Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 31, 2014, 04:58:11 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections (Moderator: Joe Republic)
| | |-+  NJ Governor
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: NJ Governor  (Read 15452 times)
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2004, 01:23:35 am »
Ignore

But in trickle-down economics, there is no requirement for the rich to trickle down the wealth to the poor. You can say that's what you WANT them to do, but ultimately through government policy you are saying that they can choose to do that if they want, or they can keep it for themselves if they want. That's why trickle down doesn't work very well, because a large percentage of the wealthy keep the money (or spend it overseas, creating new factories for their corporations in other countries where labor is cheaper, or spend it on overseas vacations or buying houses overseas), and thus the benefit that is derived from it is more than made up for by the cuts in government spending that must be made to compensate for the tax cut. I would not oppose tax cuts for the rich if they were tied to a requirement that they spend the money on something that will help the less well off (for example, tax credits for corporations for hiring new workers in the US).
And actually, making them pay 40% of their income in taxes is still going to leave them with a lot if they make millions of dollars per year. Historically, tax rates on the rich have been a lot higher (91% in the 1950s, still 70% even into the early 1980s) and they didn't do irreprable harm to the economy, rather the economy was quite prosperous during much of the 1950s and 1960s. Certainly a 40% rate on the wealthiest is reasonable.

Percolate-up economics would work a lot better, since the people at the bottom would be much more likely to spend the money on things that would help the economy (buying a new car, a new house, taking a domestic vacation, etc.). Thus, the total size of the tax cut needs to be much larger if you are giving it to the wealthy for it to have the same economic impact as a tax cut for the poor would have, and thus there is the additional benefit to the economy of not running up the deficit as much. I believe that the tax structure should be more progressive, with higher tax rates on the rich and lower tax rates for the poor.

Why should it be required.  We do live in a free society.  Don't we?  Besides, the fact remains that a lot of weath does trickle down.  Charities still take in Billions every year.  Plus that, when you put money into government programs, you waste most of the money just trying to get it where it needs to go.  That's the nature of beurocracy.

Even if the wealthy take the money and put it into stocks, bonds or the bank, it still helps out the economy as a whole.  Money in the bank can be distributed as loans.  Someone can buy a house because a rich guy put money in the bank.  That gives the bankers jobs too.  You can't sit there and say that because rich people aren't doing what you want them to do with there money that they are not doing anything for the economy.  Everything works as a butterfly effect.  A ripple here can cause a wave a mile away.  That's the way things work in the real word.

Give weathier people tax cuts, because they earned the money and because they give the most.  Let them spend it and put that money into the economy without some government middle man or beurocrat telling him where it should go.  Let it getout there without it being taken away from every single time it passes to a new agency or travels down the government latter and watch what happens.

And if I were in charge of things, I would cut taxes for the middle-class in half of what they are now, so don't think that I only favor the rich.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2004, 01:34:16 am by supersoulty »Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2004, 01:37:51 am »
Ignore

Yes, Dazzleman, one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals believe that the wealthy have a moral obligation to society to give a small portion of their money back to the less fortunate, while conservatives believe that they should be allowed to keep it.

Please.  That's not what we believe at all.  We believe that the weathy do have that obligation, that's what trickle-down economics is all about.  We just believe that it should be done through charity and not wasteful "entitlement" program.

Trickle-down economics doesn't always work though. This letter to the Guardian best sums up why:

Quote
If an enterprise is sufficiently successful to afford a wage bill of 1m and the three directors pay themselves salaries of 300,000 each, that leaves 100,000 to share between the 10 employees. They receive a minimum-wage salary of 10,000 each and are poor precisely because the directors pay themselves 30 times as much.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1115323,00.html

I'll admit it's fuzzy math, but it's an apt illustration of what can happen, and often does happen.

Nothing on your tax return says you can't give more in taxes.  These liberal eleites want everyone to pay more, so why don't they?  its perfectly legal and withint he law.

That's a fair point, but what exactly do you mean by "liberal elites"?

