Here he is vetoing a new tax on those evil rich people:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/05/governor-christie-vetoes-new-jersey-tax-hike-in-2-minutes-video/
Skull-boning a reporter:
Christie vs. School Teacher:
QuoteBut borough teacher Rita Wilson, a Kearny resident, argued that if she were paid $3 an hour for the 30 children in her class, she'd be earning $83,000, and she makes nothing near that.
"You're getting more than that if you include the cost of your benefits," Christie interrupted.
When Wilson, who has a master's degree, said she was not being compensated for her education and experience, Christie said:
"Well, you know then that you don't have to do it." Some in the audience applauded.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/politics/052510_NJ_Gov_Chris_Christie_defends_cuts_promotes_property_tax_cap_in_Rutherford.html
Hmm, I guess he won't be counting on the teacher's unions endorsements next election
Quote
But borough teacher Rita Wilson, a Kearny resident, argued that if she were paid $3 an hour for the 30 children in her class, she'd be earning $83,000, and she makes nothing near that.
Assuming she intends $3/hr for each child, that would be $90/hr.
I'd like to
earn be paid that too. I hope she's not holding her breath waiting.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 25, 2010, 09:59:26 PM
Assuming she intends $3/hr for each child, that would be $90/hr.
I'd like to earn be paid that too. I hope she's not holding her breath waiting.
Here's the video of Christie's exchange
I guess New Jersey wants to become California. Whatever works for them..
If you get into teaching to get rich and dont then grumble about it is like a hockey player bitching about getting hit by a stick....
Quote from: Breadburner on May 26, 2010, 11:25:40 PM
If you get into teaching to get rich and dont then grumble about it is like a hockey player bitching about getting hit by a stick....
That being said, teachers need to make more (at least here in Oklahoma) and administrative personnel costs need to be better controlled.
It's simply unfathomable to me that we pay the people we expect to do a large part of turning our young hooligans into thoughtful and educated adults less than a guy managing a fast food restaurant. Hell, I've known pizza delivery drivers that made more than most teachers did at the time. If money really is the sole determinant of value as many free market evangelists claim, we obviously have incredibly foobared up priorities.
Quote from: nathanm on May 27, 2010, 12:39:48 AM
That being said, teachers need to make more (at least here in Oklahoma) and administrative personnel costs need to be better controlled.
It's simply unfathomable to me that we pay the people we expect to do a large part of turning our young hooligans into thoughtful and educated adults less than a guy managing a fast food restaurant. Hell, I've known pizza delivery drivers that made more than most teachers did at the time. If money really is the sole determinant of value as many free market evangelists claim, we obviously have incredibly foobared up priorities.
I agree. We pay the average teacher 32K, but spend $100,000 or more for each class room of kids (15). The average school is gobbling up a couple million dollars a year. Some are eating tens of millions a year in tax money. Compare that to the efficiency of any private institution and it's laughable.
QuoteIf money really is the sole determinant of value as many free market evangelists claim, we obviously have incredibly foobared up priorities.
I doubt an entirely government controlled entity like public schools is all that influenced by market forces. It's the cheapest, lowest common denominator option, just like nearly every other government service - so a lot of people take advantage of it. Heck, you've already paid for it, why not send the kids there and try to get your money's worth? How well are private school teachers paid? I have no idea.
There is way too much administrative overhead in OK public schools. Money would be better spent on teachers' salaries than on administrators working hard trying to make themselves relevant.
I like Christie's attitude - quit whining and do something about it. As he said, re-election is not his concern, no surprise he's willing forgo the teacher's union's contributions.
Quote from: buckeye on May 28, 2010, 12:25:36 PM
How well are private school teachers paid?
I know, one such local school (that will remain unnamed!) starts teachers at $50K and has several on staff at over $80K. Don't know if that's the norm, but it really pisses off teachers that get turned down for jobs. They cherry-pick the best teachers and leave the rest to the public system and the unions.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 28, 2010, 01:10:44 PM
I know, one such local school (that will remain unnamed!) starts teachers at $50K and has several on staff at over $80K. Don't know if that's the norm, but it really pisses off teachers that get turned down for jobs. They cherry-pick the best teachers and leave the rest to the public system and the unions.
