U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-09-2008, 10:07 AM
 
Location: NJ
12,284 posts, read 33,041,751 times
Reputation: 5263

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CuCullin View Post
Who says you have to go further or are hitting lights?

I'm pretty far out there now myself, and although I don't drive much (I mostly take the train) I rarely see a traffic light. My town doesn't even *own* a traffic light. Thats right, not a one. Signs, some paint on the paved roads, and I have to say (knock on wood) I haven't seen an accident by me yet. When I hit the highway, sure, but not locally.
right. fortunately i have several ways to go which won't increase time or mileage to get from A to B. for instance, going to short hills, i can go 80 to 287 to 24 OR 206 (or 517 or ....lol) to 78 to 24. both around the same distance and timewise. i'd venture to say the 78 way is better b/c i have less chance of sitting in traffic (current construction notwithstanding). and, if they ever implemented tolls on 80 - cheaper.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-09-2008, 10:10 AM
 
Location: 32°19'03.7"N 106°43'55.9"W
8,290 posts, read 18,214,943 times
Reputation: 7781
Quote:
Originally Posted by tahiti View Post
right. fortunately i have several ways to go which won't increase time or mileage to get from A to B. for instance, going to short hills, i can go 80 to 287 to 24 OR 206 (or 517 or ....lol) to 78 to 24. both around the same distance and timewise. i'd venture to say the 78 way is better b/c i have less chance of sitting in traffic (current construction notwithstanding). and, if they ever implemented tolls on 80 - cheaper.
And, you get the scenery too, especially if you take 517! That's a beautiful drive.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2008, 02:17 PM
 
Location: New Jersey/Florida
5,644 posts, read 11,227,990 times
Reputation: 3934
Its a shame that this turned into what is the best way to avoid tolls. Believe me the heavy duty uninspected trucks will find there way into most peoples neighborhood. This 30 billion or so that he is proposing to spend should be spread out for EVERYONE to pay. These side roads are going to be a mess and your local taxes and all your grocery bills and everything you pay for will increase drastically because the truck drivers will pass it on. We pay about 2 thousand in tolls per year now and this will increase by 800 percent to 16,000 a year just to sit on the clogged toll roads. I don't think so. It truly is a shame that someone who is worth 500 million does not look out for the middle class. Well it's time to go see Obama I'll COMPLAIN LATER.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2008, 03:16 PM
 
6 posts, read 11,644 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaBee View Post
If you read the Reagan Diaries you would realize that he repeatedly asked Congress to stop spending. In 1982 he gave them the goal of cutting the deficit to under $10 billion...the Democrat controlled Congress responded with a budget containing a $120 billion deficit.

The top 5% of income earners shoulder 56% of the nation's tax burden...the top 10% ($92,000 or more) shoulder 67%...the top 25% (earning $55,000 or more) of earners pay 84% of the income taxes in this nation. And what do you mean by "control"? You mean, they have more money so they buy more things...make more home improvements...?

So basically, your feeling is that if one has less than someone else you advocate them using the government to take it from someone else rather than that person work hard to have money of their own...

Complaining...I heard lots of solutions...like cut spending on needless programs that benefit government cronies more than anyone else.
Thanks for this response ...

In my original post I didn't blame just democrats as anyone can clearly read if they feel like it ... I blamed "liberalism" and the Republicans here are RINOS

but then again the poster who you are responding to is suffering from a bad case of BDS ... I'm surprised he or she isn't blaming Bush for the turnpike mess

and socialism or wealth redistribution is a failed economic system ... look at Chavezland

the basic idea is to take from the "rich" and give to the "poor" ... ok, so you tax the "rich" and the business owners to a point in which the there is no point in operating the business in the first place, so businesses leave or close down, you create a whole class of people who blame the wealthy for their problems and are now reliant on government aid, you therefore punish the productive and reward the unproductive ... an economic policy which has NEVER EVER WORKED PERIOD ... if you take away the incentive to work through taxes and big government ... there is no point in working

lets say that you are business owner that employees 10 people (widget factory) ... the government comes along and decides to raise tax rates and raise the minimum wage ... you now have to fire 4 people to make up the difference in order for you to turn the same profit ( the profit that you started the business in the first place to earn) and now there are 4 more people on "welfare"

now lets say that the government CUTS taxes across the board ... you can now hire 5 people and build an addition to your factory, creating more product for people, who now have more money, to purchase

It takes more than one governor or 2 Presidential terms to create a change in decades old tax policies and entrenched government programs ... that is a fact of public administration

Last edited by Joey24007; 01-09-2008 at 03:27 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2008, 04:40 PM
 
16,979 posts, read 16,568,286 times
Reputation: 10365
Quote:
Originally Posted by tahiti View Post
right..i was even going to say you could also take 206S down to 78 to go east. i was spending $80/mo in *1991* just in tolls, it went down to $0 moving out to God's country, lol.
Shhhh! Don't let them know that!!!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2008, 05:13 PM
 
Location: Livingston
68 posts, read 278,866 times
Reputation: 37
I guess I picked a bad time to decide to move and increase my commute by 45 minutes -- all on toll roads no less!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2008, 07:06 PM
 
Location: NJ
15,474 posts, read 24,418,787 times
Reputation: 15188
Thankfully, I did not vote him in..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gravy Boat View Post
I think Corzine inherited this mess; he did not create it. It seems from prior articles that McGreevy shares most of the blame. Regardless, the debt issue is scary and has to be addressed. I support higher gas/road tolls but also think it is mandatory that Corzine reduce state spending and the employee headcount. Sadly, I think Corzine is creating another state agency to oversee these new tolls.
Although he didn't create it, he needs to find a better plan. Do any of you have a clue what truckers are paying these days to ride the turnpike?

How about deisel? Think about filling 300 gallon tanks at close to $4 per gallon. Add to this the new tolls.

Who is going to pay for this increase in the long run? You & I with higher prices all around. Just because you aren't riding one of the toll roads does not mean you will not feel it. Think about what gets moved by truck.. cars, gas, food.. do we not pay enough at the grocery store already? Heck, I'm so sick of having to spend $150 every week / 10 days when I used to spend 1/2 of that. The screwed up thing? How many truckers will see that increase in their pay? If they do, my husband isn't seeing it.

A while ago there was talk about truckers parking for a length of time to prove a point.. sounds like a good idea to me. The sooner they stop the freight the better.

He needs to trim the fat and he needs to start on the state end. As was mentioned, some people are collecting a lot of money from the state it needs to stop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by casper324 View Post
Did the Gov out line a plan that is going to rein in the out of control Pensions and life time benefits for municipal/State workers?

Did he out line a plan to stop the double and triple dipping ( sometimes more)

Did he outline a plan to recoup all the billions wasted and mis-spent by SCC?

Did he commit to with holding pensions and benefits to Politicians found guilty of any kind of corruption?

Or was this press conference strictly once again about the States need to raise taxes and tolls.


Quote:
Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
the problem is that corzslime wants to balance the budget on the backs of only a certain segmment of the population, users of toll roads.

if the state is short of funds instead of taxing auto drivers who use the parkway or turnpike, the state needs to either raise taxes fairly or cut spending until the budget is balanced.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CuCullin View Post
myself, and although I don't drive much (I mostly take the train) I rarely see a traffic light.
Personally I'm ok with an increase in tolls (not this drastic, but an increase nonetheless) but the NJ government needs to stop thinking about how to squeeze more money out of citizens, and more about how to stop lining there pockets and cutting the rampant spending.
Isn't the train getting an increase too? I thought I heard Jim Gearhart talking about this a few weeks ago.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2008, 08:34 PM
 
Location: Has. Hts.
81 posts, read 300,621 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey24007 View Post
the basic idea is to take from the "rich" and give to the "poor" ... ok, so you tax the "rich" and the business owners to a point in which the there is no point in operating the business in the first place, so businesses leave or close down, you create a whole class of people who blame the wealthy for their problems and are now reliant on government aid, you therefore punish the productive and reward the unproductive ... an economic policy which has NEVER EVER WORKED PERIOD ... if you take away the incentive to work through taxes and big government ... there is no point in working
what you say has merit, but not when the "rich" corporations (and their high-pay executives) make their $$ in violation of anti-trust laws/principles.

this thread is getting too far away from the NJ topic, so I'll just leave y'all this link, and hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from.

Progressivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...oh, and Jim Gearhart is a short-fat-old-bald-ugly gnome who only cares about his show's ratings
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2008, 09:15 PM
 
6 posts, read 11,644 times
Reputation: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_G View Post
what you say has merit, but not when the "rich" corporations (and their high-pay executives) make their $$ in violation of anti-trust laws/principles.

this thread is getting too far away from the NJ topic, so I'll just leave y'all this link, and hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from.

Progressivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...oh, and Jim Gearhart is a short-fat-old-bald-ugly gnome who only cares about his show's ratings
The idea that the government through "progressive" policies can bring about economic and social "equality" is absolutely ridiculous. Everyone is quick to move to "cap" a corporation's profits but I don't see the same people moving to "cap" their loses. And the example I was making with the widget factory was supposed to reflect a small company who feels the effect of high taxes and regulations far more than a huge company. Most of the New Deal failed anyway, especially the Agricultural Adjustment Act. While most of the progressive policies are great IDEAS ... they fail miserably when it comes to REAL LIFE. No government can ever bring about social justice and equality because they can't control the thoughts and emotions of human being and no government can bring about economic equality because if you take away the incentive (profits) to work, there will be no need to work. Also, fixing prices in order for people to be equally able to purchase goods and services leads to drastic reductions in supply and leads to shortages because the demand will increase in an unnatural fashion.

The crux of progressive or socialist policies requires the government to take on some if not all personal responsibilities and that some people are better suited to rule and take care of problems than others. People in Washington D.C. making decisions for you essentially.

Jefferson once said,

" Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him"

Reagan repeated this,

"We've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of government himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?"
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2008, 10:15 PM
 
Location: Has. Hts.
81 posts, read 300,621 times
Reputation: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey24007 View Post
Everyone is quick to move to "cap" a corporation's profits, but I don't see the same people moving to "cap" their losses.
WTF are you talking about ?!?

in the late '70s / early '80s, we bailed out the Chrysler Corp.

in the late '80s / early '90s, we bailed out the S & L's

after 9-11, we bailed out the airline industry

...yeah, Reagan was a charismatic leader. I understand why so many people loved him. Me, I had my college aid taken away by his policies, because my parents (salary at the time : $20K per year) made too much money for me to qualify.

but y'all have got to quit clinging to the excuse that he had to deal with a Democratic-controlled congress. For those 8 years, he ruled this country.
PERIOD.

He got everything he wanted. Including record-setting budget deficits.

George H.W. Bush called it "Voodoo Economics" in 1980, and I still agree with that assessment !
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top