Government programs don't always work either.  Look at the impact of the "Great Society" on the inner-cities.
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2004, 01:52:52 am »
Ignore

Also, don't forget that the Bush tax cuts eliminated the income tax burden of millions of lower income families.
Logged

Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15202
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2004, 03:11:47 am »
Ignore

Yes, we live in a free society, however, I feel that a person's worth is not determined by their income or the amount of money that they have. Earning money does have a lot to do with hard work, but also a lot of it is luck, being in the right place at the right time, and many people inherit wealth from their parents without having to do any hard work at all. That is why those who have been successful and gotten the breaks should give some back to society, for the betterment of all of us. I'm not talking about communism here, confiscating all of it or anything. I'm just saying give enough to help others, while still leaving them filthy rich, just not quite as filthy rich. I don't think that's too much to ask of people in order to make the world a better place for everyone else.

Yes, I realize that some of the wealth does trickle down in trickle down economics, but I think that a very high percentage of it doesn't, as opposed to giving the money to the people at the bottom of the economic ladder who are much more likely to use it in a way that is productive to the economy. Demand creates supply, not the other way around, which is why supply side economics is not the most optimal way to grow the economy. The consumers are the ones who really drive the economic vehicle of this country and are the ones upon whom the economy is most dependent moreso than the producers. Obviously there needs to be both supply and demand, but in capitalism supply will follow demand since it is profitable to do so, but demand will not necessarily follow supply since it is not in the consumers' best interest. In the long run, tax cuts for the wealthy do more harm than good to the economy, as they create a larger debt which will ultimately cause a reduction in government services which disproportionately benefit the less well-off.

Yes, tax cuts for the middle class and poor do benefit them, but if they are accompanied by tax cuts for the rich as well then overall the poor and middle class are losing more than they are gaining in the long run. They may see some short term benefit, but in the long run there will be much more bad than good for their personal economic fortunes.

I also don't agree that government is as wasteful or inefficient as you. Yes, bureaucracy does cause some waste, but there is bureaucracy in every organization, businesses included. Ultimately, the fact that businesses make a profit while government doesn't is the biggest reason why government is more efficient when it comes to providing good services to the masses at reasonable cost. Government doesn't generate huge amounts of wealth for those at the top like business does. It provides much more benefit, disproportionately, to those at the bottom economically. Thus, for the great majority of people, they will get more bang for their buck from government than from private business, in my opinion.

Ultimately, as I've said before, it comes down to which of the 2 moral principles involved is more important: that people be allowed to keep their money, or the societal obligation of those with more to give some of it back to those with less. Although almost everyone, liberals and conservatives alike, agrees with both moral principles, they disagree as to which is more important and should receive more emphasis in public policy, and to what degree one should win out over the other.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2004, 07:54:30 am »
Ignore

One thing I would say is that you can't assume that government does things more efficiently because it doen't have a profit motive.

In government, it is called something different -- pork.  That is government's version of profit, and the only difference from business is that pork is obtained by greasing the right palms and having influence over the right people, as opposed to, in theory, working to earn it.

There are certain jobs that don't lend themselves to for-profit institutions, and must be done by government or not-for-profit companies.  But you can't assume that the elimination of the profit motive makes things more efficient.  If that were true, the Soviet Union would have had the most efficient economy in the world.

Sometimes, the profit motive encourages people to find better and more efficient ways to do more with less.  When you eliminate the profit motive, people generally find ways to do less with more.  Over time, government always evolves in the direction of gobbling up increasing resources to do the same thing, until the taxpayers are fed up and are forced to radically restructure or eliminate the program.

The other point I would make is that having entitlement programs creates a need for them to a greater degree than existed before, as people adjust their behavior accordingly, in a negative way.  Welfare is a perfect example of this.  Often, the creation of the program makes the original problem worse, as people develop an entitlement mentality and know that they don't have to try too hard, since they have the program to fall back on.

I find that many liberals operate on a "static model" theory, assuming that somehow, it is pre-ordained who will be well off, versus who will not be.  This is true in some cases, but in many cases, those who started out well in life messed up, and lost their wealth, or potential for it, and those who started out badly became very successful.  I don't think that the poor represent a permanent class as much as many liberals seem to assume.

