N.J. Gov. Christie Freezes Spending

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Vegita wrote:

If the governemnt spends less tax money, then people pay less taxes, stop being a fucking retard and pull out a calculator. If the STATE lowers aid to LOCAL governemnts, and the LOCAL people still want the service that the STATE was funding, the LOCAL government now has the ability to offer the service at an increased LOCAL tax rate, or let the service die. IF the SERVICE is extremely important, the LOCAL people who need it will shell out the extra to keep it. Government should be run as much locally as possible, you can go see your municipal supervisor at the diner for breakfast, he doesn’t have a security detail. He is not above the law.

V[/quote]

It makes things easier when you don’t address any of my points, doesn’t it?

The municipality ALWAYS had the ability to “let the service die” and use the money somewhere else. However, local taxes are going to rise because the aid isn’t there. Now maybe in your fantasy world, the state will give back all that unused money that would have gone to the municipalities for state aid- but they’re NOT.

The state will use it for something else, and municipal taxes will just rise. I agree that local government control is best, but this is NOT going to save any money realistically- it will mean more taxes.

42

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

Oh, but Obama will pay for some of the construction with stimulus money! We can’t miss this opportunity![/quote]

I know you’re just trying to take witless potshots at Obama, but in reality ARRA money has funded ALOT of projects in NJ and is putting many contractors back to work.

OK, back to your alternate reality.

43

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

If the governemnt spends less tax money, then people pay less taxes, stop being a fucking retard and pull out a calculator. If the STATE lowers aid to LOCAL governemnts, and the LOCAL people still want the service that the STATE was funding, the LOCAL government now has the ability to offer the service at an increased LOCAL tax rate, or let the service die. IF the SERVICE is extremely important, the LOCAL people who need it will shell out the extra to keep it. Government should be run as much locally as possible, you can go see your municipal supervisor at the diner for breakfast, he doesn’t have a security detail. He is not above the law.

V[/quote]

It makes things easier when you don’t address any of my points, doesn’t it?

The municipality ALWAYS had the ability to “let the service die” and use the money somewhere else. However, local taxes are going to rise because the aid isn’t there. Now maybe in your fantasy world, the state will give back all that unused money that would have gone to the municipalities for state aid- but they’re NOT.

The state will use it for something else, and municipal taxes will just rise. I agree that local government control is best, but this is NOT going to save any money realistically- it will mean more taxes.[/quote]

I addressed you calling me a douche, so since I addressed that point, you can’t say I didn’t address any of your points. Not all of them sure, but then why would I care. It’s your state, unfortunately someone is doing something good for you and you can’t even see it. Whats your idea? Your state is bankrupt so perhaps they should increase spending? You can do 3 things, spend less, spend more or spend the same. Spending less seems to be a good idea, why don’t you let them try it and see what happens.

Also I’m not arguing it is going to cause problems for some people, but the only people who it causes problems for are those who are getting MORE benefit than they are paying in. I know there are those in this position, because the state has debt, this means that the state spends MORE than it takes in. SO, someone is getting MORE than they pay. This is basic math, come on.

V

44

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

If the governemnt spends less tax money, then people pay less taxes, stop being a fucking retard and pull out a calculator. If the STATE lowers aid to LOCAL governemnts, and the LOCAL people still want the service that the STATE was funding, the LOCAL government now has the ability to offer the service at an increased LOCAL tax rate, or let the service die. IF the SERVICE is extremely important, the LOCAL people who need it will shell out the extra to keep it. Government should be run as much locally as possible, you can go see your municipal supervisor at the diner for breakfast, he doesn’t have a security detail. He is not above the law.

V[/quote]

It makes things easier when you don’t address any of my points, doesn’t it?

The municipality ALWAYS had the ability to “let the service die” and use the money somewhere else. However, local taxes are going to rise because the aid isn’t there. Now maybe in your fantasy world, the state will give back all that unused money that would have gone to the municipalities for state aid- but they’re NOT.

The state will use it for something else, and municipal taxes will just rise. I agree that local government control is best, but this is NOT going to save any money realistically- it will mean more taxes.[/quote]

What happens when budget money is not spent by an agency? The government lowers the budget of that agency.

What happens when you spend all the money the government gives you and more? Your budget is increased next year to make sure you have more money.

There is no incentive to cut parts of the budget by any agency. When money is finally haulted that is when agencies have to make tough decisions of what is truely important. Agencies want to be as big as possible so the money keeps on flowing whether it is effiecent or not.

I want the government to be more effiecent with the money they keep taking from me. If 99% of the money taken from me twice a month was spent effiecently then I would not have a problem. A lot of the money is spent on pet projects that benefits no one except the polititians. Do you all not realize that everything you use or buy is taxed in some way or another? Do not say food at the grocery store is not taxed, because the trucks that bring the food to the store has a gas tax and that is passed along in the price of the food.