That's not at all the norm. Private schools generally pay teachers no better than public schools, although it may be different here in Oklahoma where we pay the public school teachers peanuts.
You have to keep in mind that much of the seeming "inefficiency" comes from having to accept all the special needs kids and all the cost that entails. My high school spent over a hundred grand outfitting the school for a paraplegic kid (nice guy, actually). Not to mention that they had to pay for an aide to follow him around everywhere and help him with the physical part of doing schoolwork.
That doesn't even get into all the little monsters with uncontrolled ADD and other behavioral issues that no amount of discipline from the school will fix because it's a medical problem. Private schools don't have those expenses. They can either refuse to admit the kid that needs a lot of attention/help/whatever or make the parents pay for the extra cost.
I don't know what the solution is, although I generally am in favor of the idea of mainstreaming. Maybe throwing more money at the problem would fix it, maybe not. It's a problem we need to tackle, however. Just cutting funding certainly isn't going to fix the issue any more than cutting prison funding makes them less violent.
He also rocks on teacher's unions:
He also rocks on state supreme court nominations:
Here's a worthwhile rebuttal to Mr. Christie's public school stuff. (http://www.hpae.org/newsroom/articles/20100518_letter)
"Tuesday, May 18, 2010
By Steven Derion, A 2007 Nominee for the Governor's Teacher of the Year Award, Manahawkin , NJ
-- To: The Honorable Chris Christie
From: Steven Derion, A 2007 Nominee for the Governor's Teacher of the Year Award, Manahawkin , NJ
I am the enemy. I never realized this until your election to governor. In a few short weeks, you have made this fact explicitly clear to me . . . ."
Christie destroys teachers union whiner:
That dumb bish should have kept her mouth shut.....
I know you guys like him and all, but he's fatally flawed. He supports the Park51 community center.
Based on the reactions of other Republicans, I'm not sure you can stay a viable party leader and still support Muslims in any way, shape, or form.
Quote from: we vs us on September 09, 2010, 11:10:26 PM
I know you guys like him and all, but he's fatally flawed. He supports the Park51 community center.
Based on the reactions of other Republicans, I'm not sure you can stay a viable party leader and still support Muslims in any way, shape, or form.
Using your logic of "Based on the observations of other Republicans", it would be fair to say that most Muslims are violent jihadists based on the reactions to the Park51 controversy and the planned Koran burning. The threat of violence has even been on the MSM.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 09, 2010, 11:41:33 PM
Using your logic of "Based on the observations of other Republicans", it would be fair to say that most Muslims are violent jihadists based on the reactions to the Park51 controversy and the planned Koran burning. The threat of violence has even been on the MSM.
That's a poor comparison. It's well known that the extremists of the parties control the primaries, because they're the ones who are both registered to vote in that party's primaries and who care enough to vote in the primary.
Quote from: nathanm on September 10, 2010, 12:09:50 AM
That's a poor comparison. It's well known that the extremists of the parties control the primaries, because they're the ones who are both registered to vote in that party's primaries and who care enough to vote in the primary.
That was my point. Extremist minorities control the airwaves. Either that or Islam is a violent religion.
Quote from: we vs us on September 09, 2010, 11:10:26 PM
I know you guys like him and all, but he's fatally flawed. He supports the Park51 community center.
Based on the reactions of other Republicans, I'm not sure you can stay a viable party leader and still support Muslims in any way, shape, or form.
He supports their right to build it there. He does not wish to comment on the wisdom or become a political pawn in the discussion. I don't see that as a flaw. It puts him on the Libertarian side of things. The current administration is forcing the public to employ more reason, and therefore become more libertarian in nature. I think this makes him more attractive to everyone.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 10, 2010, 08:39:43 AM
He supports their right to build it there. He does not wish to comment on the wisdom or become a political pawn in the discussion.
Which, interestingly, is exactly Obama's position. Despite that, it's been said that he's carrying water for Muslims.
