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.
I think he could win on the national level because Obama is dropping in the polls like someone parachuting from a plane. As for what Christie has accomplished in NJ that's up 4 debate. The 2 percent cap is a joke, pension reform so what he added a couple of years of work and had public employees contribute more to health care. Tolls increased 4 bucks the other day on PA tunnels and bridges, the roads r crumbling, he killed the largest federally funded public works project in the country, NJ transit fares increased 30 percent and the list goes on. He plays to a certain base and I would vote for him on a national level because the current"Hope and change" thing isn't working out. Go Christie.
I am 25, so I have the maturity of a 16 year old even though I have had a full time job for years, graduated college, have had my own apartment for years, and make a very good salary? All while being dealt the worst hand in terms of the economy as a whole since the great depression?
I dont think he should do it as he is inexperienced, but if it was Obama vs Christie, I would vote for Christie.
I think he would be pretty good on the national level. Budget cuts as well as higher taxes on the wealthy is what needs to happen to get the deficit under control. The massive debt adds uncertainty, which kills jobs.
The federal govt needs to stop having so much debt, so when a terrible economic situation like the current one happens, they can increase spending and create some jobs to ease the pain. But it doesnt work when the federal govt has a massive debt lingering causing uncertainty for everyone.
He has more experience than Obama did when he won the Pres.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,813 posts, read 34,657,307 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantRutgersfan
I dont think he should do it as he is inexperienced, but if it was Obama vs Christie, I would vote for Christie.
I think he would be pretty good on the national level. Budget cuts as well as higher taxes on the wealthy is what needs to happen to get the deficit under control. The massive debt adds uncertainty, which kills jobs.
The federal govt needs to stop having so much debt, so when a terrible economic situation like the current one happens, they can increase spending and create some jobs to ease the pain. But it doesnt work when the federal govt has a massive debt lingering causing uncertainty for everyone.
This is correct. Christie insists that tax hikes on the wealthy will drive the wealthy out of NJ, when, in fact, they have been happily moving to NC, which has a higher income tax. This is BS. He doesn't want to pay higher taxes, which he would be paying if Christie Whitman hadn't gotten her tax cut, which is the primary cause of NJ's problems. Obama has been trying to get the taxes raised on the wealthy, which they would be paying without Reagan & Dubya's cuts & the Republicans refuse. Why would Christie be a better choice?
In the 70s there was a very bad recession with a jobless recovery. The federal government gave companies a tax cut if they hired someone who was out of work & kept that person for one year. Sound familiar? It worked. Yet the Republicans don't want to do it. Why would you reward them with a Republican president?
Do I think that Obama is a great president? No, I think that Hillary would have been a much better choice. However, the majority of today's mess, in reality, goes back to Dubya & beyond.
Last edited by southbound_295; 09-24-2011 at 09:24 AM..
If this country continues on the same path when i graduate college later this decade I won't being staying in it. The Older vs Younger Generation fighting seems to be getting worse and worse and its starting to hurt the nations economy. I also don't see how the US will retain all 50 states in my lifetime , I do think it will shrink and maybe that's for the better....I'm not alone on this either...
This is correct. Christie insists that tax hikes on the wealthy will drive the wealthy out of NJ, when, in fact, they have been happily moving to NC, which has a higher income tax. This is BS. He doesn't want to pay higher taxes, which he would be paying if Christie Whitman hadn't gotten her tax cut, which is the primary cause of NJ's problems. Obama has been trying to get the taxes raised on the wealthy, which they would be paying without Reagan & Dubya's cuts & the Republicans refuse. Why would Christie be a better choice?
In the 70s there was a very bad recession with a jobless recovery. The federal government gave companies a tax cut if they hired someone who was out of work & kept that person for one year. Sound familiar? It worked. Yet the Republicans don't want to do it. Why would you reward them with a Republican president?
Do I think that Obama is a great president? No, I think that Hillary would have been a much better choice. However, the majority of today's mess, in reality, goes back to Dubya & beyond.
Todays mess was started by the dems, by Barney Frank and Pres Clinton by repealling the Glass-Steagall Act on July 20, 1999.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,813 posts, read 34,657,307 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaro69
Todays mess was started by the dems, by Barney Frank and Pres Clinton by repealling the Glass-Steagall Act on July 20, 1999.
It goes back before that. Let's start with bank deregulation, but you can pin-point things in numerous administrations. They all contributed a bit. However, Dubya gets the biggest slice of blame. He inherited a balanced budget. He chose to fight an optional war in Iraq when we already had troops in Afghanistan, jeopardizing the mission in Afghanistan. The Republicans had no problem giving him blank checks. Then he needed a tax cut which, like NJ's, primarily benefitted the wealthy. Companies were being rewarded for off-shoring jobs. Need I go on?
Tax cuts benefitting the extremely wealthy need to be retracted, at least long enough to balance budgets. Small companies that make that kind of money need to look at incorporation or the laws need to be reformed to get them out of the mix. It's pretty simple & straight forward.
The quotation usually attributed to Churchill is, "If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." However, the attribution is false. There is no record of Churchill ever speaking these words, and it is highly unlikely that he would have because Churchill himself did precisely the opposite. He entered politics as a Conservative and was a Conservative at age 25. He switched to the Liberal Party at age 29 and was a Liberal at age 35. (He returned to the Conservatives at age 49.) Also, his beloved wife, Clementine, was a life-long Liberal, and Churchill would hardly have delivered such an indirect insult to her.
It should also be remembered that "Liberal" and "Conservative" are the proper names of British political parties and do not translate precisely to the left and right wings of the American political spectrum. Being a conservative in socialist Britian today would be about equal to being a Democrat in the United States, our "liberal" party. We don't have anything as left wing as their Liberal party.
It goes back before that. Let's start with bank deregulation, but you can pin-point things in numerous administrations. They all contributed a bit. However, Dubya gets the biggest slice of blame. He inherited a balanced budget. He chose to fight an optional war in Iraq when we already had troops in Afghanistan, jeopardizing the mission in Afghanistan. The Republicans had no problem giving him blank checks. Then he needed a tax cut which, like NJ's, primarily benefitted the wealthy. Companies were being rewarded for off-shoring jobs. Need I go on?
Tax cuts benefitting the extremely wealthy need to be retracted, at least long enough to balance budgets. Small companies that make that kind of money need to look at incorporation or the laws need to be reformed to get them out of the mix. It's pretty simple & straight forward.
You do realize that the Dems under Corzine allowed the exta tax on the wealthy to expire. This was done before Christie came into office.
I'm also sure that the so-called wealthy currently pay the highest taxes and most of the taxes in the USA.
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.