The static model theory also applies to wealth creation.  As you take people's wealth away from them to give to others who didn't earn it, they create less of it, leaving society as a whole poorer.  Many liberals don't factor this in, and believe that the wealthy will continue to create the same level of wealth in order to have it taxed away, but this is not the case.  I think the explosion of wealth that we've had in the past 25 years is related to the sharp lowering of our marginal tax rates, from 70% to the 35% range at this time.

This greater overall wealth benefits those who have earned less in the sense that it creates more opportunities to help those who are not as well off, in a way that's not as painful to those who have some money.  I think that has a lot to do with why affluent suburban areas have become more liberal -- they are wealthier than they used to be, and it's now not as painful for them to pay higher taxes to, in theory, provide opportunities for others to succeed.  It can be a win-win scenario if managed correctly, but I think that liberal great society programs mostly went in exactly the wrong direction, creating more poverty rather than eradicating it.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2004, 11:58:11 pm »
Ignore

Yes, we live in a free society, however, I feel that a person's worth is not determined by their income or the amount of money that they have. Earning money does have a lot to do with hard work, but also a lot of it is luck, being in the right place at the right time, and many people inherit wealth from their parents without having to do any hard work at all. That is why those who have been successful and gotten the breaks should give some back to society, for the betterment of all of us. I'm not talking about communism here, confiscating all of it or anything. I'm just saying give enough to help others, while still leaving them filthy rich, just not quite as filthy rich. I don't think that's too much to ask of people in order to make the world a better place for everyone else.

Yes, I realize that some of the wealth does trickle down in trickle down economics, but I think that a very high percentage of it doesn't, as opposed to giving the money to the people at the bottom of the economic ladder who are much more likely to use it in a way that is productive to the economy. Demand creates supply, not the other way around, which is why supply side economics is not the most optimal way to grow the economy. The consumers are the ones who really drive the economic vehicle of this country and are the ones upon whom the economy is most dependent moreso than the producers. Obviously there needs to be both supply and demand, but in capitalism supply will follow demand since it is profitable to do so, but demand will not necessarily follow supply since it is not in the consumers' best interest. In the long run, tax cuts for the wealthy do more harm than good to the economy, as they create a larger debt which will ultimately cause a reduction in government services which disproportionately benefit the less well-off.

Yes, tax cuts for the middle class and poor do benefit them, but if they are accompanied by tax cuts for the rich as well then overall the poor and middle class are losing more than they are gaining in the long run. They may see some short term benefit, but in the long run there will be much more bad than good for their personal economic fortunes.

I also don't agree that government is as wasteful or inefficient as you. Yes, bureaucracy does cause some waste, but there is bureaucracy in every organization, businesses included. Ultimately, the fact that businesses make a profit while government doesn't is the biggest reason why government is more efficient when it comes to providing good services to the masses at reasonable cost. Government doesn't generate huge amounts of wealth for those at the top like business does. It provides much more benefit, disproportionately, to those at the bottom economically. Thus, for the great majority of people, they will get more bang for their buck from government than from private business, in my opinion.

Ultimately, as I've said before, it comes down to which of the 2 moral principles involved is more important: that people be allowed to keep their money, or the societal obligation of those with more to give some of it back to those with less. Although almost everyone, liberals and conservatives alike, agrees with both moral principles, they disagree as to which is more important and should receive more emphasis in public policy, and to what degree one should win out over the other.

The problem is that you are looking at this so one dimentionaly.  You aren't seeing the beniftsa to the economy brought about by allowing people to spend money as they will.  You also don't give people in general enough credit.  People take care of people.  That's the way society works.  In societies that have freedoms and large middle classes, there is always a lot of charity.  That is, when people can afford to spend.  Anyway, government waste is a huge problem and if you don't think so then you are ignoring reality.  The government doesn't have to compete and turn a profit so it can be and is more wasteful.  
Government control doesn't help either.  Just look at the millions of pages of government regulation that are produced every year.
Logged

Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26922


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2004, 09:58:09 am »
Ignore

Yes, we live in a free society, however, I feel that a person's worth is not determined by their income or the amount of money that they have. Earning money does have a lot to do with hard work, but also a lot of it is luck, being in the right place at the right time, and many people inherit wealth from their parents without having to do any hard work at all. That is why those who have been successful and gotten the breaks should give some back to society, for the betterment of all of us. I'm not talking about communism here, confiscating all of it or anything. I'm just saying give enough to help others, while still leaving them filthy rich, just not quite as filthy rich. I don't think that's too much to ask of people in order to make the world a better place for everyone else.

Yes, I realize that some of the wealth does trickle down in trickle down economics, but I think that a very high percentage of it doesn't, as opposed to giving the money to the people at the bottom of the economic ladder who are much more likely to use it in a way that is productive to the economy. Demand creates supply, not the other way around, which is why supply side economics is not the most optimal way to grow the economy. The consumers are the ones who really drive the economic vehicle of this country and are the ones upon whom the economy is most dependent moreso than the producers. Obviously there needs to be both supply and demand, but in capitalism supply will follow demand since it is profitable to do so, but demand will not necessarily follow supply since it is not in the consumers' best interest. In the long run, tax cuts for the wealthy do more harm than good to the economy, as they create a larger debt which will ultimately cause a reduction in government services which disproportionately benefit the less well-off.

Yes, tax cuts for the middle class and poor do benefit them, but if they are accompanied by tax cuts for the rich as well then overall the poor and middle class are losing more than they are gaining in the long run. They may see some short term benefit, but in the long run there will be much more bad than good for their personal economic fortunes.

I also don't agree that government is as wasteful or inefficient as you. Yes, bureaucracy does cause some waste, but there is bureaucracy in every organization, businesses included. Ultimately, the fact that businesses make a profit while government doesn't is the biggest reason why government is more efficient when it comes to providing good services to the masses at reasonable cost. Government doesn't generate huge amounts of wealth for those at the top like business does. It provides much more benefit, disproportionately, to those at the bottom economically. Thus, for the great majority of people, they will get more bang for their buck from government than from private business, in my opinion.

Ultimately, as I've said before, it comes down to which of the 2 moral principles involved is more important: that people be allowed to keep their money, or the societal obligation of those with more to give some of it back to those with less. Although almost everyone, liberals and conservatives alike, agrees with both moral principles, they disagree as to which is more important and should receive more emphasis in public policy, and to what degree one should win out over the other.

I agree with the final point. I am a strong supporter of individual rights. However, taxes and social welafare programs save lives, and that is the key point for me. The restrictions on personal freedom is a price I am willing to pay. It shouldn't be allowed to reach the point where people stop taking responsibility for their own lives, and so on, but a safety net for the unfortunate is fully acceptable in a civilised society. Charity has never worked, I would like it if it did, but it doesn't, unfortunately.

The model used for voucher schools, public financing but run as a private enterprise is the one I support. That is a good compromise, removing a lot of bureaucracy, but at the same time not leaving the poor out to dry. In Sweden it is being tested for hospitals and homes for the elderly, as well as with schools, and the results, I believe, are encouraging.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2304


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2004, 04:33:37 pm »
Ignore

You're surprised the McGreevey raised taxes?  What did you expect when you elected a Democrat?  I haven't seen a Democrat lately who could stand up to the special interests who have their hand out for your tax money.

I don't know NJ politics that well, but I had heard of Bret Schundler and I'm sure he would have been better than McGreevey, especially since McGreevey was the darling of Hillary Clinton the last time he ran.

Is Andrews from South Jersey or North Jersey?  New Jersey is really like two different states, and I imagine it makes a big difference what part of the state a candidate is from.

I don't think Hillary's too sweet on him now. McGreevey's a Dean man.
Logged

"I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don't want to be helped. It's terrible." -- Barry Seinfeld
Don't tell me we can't change.
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1898


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2004, 05:41:48 pm »
Ignore

McGreevy is going to need everybody he can get in next election as unpopular as he is.

You're surprised the McGreevey raised taxes?  What did you expect when you elected a Democrat?  I haven't seen a Democrat lately who could stand up to the special interests who have their hand out for your tax money.

I don't know NJ politics that well, but I had heard of Bret Schundler and I'm sure he would have been better than McGreevey, especially since McGreevey was the darling of Hillary Clinton the last time he ran.

Is Andrews from South Jersey or North Jersey?  New Jersey is really like two different states, and I imagine it makes a big difference what part of the state a candidate is from.

I don't think Hillary's too sweet on him now. McGreevey's a Dean man.
Logged

Currently in Iraq, risking my butt to protect yours!

Republicans think every day is July 4, Democarts think every day is April 15
President Reagan

Well I can hear you and soon the whole world will hear all of us. President George Bush
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4335
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2004, 05:57:06 pm »
Ignore

I agree with the final point. I am a strong supporter of individual rights. However, taxes and social welafare programs save lives, and that is the key point for me. The restrictions on personal freedom is a price I am willing to pay. It shouldn't be allowed to reach the point where people stop taking responsibility for their own lives, and so on, but a safety net for the unfortunate is fully acceptable in a civilised society. Charity has never worked, I would like it if it did, but it doesn't, unfortunately.

Excellently put! The trouble with trickledown economics is that as a model it's ideologically driven, but is unpragmatic in reality. Like you said, taxation is a necessary evil to ensure an acceptable standard of living for everyone (which surely should be a right, not a privilege, in this day and age; of course those who work should have a higher standard of living than those who don't, that goes without saying; I'm talking of the very poor in society enjoying the same privileges such as education and healthcare, as the very rich). And as Gustaf said, social welfare funded via taxation saves lives. That alone makes it necessary.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2004, 06:00:01 pm by Michael Zeigermann »Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26922


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2004, 06:14:11 pm »
Ignore

I agree with the final point. I am a strong supporter of individual rights. However, taxes and social welafare programs save lives, and that is the key point for me. The restrictions on personal freedom is a price I am willing to pay. It shouldn't be allowed to reach the point where people stop taking responsibility for their own lives, and so on, but a safety net for the unfortunate is fully acceptable in a civilised society. Charity has never worked, I would like it if it did, but it doesn't, unfortunately.

Excellently put! The trouble with trickledown economics is that as a model it's ideologically driven, but is unpragmatic in reality. Like you said, taxation is a necessary evil to ensure an acceptable standard of living for everyone (which surely should be a right, not a privilege, in this day and age; of course those who work should have a higher standard of living than those who don't, that goes without saying; I'm talking of the very poor in society enjoying the same privileges such as education and healthcare, as the very rich). And as Gustaf said, social welfare funded via taxation saves lives. That alone makes it necessary.

Thanks for your support! Smiley
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Sibboleth
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 56867
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2004, 04:28:47 am »
Ignore

And I agree Smiley
Logged

"I have become entangled in my own data, and my conclusion stands in direct contradiction to the initial idea from which I started. Proceeding from unlimited freedom, I end with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that there can be no solution of the social formula except mine."
NHPolitico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2304


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2004, 11:58:51 am »
Ignore

I think if he makes it out of the primary, he'll win easily. The state is just a fruitcake. Nutty Dems. It's reflexive.  I'm not at all sure that Torch would have lost in 2002. I think the Dem establishment should have given their voters more credit. They will obey every order given to them without any questions. More loyal than Greyfriars Bobby they are. God Bless 'em, I guess.

McGreevy is going to need everybody he can get in next election as unpopular as he is.

You're surprised the McGreevey raised taxes?  What did you expect when you elected a Democrat?  I haven't seen a Democrat lately who could stand up to the special interests who have their hand out for your tax money.

I don't know NJ politics that well, but I had heard of Bret Schundler and I'm sure he would have been better than McGreevey, especially since McGreevey was the darling of Hillary Clinton the last time he ran.

Is Andrews from South Jersey or North Jersey?  New Jersey is really like two different states, and I imagine it makes a big difference what part of the state a candidate is from.