Quote from: nathanm on September 10, 2010, 08:56:28 AM
... he's carrying water for Muslims.
That's because he was born in Kenya and was raised a Muslim, silly.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 10, 2010, 08:39:43 AM
He supports their right to build it there. He does not wish to comment on the wisdom or become a political pawn in the discussion.
And therefore would be unsupportable by the GOP base.
That's not only an unpopular position within the GOP, it disqualifies you from national leadership.
Quote from: we vs us on September 10, 2010, 09:23:27 AM
And therefore would be unsupportable by the GOP base.
That's not only an unpopular position within the GOP, it disqualifies you from national leadership.
Where do you get this stuff? Watching Rachel Madcow?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 10, 2010, 09:29:57 AM
Where do you get this stuff? Watching Rachel Madcow?
Nope.
(http://marijuanacannabis.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/cant-we-all-just-get-a-bong.jpg?w=215&h=300)
Quote from: Conan71 on September 10, 2010, 09:29:57 AM
Where do you get this stuff? Watching Rachel Madcow?
Nope. Got it from my own wittle bitty eyes and ears.
If you look around, a position like Christie's on Park51 is pretty out of sync within the GOP these days, or at least the people speaking publicly for the party.
Can you think of anyone else who's come out with Christie's opinion?
Quote from: we vs us on September 10, 2010, 10:33:54 AM
If you look around, a position like Christie's on Park51 is pretty out of sync within the GOP these days, or at least the people speaking publicly for the party.
Can you think of anyone else who's come out with Christie's opinion?
Once the elections are over they'll move on.
Quote from: we vs us on September 10, 2010, 10:33:54 AM
Got it from my own wittle bitty eyes and ears.
fOUND tHE pROBLEM!
Quote from: we vs us on September 10, 2010, 10:33:54 AM
Nope. Got it from my own wittle bitty eyes and ears.
If you look around, a position like Christie's on Park51 is pretty out of sync within the GOP these days, or at least the people speaking publicly for the party.
Can you think of anyone else who's come out with Christie's opinion?
"Given my last position, that I was the first U.S attorney post 9/11 in New Jersey, I understand acutely the pain and sorrow and upset of the family members who lost loved ones that day at the hands of radical Muslim extremists...
We cannot paint all of Islam with that brush. ...We have to bring people together. And what offends me the most about all this is that it's being used as a political football by both parties."
http://notesfromamedinah.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/park-51-and-the-cost-of-hatred/
What is so objectionable to Gov. Christie's approach? You seem to think all Repugnicans look like this:
(http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2010/09/08/1225915/615173-terry-jones.jpg)
I don't think anything's objectionable about his position in the least. I think it's eminently reasonable. I think that the people driving the Republican Party are demanding more and more purity of belief as time goes on. This is why you see McCain being more and more tin-eared and crazy-sounding, why Arlen Specter switched parties, etc etc.
Quote from: we vs us on September 10, 2010, 02:01:11 PM
I don't think anything's objectionable about his position in the least. I think it's eminently reasonable. I think that the people driving the Republican Party are demanding more and more purity of belief as time goes on. This is why you see McCain being more and more tin-eared and crazy-sounding, why Arlen Specter switched parties, etc etc.
Meh, that's Olbermann, Matthews, and Madcow logic. Let me guess, you consider that Beck, Limpbaugh, and former Gov. Palin are driving the GOP, right?
Christie's financial belt-tightening veto results in NJ abortion clinics being shut down.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/247495/christie-veto-shuts-down-abortion-clinics-nj-daniel-foster
Bonus: Latest Christie vs. Some Loudmouth video
Noted "thin" power doosh criticizes Christie for throwing his weight around:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdkUSUkUnz
Quote from: guido911 on September 24, 2010, 08:30:54 PM
Noted "thin" power doosh criticizes Christie for throwing his weight around:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdkUSUkUnz
Why bother with facts when you can attack someone's appearance?
Quote from: TeeDub on September 25, 2010, 08:55:57 AM
Why bother with facts when you can attack someone's appearance?
Are you attacking me or Schultz?
