Christie, The Best Governor NJ Has Ever Seen! (interview, salaries, generations)

[AnesthesiaMD]

Here is another way to look at it. Since this was a temporary tax hike on the "rich", had they not already made the sacrifice during the "good economy"? And during that time, how much wealth picked up and left the state for states that dont punish people for being large producers? You dont have to answer that if you dont want to, the evidence is well documented. Now, those producers are still making a sacrifice as they still pay a much higher percentage than their PA counterparts, only now they will just be paying 3X instead of 4X that of their counterparts. At a time when NJ is in desperate need of job creation, and poor and middle class people are in desperate need of jobs, doesn't it make sense to try to entice the job creators BACK to NJ? Aren't all the empty storefronts and office buildings around the state an indication that it is just too expensive to own a small business in NJ? It doesn't help that consumer confidence is low, but such a prohibitive tax makes it all that much harder for business owners to meet expenses.

When times were good, we could afford such a huge sacrifice by the job creators. When times are bad, doesn't it make sense to give them a break? That IS the Keynesian it is supposed to work. The poor seem to enjoy Keyensian economics during the good times (though they may not know what it is) and therefore should not complain about it during the bad.

[pvs]

Originally Posted by elflord1973

No, all forms of government spending are targets because the problem is excessive government spending. Those among "the rich" who get rich by picking the taxpayer pocket are targets.

And many many others. Especially the mid-lower classes. I don't understand why you refuse to see this, but I guess you are within your rights to do so.

Originally Posted by elflord1973

Tax hikes don't address the problem.

Not in and of themselves ... but are you saying that their imposition couldn't possibly help? Even in these harsh times? If he's going to make EVERYBODY share in the pain, why insulate the wealthy?

Originally Posted by elflord1973

He passed a property tax increase, with the hope that this would force consolidations.

Yeah, and he reneged on previously promised rebates, too (but heaven forbid he reneges on a promise to end the Millionnaire's Tax).

Originally Posted by elflord1973

He doesn't have the authority to force them to consolidate, but he is encouraging it.

Yeah, I guess these things take time ... sorta like what we hear regarding creation of jobs. Those things take time, too. As a matter of fact, ANYTHING, it seems, that might help the little-guy, takes a "long time".

Originally Posted by elflord1973

The double dippers, overtime abusers, etc are also making out like bandits and they are affected by his policies.

However, it's true that those who aren't beneficiaries of this out of control spending aren't adversely affected by cuts in government spending.

Well, not immediately, anyway. But when the economy turns around, and private industry is once again thriving, you will find it more difficult to hire police, firemen, teachers, and other types of state workers, because those who wish to do those jobs will find better pastures in other states ... or they will join the private ranks. THEN the masses will complain about the poor services.

Originally Posted by elflord1973

Tax hikes don't fix the problem. The problem is not just a high level of spending, it's high spending that is growing rapidly. Sure, you can hike taxes on "the rich" to enable existing bad policy. What is going to happen when pension draw-downs and health care expenses for state and local retirees increase by 10%, 20%, then 50% ? Are you going to tell me with a straight face that they can just keep hiking taxes exponentially and expect the revenue to follow?

Along with other fiscal constraints, tax hikes can HELP get the state's books in order. Just because the hikes aren't an end in and of themselves, doesn't mean it would HURT to impose them.

Originally Posted by elflord1973

It's simply not true that "us all" are hurting. I -- a private sector employee making a good salary (but still barely enough to afford middle class housing options) certainly wasn't "hurting" as a result of Christie's policy.

Hmmm, I guess the location you show (Montgomery County, PA) is not correct? Going by that, (LOL) I thought the reason you were such a fan of Christie was because you liked the gas prices (LOL). Guess that was another poor assumption on my part. But I'm glad you feel insulated from the pain.

Originally Posted by elflord1973

Erroneous assumption. I might be indifferent, or I might not have researched those topics well enough to have a strong opinion either way.

