ALSO empathize with the folks in NJ who thought/were told they had a pension, but it was p1553d away/stolen by the bi-partisan crooks who were in office. But now ... like many on these forums, I am obviously repeating myself, so I'll stop here.
It is going to be interesting to see how this all shakes out.
Fairness dictates that everyone share equally in all common costs. Equal=Fair. Total cost divided by number of people equals individual obligation.
All taxes should be fair and equal. Rich people should pay the same as poor people. No citizen should be taxed more, simply because he has more to tax. That's unfair. Earning money and being successful should not be a crime punishable by unequal taxation. That is called discrimination.
Society is forever trying to eliminate discrimination. Singling out those who make money, becuase they dared to make it, is a form of unfair discrimination that needs to be corrected.
And the only way it can be corrected is to make it fair, by making it equal.
That's not a snide question, nor is it asked in the spirit of "Well what's wrong with you, you certainly should have wanted to!" I would like to know what it was about the man that made you feel like voting for him wasn't a good idea.
well, he just kept sounding off on the typical talking points, but whenever he was asked for specifics, he would give vague answers. he didn't seem to have much of a clue as to what he would actually do to get things done, and he didn't exactly have political experience (which sometimes is a good thing). so what, vote for him on faith? i really had no idea, and would have liked an option other than the "cozine has to go" option. but..corzine had to go....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Apparently he was geography challeged & didn't realize that PA had lower taxes & DE's cigarette taxes were slightly higher than NC's. He also apparently didn't have a clue how easy it is for most South Jersey residents to get to those states. Of course, the icing on the cake was that he apparently was clueless that DE has no sales tax at all, so when South Jersey residents went to DE for cigarettes, they could also grab taxable items for themselves, family & friends & make the trip more profitable.