Christie REALLY rocks on education reform. Looks like he wants to do away with longevity tenure and make teachers pass reading and math tests. The shock, I mean, teachers being able to read?
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/09/28/christie-announces-sweeping-n-j-education-reform/
It's interesting that his version of reform focuses solely on teachers unions.
Quote from: we vs us on September 28, 2010, 05:23:04 PM
It's interesting that his version of reform focuses solely on teachers unions.
Funny, I thought he was focusing on improving the quality of teachers, unless of course you have no problem with illiterate people that cannot balance a checkbook educating our nation's children.
Quote from: we vs us on September 28, 2010, 05:23:04 PM
It's interesting that his version of reform focuses solely on teachers unions.
Work on solving the biggest problem first. Put too much on the table and no one will know where to start.
Quote from: guido911 on September 28, 2010, 05:51:03 PM
... unless of course you have no problem with illiterate people that cannot balance a checkbook educating our nation's children.
What do you think we have computers for?
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 28, 2010, 08:49:30 PM
Work on solving the biggest problem first. Put too much on the table and no one will know where to start.
Going after core personnel isn't a lot on the table?
Quote from: we vs us on September 28, 2010, 11:01:48 PM
Going after core personnel isn't a lot on the table?
Perhaps I should have said important problem rather than biggest.
If you want a cool drive (in the summer) to a vacation destination and your car has a broken air conditioner and no gas, fixing the air conditioner without adding some fuel to the tank won't get you to your destination.
If your kids aren't learning in school, it's probably not the color of the paint in the hall causing them to not learn. If the core is rotten, get a new core.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/07/new.jersey.tunnel.project/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/07/new.jersey.tunnel.project/index.html)
(CNN) -- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie killed plans for a new train tunnel to connect his state with New York's Manhattan island Thursday, saying billions of dollars in possible cost overruns made the project "completely unthinkable."
I wonder if it was a good thing or a bad thing in the long run. Bummer they have already blown $600,000,000.
We sure could use that money.
Quote from: Townsend on October 07, 2010, 04:58:18 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/07/new.jersey.tunnel.project/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/07/new.jersey.tunnel.project/index.html)
(CNN) -- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie killed plans for a new train tunnel to connect his state with New York's Manhattan island Thursday, saying billions of dollars in possible cost overruns made the project "completely unthinkable."
Local politicians and union bosses deeply saddened.
Quote from: guido911 on October 07, 2010, 05:08:06 PM
Local politicians and union bosses deeply saddened.
And commuters.
Quote from: we vs us on October 07, 2010, 05:14:16 PM
And commuters.
And those not paying taxes.
You cannot have something you cannot afford. Why is that such a hard freakin concept for you and others? Is it that you think money just falls out of the damned sky?
QuoteChristie said the tunnel project costs "far more than New Jersey taxpayers can afford and the only prudent move is to end this project."
James Weinstein, the executive director of NJ Transit, in a statement, said while the state recognized the importance and value of a cross-Hudson transportation improvement project, "the current economic climate in New Jersey simply does not allow for this project to continue considering the substantial additional costs that are required."
The governor said he has directed the state's transportation officials to explore other approaches to modernize and expand rail capacity into New York. "However, any future project must recognize the regional and national scale of such an effort and work within the scope of the State's current fiscal and economic realities," he said.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE:
Christie called a 30-day temporary halt in September on new tunnel construction, as behind-the-scenes cost projections suggested the tunnel project costs would swell more than $1 billion above the $8.7 million proposed price tag. He said he didn't want the New Jersey version of Boston's "Big Dig" — a tunnel mega-project that saw the final tally climb to nearly ten times the original $2.8 billion estimate.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/hudson_river_tunnel_project_is.html
Quote from: guido911 on October 07, 2010, 05:21:36 PM
And those not paying taxes.
You cannot have something you cannot afford. Why is that such a hard freakin concept for you and others? Is it that you think money just falls out of the damned sky?
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/hudson_river_tunnel_project_is.html
That's an interesting statement. In the context of our budget deficit, define "can't afford."
Hint: not as easy as it sounds.
