Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 25, 2014, 03:39:38 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  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 15302 times)
MAS117
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5289
United States


View Profile
« on: January 01, 2004, 12:49:51 am »
Ignore

It has been rumored that Rep. Rob Andrews (D-1st) the dem from the 1st congressional district will try to challenge the incumbent Gov. Jim McGreevey for his spot. McGreevey and Andrews are nto friends and stand on different sides of different issues. I would vote for Andrews because McGreevey is terrible; he raises taxs, and he is an overall idiot. Just wanted to get some reaction. Note that Andrews has tryed in the early 90's to get the gubernatorial primary but lost, and sought the congressional seat which he has held ever since. Happy New Year everybody. Please should be more active in these polls as well as the Presidential ones.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2004, 01:26:22 am »
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.
Logged
MAS117
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5289
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2004, 04:36:40 am »
Ignore

Andrews is from south jersey
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4335
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2004, 10:52:19 am »
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.

As opposed to the special interests who have their hand outs from tax cuts? Wink

Of course, the major difference is that the "special interests" you speak of are those the majority of tax payers can benefit from (public transport, education, etc).
Logged
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35386
United States
View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2004, 01:15:59 pm »
Ignore

McGreevey is still the stronger candidate despite his unpopularity.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2004, 02:09:10 pm »
Ignore


As opposed to the special interests who have their hand outs from tax cuts? Wink

Of course, the major difference is that the "special interests" you speak of are those the majority of tax payers can benefit from (public transport, education, etc).

I don't consider individual taxpayers as "special interests" for being allowed to keep a little more of their own money.  I guess that's the difference between a Republican and a Democrat.  A Democrat considers lower taxes, rather than wasteful government spending, as a "giveaway program."

I don't deny that there are public needs, but a person would have to have really rose-colored glasses to think that government is not wasting a lot of money.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4335
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2004, 03:13:25 pm »
Ignore


As opposed to the special interests who have their hand outs from tax cuts? Wink

Of course, the major difference is that the "special interests" you speak of are those the majority of tax payers can benefit from (public transport, education, etc).

I don't consider individual taxpayers as "special interests" for being allowed to keep a little more of their own money.

Then what about corporations and vested interests? Most tax cuts barely affect the average tax payer.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2004, 03:50:54 pm »
Ignore

What exactly is a "vested interest?"  And who do you think pays taxes on behalf of corporations?

It all comes down to individuals.  Individuals either pay their own personal taxes, or pay taxes on corporations in which they own stock in the form of reduced dividends and earnings.

When you increase taxes, you are taking money away from individuals that they have earned, in order to give it to someone else.  The "someone else" in this case is what I would consider a vested interest.  It may be the right thing to do, or it may not, but I've seen few Democrats lately who ever thought that taking more money from the individuals who earned it wasn't the right thing to do.

As I said earlier, that is the big difference between a Republican and a Democrat, that a Democrat could define a person keeping a greater share of his/her own money as a "vested interest" rather than defining the person looking to receive the other person's money as a vested interest.
Logged
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1898


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2004, 04:52:49 pm »
Ignore


As opposed to the special interests who have their hand outs from tax cuts? Wink

-I know giving the middle class tax cuts is hell isn't it.
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
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1898


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2004, 04:54:35 pm »
Ignore

I think my first quote says it all, when coming to Dems and raising Taxes.

Funny as they used to be a tax cutting party, but not anymore.
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 #10 on: January 01, 2004, 07:10:59 pm »
Ignore


As opposed to the special interests who have their hand outs from tax cuts? Wink

-I know giving the middle class tax cuts is hell isn't it.

That's not what I was implying and you know it.

The fact that you're twisting my words around and are jumping to conclusions about my character is quite offensive and, frankly, says more about you than it does about me.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2004, 07:18:47 pm by Michael Zeigermann »Logged
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1898


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2004, 08:49:31 pm »
Ignore

well first off it was said in jest.  so lighten up.  I guess I'll just have to put a smiley face on each time I say something in jest, geez.





As opposed to the special interests who have their hand outs from tax cuts? Wink

-I know giving the middle class tax cuts is hell isn't it.

That's not what I was implying and you know it.

The fact that you're twisting my words around and are jumping to conclusions about my character is quite offensive and, frankly, says more about you than it does about me.
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 #12 on: January 01, 2004, 08:57:45 pm »
Ignore

well first off it was said in jest.  so lighten up.  I guess I'll just have to put a smiley face on each time I say something in jest, geez.

Sorry, I didn't know you were kidding. But don't worry, you just caught me in a bad mood at the time. Smiley
Logged
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1898


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2004, 10:07:36 pm »
Ignore

NO harm no foul, extends hand to make a mends!

well first off it was said in jest.  so lighten up.  I guess I'll just have to put a smiley face on each time I say something in jest, geez.