45

[quote]Vegita wrote:

I addressed you calling me a douche, so since I addressed that point, you can’t say I didn’t address any of your points. Not all of them sure, but then why would I care. It’s your state, unfortunately someone is doing something good for you and you can’t even see it. Whats your idea? Your state is bankrupt so perhaps they should increase spending? You can do 3 things, spend less, spend more or spend the same. Spending less seems to be a good idea, why don’t you let them try it and see what happens.
[/quote]

You’re not understanding. There are other ways to cut costs that won’t drive up taxes- but those involve fighting several unions on benefits and salaries. As Maximus said- cutting state workers is another way to do it. That’s the real way that it MUST be done.

My point, and I’m going to explain this one more time, is that by cutting state aid to municipalities, they’re not actually saving taxpayers money. Municipal taxes will rise to cover the gaps, and the state will keep the money. So simply put- taxes will rise because of this, or crucial services that people need will be cut.

The state is not helping anyone- it’s just trying to cover it’s own ass, or its own budget gap I should say. They’re fucking the taxpayer even more with this.

Do you understand this? Or should I use crayon?

[quote]
Also I’m not arguing it is going to cause problems for some people, but the only people who it causes problems for are those who are getting MORE benefit than they are paying in. I know there are those in this position, because the state has debt, this means that the state spends MORE than it takes in. SO, someone is getting MORE than they pay. This is basic math, come on.

V[/quote]

You have no idea what you’re talking about, and you’re exhibiting a fundamental lack in understanding how government functions and provides services to residents.

You’ve been proven to not know what you’re talking about… so run along, huh?

46

I agree. It’s certainly a problem.

[quote]
I want the government to be more effiecent with the money they keep taking from me. If 99% of the money taken from me twice a month was spent effiecently then I would not have a problem. A lot of the money is spent on pet projects that benefits no one except the polititians. Do you all not realize that everything you use or buy is taxed in some way or another? Do not say food at the grocery store is not taxed, because the trucks that bring the food to the store has a gas tax and that is passed along in the price of the food. [/quote]

I agree again. That’s not really what I’m arguing. The fact that goverment is fat and inefficient is true. Especially state governements.

47

FightingIrish, try employing some reading comprehension before posting your usual crap. It might well prevent a lot of the crap. Try a re-read and see if you can understand what was being criticized.

48

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
FightingIrish, try employing some reading comprehension before posting your usual crap. It might well prevent a lot of the crap. Try a re-read and see if you can understand what was being criticized.
[/quote]

Hey Bill Roberts, go fuck yourself.

49

re: Unionized Government Workers

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704320104575015010515688120.html

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy planted the seeds that grew the modern Democratic Party. That year, JFK signed executive order 10988 allowing the unionization of the federal work force. This changed everything in the American political system. Kennedy’s order swung open the door for the inexorable rise of a unionized public work force in many states and cities.

This in turn led to the fantastic growth in membership of the public employee unionsâ??The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the teachers’ National Education Association.

They broke the public’s bank. More than that, they entrenched a system of taking money from members’ dues and spending it on political campaigns. Over time, this transformed the Democratic Party into a public-sector dependency.

They became different than the party of FDR, Truman, Meany and Reuther, That party was allied with the fading industrial unions, which in turn were tethered to a real world of profit and loss.

50

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

I addressed you calling me a douche, so since I addressed that point, you can’t say I didn’t address any of your points. Not all of them sure, but then why would I care. It’s your state, unfortunately someone is doing something good for you and you can’t even see it. Whats your idea? Your state is bankrupt so perhaps they should increase spending? You can do 3 things, spend less, spend more or spend the same. Spending less seems to be a good idea, why don’t you let them try it and see what happens.
[/quote]

You’re not understanding. There are other ways to cut costs that won’t drive up taxes- but those involve fighting several unions on benefits and salaries. As Maximus said- cutting state workers is another way to do it. That’s the real way that it MUST be done.

My point, and I’m going to explain this one more time, is that by cutting state aid to municipalities, they’re not actually saving taxpayers money. Municipal taxes will rise to cover the gaps, and the state will keep the money. So simply put- taxes will rise because of this, or crucial services that people need will be cut.

The state is not helping anyone- it’s just trying to cover it’s own ass, or its own budget gap I should say. They’re fucking the taxpayer even more with this.

Do you understand this? Or should I use crayon?

[quote]
Also I’m not arguing it is going to cause problems for some people, but the only people who it causes problems for are those who are getting MORE benefit than they are paying in. I know there are those in this position, because the state has debt, this means that the state spends MORE than it takes in. SO, someone is getting MORE than they pay. This is basic math, come on.