Quote from: we vs us on October 07, 2010, 05:27:05 PM
That's an interesting statement. In the context of our budget deficit, define "can't afford."
Hint: not as easy as it sounds.
The fact that you even asked that question speaks volumes about your views. And by the way, the answer in this context is, in fact, easy. Christie says N.J. can't afford it. You care to prove him wrong? Let's hear it.
Quote from: we vs us on October 07, 2010, 05:27:05 PM
That's an interesting statement. In the context of our budget deficit, define "can't afford."
Hint: not as easy as it sounds.
Well, I dunno, it means basically we spent $1.4 trillion more than we could afford last year and $1.3 trillion more than we could afford this year and about $13 trillion all together in things we could not afford.
Just because I have a credit card in my wallet with a $20,000 credit limit doesn't mean I can afford to nor should I take it up to the max limit.
How many other ways are there to get from New Jersey to Manhattan now? Would you feel differently if you were paying up to 70% of your income in effective taxes to afford all these government services and conveniences? That's where it's headed.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 07, 2010, 06:05:56 PM
Just because I have a credit card in my wallet with a $20,000 credit limit doesn't mean I can afford to nor should I take it up to the max limit.
It's not a good analogy, actually. The US government doesn't have a credit limit. No one will foreclose on us, no one will confiscate our assets. They will only cease to buy our debt. And right now there're no signs that our debt has been debased at all. In fact, in a turbulent world, our T-bills are still one of the strongest bets out there.
Yes our debt is going up, but as a portion of our net worth (GDP) it's still not at a major red line. As we've discussed, much of the projected indebtedness has to do with lowered tax revenues because of the recession, and one assumes that will change when the economy comes back . . . if we can get it to come back.
I have no idea about this specific tunnel, and since I don't have access to NJ's budget, I can't give you a good analysis. So, sure, Christie absolutely knows what can and can't be afforded better than I do. State budgets are different than the Federal Gov's, and they are much more limited in their flexibility to pay for these things. My point was, though, that it's not at all clear that we've reached a threshold of affordability -- that suddenly we can't do anything or spend any money and that any talk of money at all coming out of any coffers (regardless of whether it's already paid for) is verboten.
There's all this deficit panic amongst conservatives right now and it's unwarranted. After the November elections, the GOP is champing at the bit to freeze all federal funding immediately -- even force a shutdown -- just because they can. It has nothing to do with an orderly or logical or effective plan to attack the deficit. It's all about responding to the fear they're ginning up.
I think reducing the deficit is an important long term goal, but, since we have the lowest debt to GDP ratio of the G8 countries (essentially the ratio of debt to income), it's not nearly the immediate worry that the GOP is making it out to be.
Quote from: we vs us on October 08, 2010, 09:41:13 AM
It's not a good analogy, actually. The US government doesn't have a credit limit. No one will foreclose on us, no one will confiscate our assets. They will only cease to buy our debt. And right now there're no signs that our debt has been debased at all. In fact, in a turbulent world, our T-bills are still one of the strongest bets out there.
Yes our debt is going up, but as a portion of our net worth (GDP) it's still not at a major red line. As we've discussed, much of the projected indebtedness has to do with lowered tax revenues because of the recession, and one assumes that will change when the economy comes back . . . if we can get it to come back.
I have no idea about this specific tunnel, and since I don't have access to NJ's budget, I can't give you a good analysis. So, sure, Christie absolutely knows what can and can't be afforded better than I do. State budgets are different than the Federal Gov's, and they are much more limited in their flexibility to pay for these things. My point was, though, that it's not at all clear that we've reached a threshold of affordability -- that suddenly we can't do anything or spend any money and that any talk of money at all coming out of any coffers (regardless of whether it's already paid for) is verboten.
There's all this deficit panic amongst conservatives right now and it's unwarranted. After the November elections, the GOP is champing at the bit to freeze all federal funding immediately -- even force a shutdown -- just because they can. It has nothing to do with an orderly or logical or effective plan to attack the deficit. It's all about responding to the fear they're ginning up.