Sorry, I didn't know you were kidding. But don't worry, you just caught me in a bad mood at the time. Smiley
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
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35386
United States
View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2004, 10:46:55 pm »
Ignore

Nice to see Mike and JR are getting along again.
Logged
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35386
United States
View Profile
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2004, 11:09:38 am »
Ignore

What position is Bill Bradley?
He is a former Senator form NJ.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15178
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2004, 11:40:13 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.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2004, 12:11:51 pm »
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.

If you read some of my prior posts, you will see that I have supported a graduated income tax with high income people (this doesn't necessarily mean wealthy, particularly in a high cost of living area) paying a larger share of their income in taxes than lower income people.

But liberals don't want the wealthy to pay a small share; they want a large and increasing share.

And my point was the way liberals look at tax cuts.  They consider tax cuts, rather than say, welfare, as a give-away program.  Whatever you may think about government spending, it is a factual error to call giving people back their own money a giveaway program.  A giveaway program can only involve giving away somebody else's money.

I could also make the point that the way in which liberals have chosen to help the less fortunate has often hurt rather than helped them, but that's a different topic.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15178
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2004, 02:15:10 pm »
Ignore

Well, I wouldn't say that liberals want a large and increasing share. Obviously different liberals want different shares, so the statement is way too generalized to begin with. I was talking about general moral principles. The two sides each have a different moral perspective on the issue.
Obviously there is a different view on morality when it comes to the wealthy. My personal view is that the wealthy should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes as this would lead to a higher standard of living for those at the bottom, which creates a better society for everyone. A rising tide lifts all boats; many of society's problems are caused by poverty, and these would be lessened by lessening poverty. So there is societal interest in helping the poor. I think that if the wealthy were willing to pay more in taxes, we could lift the standard of living for the poor and the middle class, and the wealthy would still be very wealthy.
I would argue that many more problems are caused by people at the bottom being too poor than are caused by people at the top being not wealthy enough.
A big part of it, also, is that I don't believe that government is wasteful and inefficient. Since government has no profit that needs to be made like corporations do, it can often do things much more efficiently, not less.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2004, 02:41:30 pm »
Ignore

I think a big issue for the future is how to provide the best standard of living for the greatest number of people.  This issue will come to a head in the next two decades, as the traditional government-based programs for doing this increasingly fail or come under intense fiscal pressure.  We already know that in the long run, social security and medicare cannot be maintained in their present form.  Welfare got so out of control that we repealed the welfare entitlement, and turned attention to getting people on welfare to work, even if at menial jobs, and even if they have small children.

There are two competing schools of thought.  The first is that we should continue to help those less well-off through maintenance, or income redistribution, programs.  This is essentially the argument that you are making.  The wealthy transfer more of their income to those making less, and it ultimately helps everybody.

The problem with this approach is that it provides no help in the long run, unless the maintenance is continued, usually at ever-growing levels.  It does help the politicians who wish to exploit the plight of those less-well-off, by making them dependent on those politicians for their very livelihood.  It's also not clear that this type of spending really benefits society as a whole; it seemed that the more we spent on welfare under the old AFDC system, the more problems we created, because we were subsidizing and encouraging the type of behavior (primarily out of wedlock births) that inevitably leads to poverty.  Every year, the problems just got worse and worse, even as spending increased.

The other approach is a wealth creation approach, geared to helping people to create enough of their own wealth to take care of themselves.  This begins with education, but also involves creating a larger investor class and providing the right incentives and opportunities for people to build their own wealth and to have it with them throughout their life, under their own control, not that of the politicians.  The 401-K is a good example of this, as is the proposal for people to fund their own private social security accounts.

I prefer an approach that encourages and facilitates people developing the wealth to take care of themselves.  I think this is far preferable to a maintenance type policy, in which the "rich" just keep paying higher taxes to transfer to those with less.  Dependency is a bad thing, and people should be encouraged to be as independent as possible.

I also say that if you're looking to take 40% of somebody's income, that's a large share.  That's not a small share.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2004, 03:28:37 pm »
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.
Logged

jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1898


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2004, 04:24:30 pm »
Ignore

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.


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.
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
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1898


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2004, 04:26:33 pm »
Ignore

Well said.  Tax increases hurt people trying to give other people jobs!

When was the last time a poor man created a lot of jobs?


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.
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 #23 on: January 03, 2004, 07:04:13 pm »
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"?
« Last Edit: January 03, 2004, 07:05:30 pm by Michael Zeigermann »Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15178
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2004, 09:23:38 pm »
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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines