New Jersey Turns Against Christie

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why is this thread titled as such when Christie is clearly one of the most popular governors in the country now?

Because the thread's been going on for a while and there have been several points, including the point at which the thread was created, at which Christie has not been such.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That 38% that disapprove of Christie seems suspiciously close to the percent of New Jersey residents who are on welfare, food stamps, Section 8, are menbers of the teacher's union, or are state employees or in some way depend on the government for their livelihoods.

So that means that Quinnipiac has Christie at his ceiling, effectively? Good to know.

I'll honestly never understand the way those people in New Jersey who do not fall into the categories that you mentioned think. The politics of affluent white-collar suburbia are both alien and inimical to the world that I perceive and live in.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That 38% that disapprove of Christie seems suspiciously close to the percent of New Jersey residents who are on welfare, food stamps, Section 8, are menbers of the teacher's union, or are state employees or in some way depend on the government for their livelihoods.

The Abbott districts that steal state funds from the suburbs consist of about 20% of the population.

New Jersey has roughly 3.9 million employed, and 625k employed in the public sector. There's the other 16%.

There's a tad of overlap, and some random haters, but the rest of the state loves the Big Dog.

And of course those are just little people to be disregarded in the relentless march of livin da affluent suburbanite lyfe, ne~?

Seriously, it's not 'stealing state funds from the suburbs' if you actually recognize that both the suburbs and the Abbott districts are part of the whole interlocking web of existences called the State of New Jersey, as both the State of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for example, are part of the United States of America.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That 38% that disapprove of Christie seems suspiciously close to the percent of New Jersey residents who are on welfare, food stamps, Section 8, are menbers of the teacher's union, or are state employees or in some way depend on the government for their livelihoods.

The Abbott districts that steal state funds from the suburbs consist of about 20% of the population.

New Jersey has roughly 3.9 million employed, and 625k employed in the public sector. There's the other 16%.

There's a tad of overlap, and some random haters, but the rest of the state loves the Big Dog.

And of course those are just little people to be disregarded in the relentless march of livin da affluent suburbanite lyfe, ne~?

Seriously, it's not 'stealing state funds from the suburbs' if you actually recognize that both the suburbs and the Abbott districts are part of the whole interlocking web of existences called the State of New Jersey, as both the State of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for example, are part of the United States of America.

Well, if suburban voters thought so, they would have voted for legislators to implement a program like the Abbott program, and they certainly would not have made Chris Christie Governor of New Jersey.

But no state legislature even in Massachusetts or New Jersey is willing to openly support such a rancid confiscation of wealth to that extreme. Hence of course it was forced upon the public by unaccountable judges.

That was my point. That suburban voters were in this case motivated by rank small-minded self-interested avarice and bizarre resentment of people worse off than they are.

Massachusetts doesn't feel the need to do court-ordered rigamaroles like the Abbott program because the citizenry of Massachusetts is somewhat more reasonable than that of New Jersey about taxation and what taxes are needed to fund desired programs in general, and there's less outright hatred by people in the affluent suburbs of anywhere that is not an affluent suburb (although that's also because comparatively less of the population lives in affluent suburbs). Then again, we use sales and luxury rather than property taxes for the most part.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Massachusetts doesn't feel the need to do court-ordered rigamaroles like the Abbott program because the citizenry of Massachusetts is somewhat more reasonable than that of New Jersey about taxation and what taxes are needed to fund desired programs in general, and there's less outright hatred by people in the affluent suburbs of anywhere that is not an affluent suburb (although that's also because comparatively less of the population lives in affluent suburbs). Then again, we use sales and luxury rather than property taxes for the most part.

Let me guess: You're not a property tax payer. Massachusetts redistributes in a way similar to New Jersey, in a way that generates similar levels of upset. I'm just fortunate that I live in one of those towns that gets state aid -- helps keep my own property taxes in check ($4,000+ per year).

Guessed correctly! Why would I be a property tax payer? I'm a poor and live in a dorm room. I also live in western Massachusetts so forgive me if I have little sympathy for people in the Boston exurbs who feel they're being shortchanged somehow (and apparently don't know particularly much about them or their feelings, partially because they don't seem to be quite as large a segment of the population as in New Jersey. I apologize for not being very aware of this particular segment of the population). I assure you, pretty much everybody who is significantly outside the 495 beltway is upset for almost opposite reasons.

I've been saying for a long time that if anybody wants to understand why Massachusetts distributes the way it does--whether that includes property taxation or not, which is a subject that we've established I'm not immensely familiar with--should just visit Athol or Montague or Palmer.

Education dollars spent per student are far lower in Massachusetts of course.

And the education system is actually somewhat crappier in Massachusetts, as somebody who's been in both.