I think reducing the deficit is an important long term goal, but, since we have the lowest debt to GDP ratio of the G8 countries (essentially the ratio of debt to income), it's not nearly the immediate worry that the GOP is making it out to be.
While true that the US does not have a set credit limit like a credit card limit, a statement that there isn't one is, in my view, absolutely not true. The fact that it isn't a set number (although any number of studies have been attempted looking at debt to GDP or some other measure) doesn't change the financial reality that ALL borrowers are limited in the amount they can borrow. In addition, a huge amount of our debt is financed by foreign sources. This in and of itself is not bad but it opens you up to the risk of a change in perception from your borrower. Think of it this way, when you are a borrower, or want to be, to buy a car or a house, who's opinion of your creditworthiness matters. Your lenders, that's who. It matters not what you think about your ability to repay. When we, the US, are indebted to level we are to foreign lenders then all that matters is what they THINK about our ability to repay. I personally find this a tenuous position and without a doubt we can say that our cumulative deficit and national debt are going the wrong way. Sure, the ratio of debt to GDP can go down as the economy grows but that is the source of the angst today....is the increase in our deficit going to lead to higher GDP?
Leverage when used judiciously can be a powerful growth engine. Leverage that does not produce a rate of return higher than the cost of said leverage leads to ultimate bankruptcy.
Yes, we are asset rich , but, do we really want to get to a point where we are having to monetize the "equity" we have in our national parks and such to pay off our debt? I would certainly hope not. Blindly thinking that we are nowhere close to our maximum borrowing capacity while not being aware of just who our lenders are could lead to disastrous outcomes.
There are conutries with higher debt to GDP ratios than ours,Japan for instance. Yet the vast majority of their debt is internally funded so their default risk is less.
Quote from: bokworker on October 08, 2010, 10:16:54 AM
While true that the US does not have a set credit limit like a credit card limit, a statement that there isn't one is, in my view, absolutely not true. The fact that it isn't a set number (although any number of studies have been attempted looking at debt to GDP or some other measure) doesn't change the financial reality that ALL borrowers are limited in the amount they can borrow. In addition, a huge amount of our debt is financed by foreign sources. This in and of itself is not bad but it opens you up to the risk of a change in perception from your borrower. Think of it this way, when you are a borrower, or want to be, to buy a car or a house, who's opinion of your creditworthiness matters. Your lenders, that's who. It matters not what you think about your ability to repay. When we, the US, are indebted to level we are to foreign lenders then all that matters is what they THINK about our ability to repay. I personally find this a tenuous position and without a doubt we can say that our cumulative deficit and national debt are going the wrong way. Sure, the ratio of debt to GDP can go down as the economy grows but that is the source of the angst today....is the increase in our deficit going to lead to higher GDP?
Leverage when used judiciously can be a powerful growth engine. Leverage that does not produce a rate of return higher than the cost of said leverage leads to ultimate bankruptcy.
Yes, we are asset rich , but, do we really want to get to a point where we are having to monetize the "equity" we have in our national parks and such to pay off our debt? I would certainly hope not. Blindly thinking that we are nowhere close to our maximum borrowing capacity while not being aware of just who our lenders are could lead to disastrous outcomes.
There are conutries with higher debt to GDP ratios than ours,Japan for instance. Yet the vast majority of their debt is internally funded so their default risk is less.
I agree with your post, and that's essentially what I was trying to say . . . and most importantly to contrast with Conan's perception that we have a hard limit, like a credit card would impose on an individual lender.
Absolutely, we are subject to the perceptions of the buyers of our debt (and further debt ceilings have to be approved by Congress, so there are internal stops as well). I know that I come off as a huge deficit promoter -- or at the least, as Guido would attest, as one of those demonic spenders of other peoples' taxes (a liberal! the horror!) -- but it's by and large to counteract this mad rush to freeze government spending and/or shut the whole thing down.
Debt is a tricky thing, and functions differently within different structures and sizes (small gov, fed gov, fortune 500, small biz, personal credit, etc). The Republicans are actively promoting the idea that all debt works like household debt, and that all debtors function like individual debtors. This includes the federal government. But the federal government is NOT an individual debtor, and its credit and debt DOES NOT function like my credit card debt or my mortgage or my car loan. They are using people's panic about their personal finances to instill panic about the federal government, and it's unwarranted and IMO destructive to whatever recovery we've managed to date.
