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.
Oh god, shut up. Your last sentence is like diharrea: "Oh you lives in California'sss how's them gangs and smogs treatin' yas? Ain't got no Wawa's eitherss....DURRR"
My solution to bad roads: Take some pension dollars out of the overall budget and fix them. NJ roads are notorious for high tolls, poor signage, crubling infastructure etc. What's your solution? Sit around and wait for them to get worse?
Guess what? Other states poorer than NJ have the money to fix their roads. What's NJ's excuse? Please enlighten me instead of making lazy "we don't have the money or time to do it" excuses.
Oh you're from New Jersey? Want to talk Pulaski Skyway? I hear that's about to fall down!
I'd love to see NJ raise the gas tax by a few cents and update the infrastructure. But, if you were here, you'd see that there are numerous projects ongoing right now. 78 express lanes were just completely redone. the interchange at the holland tunnel was completely redone to improve traffic flow, that finished in maybe 2010, and then they moved on to fix the interchange by Tonnelle Ave, which is almost done. They'll be updating the Pulaski Skyway after the Super Bowl. The NJTP below exit 8 is under a massive project as well to finish that section.
I agree about the signage, but I don't really care since virtually everyone has a smartphone now and can use Google Maps, Waze, etc. But the signage could definitely be improved.
High tolls? Which tolls do you consider high in NJ?
What other states is it that have such superior roads to NJ, and have anywhere near the usage of their roads?
I'm just saying...you think NJ infrastructure is so horrendous, yet you moved to California. It made national news when a road in LA was going to be closed for a weekend. No? You have no choices out there...it's a car on a massive road with 5 lanes but you can't go more than 10mph because there is traffic as far as the eye can see. Can i buy a Bus maybe?
Honestly...i'm just saying...pot calling the kettle black when someone in California takes a jab at NJ's infrastructure...
yeah, the pulaski is horrible. It's 100 years old...and it's getting replaced starting this year.
Maybe we could get a little of those federal dollars that we pay and don't recoup. It's complete crap we need to get our federal dollars to improve the infrastructure.
Hey man, I'm with you. Funny how the blue states tend to pay more in federal taxes than they get in federal funds. Though...there's a caveat to that. The red states happen to be where a lot of military operations and contractors are located...NJ doesn't have a whole lot of that, which helps that statistic be the way it is.
You don't seem to understand that everything would be spread evenly and crime stats would determine where police would be going. There are a surplus of police in rich communities that would be moved around. Add in a centralized command and control center and response times would drop and crime would go do as more long term investigations could take place. The days of small town police are over.
I understand perfectly well. I don't see what evidence you have that there is a surplus of police in rich communities, that response times would drop, and that crime would go down. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think it's as simple as you paint it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bellhead
Completely different story on comparing veterans and public servants. The amount of double dippers in the local governments is out of control. When your a police officer in one town, retire, and take a job down the street in another town while drawing a 50% plus pension, then something is wrong. The reason the 20 year pensions were set up was due to police and firefighters didn't last past 50. They broke down and retired, all that's changed with today's medical resources, they retire in the mid 40's move down the road and repeat the cycle. Veterans serve in the US. Military and move around the for 20 years working 80plus hours a week. Serve in war zones, are away from their families for months on end, and make less than their civilian counterparts.
Of course, it's always different for veterans vs. public servants. Why should police, firefighters, and teachers get to do the same thing that veterans do? there are a lot of benefits in place for veterans, and I'm not saying they don't deserve it, but i think it's funny how we hold them up on a pedastal but not the people who protect us at home. it's a double standard saying one group deserves it and another doesn't. police put their life on the line also. firefighters take incredible risks that most people would never do, for complete strangers. Police officers could make more if they went into private security.
I'm not saying i think they should be able to retire after 20 years (though this has changed in many places already, so it's a moot point), but I'm fine with having a set time frame where if you worked X long you earned Y pension. Maybe it shouldn't be as lucrative as it currently is for some, but that's the debate to have.
bellhead- are you saying police officers retire and get jobs as cops in another town? Also what is the % of double dippers- do you even know? You realize the systems with the double dippers is financial sound right? I believe you are reacting to limited information and thinking it is more widespread than it is.
It is not that I support double dippers but you want to harm all pension holders for an outrage that is limited to a few.
You also never answered my question - do you believe in property rights?
i agree...i just don't think the double-dipping problem is the issue people make it out to be. it makes for nice news headlines though...so it's always front page news.
Hey man, I'm with you. Funny how the blue states tend to pay more in federal taxes than they get in federal funds. Though...there's a caveat to that. The red states happen to be where a lot of military operations and contractors are located...NJ doesn't have a whole lot of that, which helps that statistic be the way it is.
Jersey has Five military bases vs. two for Kentucky, it's not the military, it's that NJ has one of the highest income averages in the US which results in more federal taxes. These taxes are then redistributed across the US, more unfairly than fair.
Red States don't pay any income taxes and have low property taxes, then go cry poor mouth to get major projects built.
I understand perfectly well. I don't see what evidence you have that there is a surplus of police in rich communities, that response times would drop, and that crime would go down. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think it's as simple as you paint it.
Alot of that isn't patrol personal, but detectives and long term investigations, better training, and more specialization. Along with corruption. Newark led the US in car thefts for more than 20 years, somebody was getting paid to let this happen.
Of course, it's always different for veterans vs. public servants. Why should police, firefighters, and teachers get to do the same thing that veterans do? there are a lot of benefits in place for veterans, and I'm not saying they don't deserve it, but i think it's funny how we hold them up on a pedastal but not the people who protect us at home. it's a double standard saying one group deserves it and another doesn't. police put their life on the line also. firefighters take incredible risks that most people would never do, for complete strangers. Police officers could make more if they went into private security.
I'm not saying i think they should be able to retire after 20 years (though this has changed in many places already, so it's a moot point), but I'm fine with having a set time frame where if you worked X long you earned Y pension. Maybe it shouldn't be as lucrative as it currently is for some, but that's the debate to have.
Rate this post positively
I'm just saying set the bar at 59 for them to retire. 35 years at a job isn't going to kill them, but a 50% pension @ 20 years isn't doable anymore. Veterans serve in war zones and are deployed about 1/2 of their careers away from their families. I was in the Navy you had a 18 month sea cycle, 6 months in port doing an overhaul on the boat, 6 months in and out running sea trials getting ready for the cruise, then a 6 month cruise to the Persian Gulf. 12 of those 18 months are 12 hour days with a OT day every 3 or 4....
The age for retirement for new teachers is 65. Have you read the various pension tiers or are you just basing what you say on things you heard?
For me that's too high, should be 62, there are studies the longer you work after 60, the shorter your lifespan. 62 is a good age for everybody...
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.