V[/quote]

You have no idea what you’re talking about, and you’re exhibiting a fundamental lack in understanding how government functions and provides services to residents.

You’ve been proven to not know what you’re talking about… so run along, huh?[/quote]

When you make a statement like that, it just shows your own lack of knowledge. I happen to insure municipalities, it’s one of my target areas of business, I read many municipal budgets every year, I understand government spending, I understand taxes, I understand costs of doing business. What exactly do you do or have done which makes you an expert on government spending? Boxing? Perhaps you have taken one too many hits to the head? I don’t know, but what I am saying makes complete sense. If you cut the funding, the party that was recieiving it can reduce thier costs (i.e. reduce pensions, layoff workers, take pay cuts, use fedex to ship packages etc…) or find another way to get the funding (raise another local tax perhaps?)

The way I see it you are correct though, the money isn’t going to go back into the taxpayers pocket from the state cuts, it’s going into debt servicing so your state stops operating in the fucking red. Once that occurs, THEN if your government uses it’s head, they could possibly slowly reduce state taxes that you pay.

V

51

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

You confirm my point exactly, no government agency will cut their budget because the government will just shift the money to some other agency. That is why there is a lot of fat in the government. Cut the budget and force the agencies to cut the fat.

I agree that unions are the reason that most governments are in real trouble. Look at Greece. Everytime the workers strike they go out and float some bonds to make the payments. The roosters have come home to roost guys, and the unions need to take a hard look at what they are doing to their members. Just imaging if the people took a 7% cut in pay and fired their union representation? The workers would not loose any money. The businesses they work for would be in better financial position to help out their employees.

53

[quote]Vegita wrote:
When you make a statement like that, it just shows your own lack of knowledge. I happen to insure municipalities, it’s one of my target areas of business, I read many municipal budgets every year, I understand government spending, I understand taxes, I understand costs of doing business. What exactly do you do or have done which makes you an expert on government spending? Boxing? Perhaps you have taken one too many hits to the head? I don’t know, but what I am saying makes complete sense. If you cut the funding, the party that was recieiving it can reduce thier costs (i.e. reduce pensions, layoff workers, take pay cuts, use fedex to ship packages etc…) or find another way to get the funding (raise another local tax perhaps?)
[/quote]

Well you couldn’t tell from any of your posts. I’m a municipal reporter for the newspapers- Government spending is what I do.

[quote]
The way I see it you are correct though, the money isn’t going to go back into the taxpayers pocket from the state cuts, it’s going into debt servicing so your state stops operating in the fucking red. Once that occurs, THEN if your government uses it’s head, they could possibly slowly reduce state taxes that you pay.

V[/quote]

LOL. Is it possible for that to happen? Well, yes. But it never will. So I’d rather see my 25 cents that goes to the state for every dollar or whatever come back to me in a grant or state aid. At least I’ll see it then. at least a little.

54

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I think you’re right though. I’m not sure how sharp the teeth are in their amendments.
[/quote]

If it’s like it is in NJ, if the budget isn’t balanced the government goes into shutdown mode. Kind of a big deal.

55

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I’m a municipal reporter for the newspapers- Government spending is what I do.

[/quote]

Just one more example of liberal Bias in the media. :wink:

V

56

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I’m a municipal reporter for the newspapers- Government spending is what I do.

[/quote]

Just one more example of liberal Bias in the media. :wink:

V[/quote]

hahahah. Well, when it comes to politicians I’m in attack mode all the time. I don’t care what party they’re in anymore.

57

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I’m a municipal reporter for the newspapers- Government spending is what I do.

[/quote]

Just one more example of liberal Bias in the media. :wink:

V[/quote]

hahahah. Well, when it comes to politicians I’m in attack mode all the time. I don’t care what party they’re in anymore.[/quote]

THAT’S the spirit!!!

59

You have not seen FI’s attack posts on Obama?

I haven’t, as I only catch what I see in attribution or if I forgot to sign in, but I assumed that – what with his hard-hitting journalism for an up-and-coming mimeographed sheet and being an attack dog and all – he must have lots of posts where he is “in attack mode all the time” on Obama and the Democrats, now that it is they that are in full power.

Duzzn’he?

60

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
There’s a simple answer. My state and others have it. A state constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget.

I can’t imagine a federal constitutional amendment, with a wartime exception possibly built in, being a bad idea either.[/quote]

Don’t a lot of states with those amendments still have unbalanced budgets?..[/quote]

MT and ND don’t have unbalanced budgets and I can say that Montana’s economy has been heavily hurt by the recession.

I think you’re right though. I’m not sure how sharp the teeth are in their amendments.
[/quote]

Yeah. I suppose it’s still better than not having such amendments regardless.