Unfortunately -- and contrary to their ideology, which says government is the root of all evil -- the government is the still the one in the best place to help ameliorate the effects of the recession. God knows the corporate community isn't kicking in.
We actually have had a statutory limit on Federal debt since 1917. Congress has obviously revised this multiple times, most recently raising it by $1.9 trillion in February to $14.3 trillion. As well, any number of things could happen which negatively impact our ratings and we can wind up paying much higher interest rates.
Aside from that, Wevus, how long would you continue to borrow in your own household until you figure out you've spent yourself into a deep pit you cannot get out of? There has to be a limit at some point. The dynamics of borrowing and repayment are similar regardless of the entity, be it individual, corporate, or government. At some point you lose the ability to borrow if you mis-manage it, over-spend, or your credit rating drops due to high debt or poor repayment record, or in the instance of government, your currency goes in the toilet.
I find it interesting those with a liberal bent had a problem with Reagan's "failed" policies of deficit spending (which for you revisionists was the beginning of the longest peacetime growth in U.S. history), and Bush decimating the projected Clinton surplus, but now are perfectly fine with the United States plunging over $1 trillion a year further into debt. What happened to that?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 08, 2010, 11:41:21 AM
I find it interesting those with a liberal bent had a problem with Reagan's "failed" policies of deficit spending (which for you revisionists was the beginning of the longest peacetime growth in U.S. history), and Bush decimating the projected Clinton surplus, but now are perfectly fine with the United States plunging over $1 trillion a year further into debt. What happened to that?
That's easy. The liberals like where the money is going now.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 08, 2010, 12:44:55 PM
That's easy. The liberals like where the money is going now.
Short and to the point.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 08, 2010, 11:41:21 AM
We actually have had a statutory limit on Federal debt since 1917. Congress has obviously revised this multiple times, most recently raising it by $1.9 trillion in February to $14.3 trillion. As well, any number of things could happen which negatively impact our ratings and we can wind up paying much higher interest rates.
Aside from that, Wevus, how long would you continue to borrow in your own household until you figure out you've spent yourself into a deep pit you cannot get out of? There has to be a limit at some point. The dynamics of borrowing and repayment are similar regardless of the entity, be it individual, corporate, or government. At some point you lose the ability to borrow if you mis-manage it, over-spend, or your credit rating drops due to high debt or poor repayment record, or in the instance of government, your currency goes in the toilet.
I find it interesting those with a liberal bent had a problem with Reagan's "failed" policies of deficit spending (which for you revisionists was the beginning of the longest peacetime growth in U.S. history), and Bush decimating the projected Clinton surplus, but now are perfectly fine with the United States plunging over $1 trillion a year further into debt. What happened to that?
There are limits to everything, obviously, and yes you're right about interest, credit, and repayment: tis the same dynamic for everyone.
In my household? Well, it depends. If I'm unemployed and I'm gonna max my cards out on strippers and blow, that's one thing. I'm a moron and will find myself in the poor house (and there's a good bet that, if I'm a moron, the credit card companies have already closed my accounts, because I'll have defaulted in the past). But if I'm going to spend it on getting a job certification, or pull some equity out of my house to support my Amway business, or maybe even borrow $1k from my Dad to get my car fixed before it breaks down entirely and keeps me from getting to job interviews . . . well, you see that the definition of what I can "afford" might change with the circumstances.
I mean, there's good debt, there's bad debt, and there's necessary debt. I look at, say, the war in Iraq, and can't see any way around that being bad debt. I see the TARP (yes, the hated TARP) and see necessary debt. I see ARRA (Obama's stimulus) as good and necessary. Necessary because it gets $$ out the door, and good because we get something for it (road repairs, etc).
But re: Reagan's deficits . . . you've got the wrong liberal on that one. I won't take the fall for my cohort (since I was 7 years old when he was elected). In general, I think deficits are a legitimate tool for running a modern government, so long as they're used correctly. And while ours is high (and yes, it's high, I don't dispute that); it's still comparable to other functioning modern countries.
I think, in general, that Reagan's priorities were wrong (as were Bush II's) but that's a function of my ideology, and probably should be the subject of another thread. I don't think he was wrong to use deficits as one of his tools.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 08, 2010, 12:44:55 PM
That's easy. The liberals like where the money is going now.
I can't disagree.
Quote from: we vs us on October 08, 2010, 01:54:41 PM
I can't disagree.
But it's no different to what party is in power. You notice the Republicans rubber-stamped the binge spending that Bush 43 proposed. Where were all the screechers and screamers on that side of the aisle?
Quote from: Hoss on October 08, 2010, 01:57:40 PM
But it's no different to what party is in power. You notice the Republicans rubber-stamped the binge spending that Bush 43 proposed. Where were all the screechers and screamers on that side of the aisle?
Actually it was worse. Bush rubber-stamped most of the spending that congress put forth.
Quote from: we vs us on October 08, 2010, 01:53:58 PM
There are limits to everything, obviously, and yes you're right about interest, credit, and repayment: tis the same dynamic for everyone.
In my household? Well, it depends. If I'm unemployed and I'm gonna max my cards out on strippers and blow, that's one thing. I'm a moron and will find myself in the poor house (and there's a good bet that, if I'm a moron, the credit card companies have already closed my accounts, because I'll have defaulted in the past). But if I'm going to spend it on getting a job certification, or pull some equity out of my house to support my Amway business, or maybe even borrow $1k from my Dad to get my car fixed before it breaks down entirely and keeps me from getting to job interviews . . . well, you see that the definition of what I can "afford" might change with the circumstances.
Finally, we are getting somewhere! Here's what I don't think you are seeing: Congress is maxing out our credit line on strippers & blow.
I don't think all government spending is bad. I also think there's certain types of spending which can specifically help the economy and create jobs so long as spending isn't tied soley to quid-pro-quo's like Republicans and the MIC and Democrats and the big unions.
I simply got rankled when it seemed like you were suggesting the government really didn't have any limits for borrowing. As a matter of principle, even though you can borrow $14 trillion
should you do that in the first place? Believe me I wasn't always a live within my means person and I've been pretty irresponsible with financial priorities in the past. I'm simply tired of seeing politicians just keep on spending and spending and creating more layers of administration to oversee the spending.
There's absolutely no reason whatsoever for our Federal, state, and municipal governments to have grown to the size they have (I actually think Tulsa County is run rather efficiently though, just not the city). Percentages of spending and borrowing to GDP and percentages of the total workforce employed by the government are meaningless in trying to justify financial irresponsibility. There simply is no justification for it.
Annnnd that may be where we get to the good-faith parting of ways. I'm pretty positive that what Obama's been doing is the opposite of strippers and blow. Shoring up infrastructure, keeping people from being tossed from their homes, small business tax breaks . . . and HCR, which didn't go far enough, is at least a starting shot at reform of a monstrously huge industry that's slowly gobbling up our productive capital.
All of that stuff, to me, is the equivalent of maxing out your credit card on job training and keeping the car running so you can get to the job interview. When you compare that to massive (and ultimately ineffectual) tax cuts + a trillion-dollar war of choice, that's at the very least necessary debt.
Here is Christie again.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/06/17/christie_tells_woman_none_of_your_business_where_my_kid_goes_to_school.html
This is what happens to you if you threaten Chris Christie.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/08/confirmed-god-sides-with-chris-christie-in-new-jersey-budget-battle/
Per NBC breaking:
QuoteChris Christie Taken to Hospital for Breathing Problems
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Hospital-Health-New-Jersey-126327223.html (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Hospital-Health-New-Jersey-126327223.html)
Quote from: Townsend on July 28, 2011, 11:00:12 AM
Per NBC breaking:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Hospital-Health-New-Jersey-126327223.html (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Hospital-Health-New-Jersey-126327223.html)
Too much hot air? He could use some self control with that mouth...