Talk Elections

Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Gubernatorial/State Elections => Topic started by: MAS117 on January 01, 2004, 12:49:51 AM



Title: NJ Governor
Post by: MAS117 on January 01, 2004, 12:49:51 AM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: dazzleman on January 01, 2004, 01:26:22 AM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: MAS117 on January 01, 2004, 04:36:40 AM
Andrews is from south jersey


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Michael Z on January 01, 2004, 10:52:19 AM
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? ;)

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).


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 01:15:59 PM
McGreevey is still the stronger candidate despite his unpopularity.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: dazzleman on January 01, 2004, 02:09:10 PM

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

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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Michael Z on January 01, 2004, 03:13:25 PM

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

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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: dazzleman on January 01, 2004, 03:50:54 PM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: jravnsbo on January 01, 2004, 04:52:49 PM

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

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


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: jravnsbo on January 01, 2004, 04:54:35 PM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Michael Z on January 01, 2004, 07:10:59 PM

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

-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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: jravnsbo on January 01, 2004, 08:49:31 PM
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? ;)

-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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Michael Z on January 01, 2004, 08:57:45 PM
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. :)


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: jravnsbo on January 01, 2004, 10:07:36 PM
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. :)


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 10:46:55 PM
Nice to see Mike and JR are getting along again.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 11:09:38 AM
He is a former Senator form NJ.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Nym90 on January 03, 2004, 11:40:13 AM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: dazzleman on January 03, 2004, 12:11:51 PM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Nym90 on January 03, 2004, 02:15:10 PM
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.


Title: Wealth Creation
Post by: dazzleman on January 03, 2004, 02:41:30 PM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 03, 2004, 03:28:37 PM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: jravnsbo on January 03, 2004, 04:24:30 PM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: jravnsbo on January 03, 2004, 04:26:33 PM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Michael Z on January 03, 2004, 07:04:13 PM
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"?


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Nym90 on January 03, 2004, 09:23:38 PM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 04, 2004, 01:23:35 AM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 04, 2004, 01:37:51 AM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 04, 2004, 01:52:52 AM
Also, don't forget that the Bush tax cuts eliminated the income tax burden of millions of lower income families.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Nym90 on January 04, 2004, 03:11:47 AM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: dazzleman on January 04, 2004, 07:54:30 AM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 04, 2004, 11:58:11 PM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Gustaf on January 05, 2004, 09:58:09 AM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: NHPolitico on January 05, 2004, 04:33:37 PM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: jravnsbo on January 05, 2004, 05:41:48 PM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Michael Z on January 05, 2004, 05:57:06 PM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Gustaf on January 05, 2004, 06:14:11 PM
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! :)


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 06, 2004, 04:28:47 AM
And I agree :)


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: NHPolitico on January 06, 2004, 11:58:51 AM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: MAS117 on February 11, 2004, 04:33:12 PM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: MAS117 on April 21, 2004, 03:39:53 PM
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


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on April 22, 2004, 02:11:50 AM
If Tom has even half of the decency, honor, and integrity that his father has, he will make a fine Governor!  Welcome Mike!


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: MAS117 on April 22, 2004, 09:35:35 PM
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?


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: MAS117 on April 23, 2004, 02:39:46 PM
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...


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: MAS117 on April 23, 2004, 04:10:36 PM

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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: MAS117 on April 23, 2004, 05:25:03 PM
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


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: MAS117 on April 23, 2004, 05:32:08 PM
njgovernor.us

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

sounds good


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: MAS117 on April 24, 2004, 11:55:58 PM
New Jersey 2005  Governor
 
Schundler (R) 46%
McGreevey (D) 39%
Other 7%
Not Sure 8%
RasmussenReports.com


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: MAS117 on April 24, 2004, 11:56:30 PM
New Jersey 2005  Governor
 
Allen (R) 41%
McGreevey (D) 40%
Other 9%
Not Sure 10%
Ramussenreports.com

----

No chance in hell Allen is winning


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on May 08, 2004, 05:32:37 PM
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.......


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: MAS117 on May 08, 2004, 07:29:15 PM
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.


Title: Re:NJ Governor
Post by: Nym90 on July 03, 2004, 10:30:22 AM
McGreevey.