Maybe you should look into them instead of just keeping the blinders on. You might find it enlightening.

[elflord1973]

Originally Posted by pvs

And many many others. Especially the mid-lower classes. I don't understand why you refuse to see this, but I guess you are within your rights to do so.

For the "lower middle classes", the Democrat approach -- which led to sky high property taxes, didn't help very much. The primary beneficiaries of this out of control spending have been state employees.

Not in and of themselves ... but are you saying that their imposition couldn't possibly help? Even in these harsh times?

They inhibit economic growth, and they only help revenue in the very short term (again, because you have a growing gap, it's not enough to just use a one time hike. You need to hike each year. A one time hike just kicks the can down the road). NJ is not hurting for a lack of willingness to tax.

It's hurting because of a few decades of "kick the can down the road " solutions to serious problems. And now that someone has finally stepped up to the plate and offered something besides more "kick the can down the road", those government employees are all crying like a bunch of spoiled children.

If he's going to make EVERYBODY share in the pain, why insulate the wealthy?

AGAIN, pain is a necessary and unfortunate consequence of getting NJ's fiscal house in order.

Pain is not the goal.

The reason is not to "insulate the wealthy" (who are already actually taking a big hit in their pay checks because their incomes are dependent on the economy in aggregate)

I guess AnaesthetsiaMD said it best when he points out that actually all the net tax payers, including "the rich" have been making "sacrifices" for some time, via obscene levels of taxation. It's true that Christie isn't making them pay even more taxes. The voters sent a pretty clear message that they wanted and end to getting soaked with taxes, and that's how he got elected. The guys who ran on a platform of tax hikes lost, remember ?

Yeah, I guess these things take time ... sorta like what we hear regarding creation of jobs. Those things take time, too. As a matter of fact, ANYTHING, it seems, that might help the little-guy, takes a "long time".

"Creation of jobs" isn't something that the governor's office has direct control over.

However, creation of jobs is not facilitated by tax hikes. You can be for job creation or for tax hikes. You can't really be for both.

Well, not immediately, anyway. But when the economy turns around, and private industry is once again thriving, you will find it more difficult to hire police, firemen, teachers, and other types of state workers, because those who wish to do those jobs will find better pastures in other states ... or

NJ is not going to have trouble filling government jobs any time soon. That is among the least of the states concerns right now.

Along with other fiscal constraints, tax hikes can HELP get the state's books in order.

They can help address a stable structural deficit. What they can't do is address rapidly growing liabilities.

Hmmm, I guess the location you show (Montgomery County, PA) is not correct? Going by that, (LOL) I thought the reason you were such a fan of Christie was because you liked the gas prices (LOL).

I left after Christie was elected. None of his proposed changes had substantial impact on me, and none would have if I stayed.

Why make this personal anyway ? This isn't about me.

Maybe you should look into them instead of just keeping the blinders on. You might find it enlightening.

Throwing barbs at me isn't going to dig NJ out of tens-of-billions of dollars in unfunded promises.

[pvs]

@elflord1973: I'm not going to bother quoting and responding on this one any longer. I really have too many other responsibilities to spend this amount of time on this topic. But I wanted to thank you for a good exchange. I certainly understand your points-of-view, and it seems like you do mine, as well, after the discussion.

Sorry if you felt I got personal, and threw barbs. This was not my intent. But I HAD noticed your location ... and was somewhat curious about it. As for the barb ... not really, it was a recommendation to look into other things he's had an effect on. I for one, being a commuter, am HIGHLY impacted by his actions ... both the 25% fare hike, and now the possible misappropriation of funds that were earmarked for ARC. I am also dismayed at his handling of the incident with Schundler and the loss of the federal money for education. Each of them calling the other a liar is not, in my opinion, very professional.

But I digress.

Elflord, let's just agree to disagree on this. Seems like you made a good move to get out of this state when CC took over.

All the best, and thank you for explaining your opinions on this. I DID find your veiwpoints enlightening, although personally not convincing.

[AnesthesiaMD]

Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD

...That IS the Keynesian it is supposed to work. The poor seem to enjoy Keyensian economics during the good times (though they may not know what it is) and therefore should not complain about it during the bad.

Somehow, part of my sentence got cut out. it was SUPPOSED to read:

"That IS the Keynesian philosophy, as it is supposed to work."

[elflord1973]

Originally Posted by pvs

@elflord1973: I'm not going to bother quoting and responding on this one any longer. I really have too many other responsibilities to spend this amount of time on this topic. But I wanted to thank you for a good exchange. I certainly understand your points-of-view, and it seems like you do mine, as well, after the discussion.

Sorry if you felt I got personal, and threw barbs. This was not my intent. But I HAD noticed your location ... and was somewhat curious about it. As for the barb ... not really, it was a recommendation to look into other things he's had an effect on. I for one, being a commuter, am HIGHLY impacted by his actions ... both the 25% fare hike, and now the possible misappropriation of funds that were earmarked for ARC. I am also dismayed at his handling of the incident with Schundler and the loss of the federal money for education. Each of them calling the other a liar is not, in my opinion, very professional.

But I digress.

Elflord, let's just agree to disagree on this. Seems like you made a good move to get out of this state when CC took over.

All the best, and thank you for explaining your opinions on this. I DID find your veiwpoints enlightening, although personally not convincing.

Thanks for ending this on a good note, much appreciated. I expect a respectful hearing, but I think it would be unrealistic to expect you to agree with me ! Have a good one.

[99percent]

I would like Chistie to run for prez. While Palin has the star power, she is more of a rock star. If Christie can get to the top, he might not be as hot, but he will roll up the sleeves and clean house.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by 99percent

I would like Chistie to run for prez. While Palin has the star power, she is more of a rock star. If Christie can get to the top, he might not be as hot, but he will roll up the sleeves and clean house.

Why , she is inexperienced and a quitter and hes a bi-partisan. + He said hes not running for Prez.....

[elflord1973]

Originally Posted by 99percent

I would like Chistie to run for prez. While Palin has the star power, she is more of a rock star. If Christie can get to the top, he might not be as hot, but he will roll up the sleeves and clean house.

I don't see how he'd clean house. The 3 pillars of federal spending are social security, medicare/medicaid (broadly classified as "entitlements") and defense. Talk of cutting taxes is well and good, but high spending causes taxation, not the other way around.

The Republican establishment won't touch entitlements or defense, and tend to rush into costly wars. The only way you could reign in on spending is to get a Ron Paul type candidate in, but if you saw the Republican primary debates, the establishment types just shout him down.

So the only guy who stands much of a chance of getting the federal fiscal house in order is a moderate democrat (e.g. a "Clinton Democrat") who is stuck with either a minority or a slim enough majority that they need to build consensus in the house/senate.

[cw30000]

Originally Posted by elflord1973

I don't see how he'd clean house. The 3 pillars of federal spending are social security, medicare/medicaid (broadly classified as "entitlements") and defense. Talk of cutting taxes is well and good, but high spending causes taxation, not the other way around.

The Republican establishment won't touch entitlements or defense, and tend to rush into costly wars. The only way you could reign in on spending is to get a Ron Paul type candidate in, but if you saw the Republican primary debates, the establishment types just shout him down.

So the only guy who stands much of a chance of getting the federal fiscal house in order is a moderate democrat (e.g. a "Clinton Democrat") who is stuck with either a minority or a slim enough majority that they need to build consensus in the house/senate.

Clinton's administration probably did more harm than the Bush administration. Obama is just Bush 2.0. Clinton just lucky because of the .com revolution and millions of jobs were created and he took credit for it.

You probably wonder what terrible thing did Clinton do? No, Monica is not one for them. For starter, his administration deregulated Glass-Steagall Act, which prevent bank from besting on their savings. If Glass-Steagall Act was still in effect, we would never get into this mess we are in now.