I don't think Hillary's too sweet on him now. McGreevey's a Dean man.
Logged

"I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don't want to be helped. It's terrible." -- Barry Seinfeld
Don't tell me we can't change.
MAS117
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5289
United States


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: February 11, 2004, 04:33:12 pm »
Ignore

New reports coming out are saying that US Sen. Jon Corzine might also try to take a shot for the Governorship in 2005? He'd over take McGreevey anyday.
Logged
MAS117
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5289
United States


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: April 21, 2004, 03:39:53 pm »
Ignore

Democrats and Republicans are lining up to take on McGreevey. Florio has even said he is thinking about running! Really!

My pick for governor? Tom Kean, Jr.

Tom Kean Jr. would be my pick for the GOP nod too. This forum is overloading with New Jerseyans. Weclome Mike
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8880
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

View Profile
« Reply #40 on: April 22, 2004, 02:11:50 am »
Ignore

If Tom has even half of the decency, honor, and integrity that his father has, he will make a fine Governor!  Welcome Mike!
Logged
MAS117
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5289
United States


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: April 22, 2004, 09:35:35 pm »
Ignore

Thanks for the warm welcome! I'm only sixteen now, and 2005 will be the first election I will be able to vote in...

Kean Jr. would be elected mostly for his name, but he is a very good man. He is very intelligent and is good at raising money too. In addition to his service as state senator, he is also a voiunteer EMT.

If he is successfull as governor, he may have a shot at the presidency some day.

President, thats pushing it Mike...I doubt hell even win for Governor....Is Kean your state senator?
Logged
MAS117
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5289
United States


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: April 23, 2004, 02:39:46 pm »
Ignore

I live in Sen. Adler's district. Mike you should sign up and reigster in the fantasy thread. we could use a good guy like you...
Logged
MAS117
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5289
United States


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: April 23, 2004, 04:10:36 pm »
Ignore

What is the fantasy thread?

The fantasy thread is forum fantasy politics. Right now current Mid term voting is going on, for the Atlas Senate. We have a President,Vice President, Cabinet, and I'm a current nominee for the Supreme Court. After you get your 18th post, go and reigster, in the thread at the top. The fantasy thread is at the bottom of the overall forum page.
Logged
MAS117
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5289
United States


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: April 23, 2004, 05:25:03 pm »
Ignore

Also... I plan on making a website that will be following the NJ gubanatorial (I hope I spelled that right) election.

really? sounds good, Ill be viewing that quite often
Logged
MAS117
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5289
United States


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: April 23, 2004, 05:32:08 pm »
Ignore

njgovernor.us

It should be up within a few months or so...

sounds good
Logged
MAS117
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5289
United States


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: April 24, 2004, 11:55:58 pm »
Ignore

New Jersey 2005  Governor
 
Schundler (R) 46%
McGreevey (D) 39%
Other 7%
Not Sure 8%
RasmussenReports.com
Logged
MAS117
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5289
United States


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: April 24, 2004, 11:56:30 pm »
Ignore

New Jersey 2005  Governor
 
Allen (R) 41%
McGreevey (D) 40%
Other 9%
Not Sure 10%
Ramussenreports.com

----

No chance in hell Allen is winning
Logged
HockeyDude
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7326
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.19, S: -8.78

View Profile
« Reply #48 on: May 08, 2004, 05:32:37 pm »
Ignore

I don't really keep up with things state-wise, and it's not like I pay bills and taxes, so what exactly did McGreevy do that was so bad?  

I really don't care too much right now, I'll just root for whichever Dem is running.......
Logged



We're back in paradise!  (Aka Oklahoma)!
Immortalized for profound absurdity^
MAS117
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5289
United States


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: May 08, 2004, 07:29:15 pm »
Ignore

I don't really keep up with things state-wise, and it's not like I pay bills and taxes, so what exactly did McGreevy do that was so bad?  

I really don't care too much right now, I'll just root for whichever Dem is running.......

raised alot of taxes, and he is causing a big rift between north and south dems, especially with sen. glen cunningham from jersey city.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines