User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 4:00:08 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
NJ Constitution says the schools must get funding as the court see's fit. That's a form of despotism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 4:03:40 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So the courts are saying we dont care what the state can or cannot afford, you must do this or that? The law's the law. Just because a court rules something doesn't make it the law or in conformance with the law. Unless Christie violated the State Constitution or something he should just tell the court to go screw itself if he loses the case. In banana republics. In our country, "just because a court rules on something" does in fact make it the law and in conformance with the law. Spending and budgeting are more natural roles of an executive and appropriation more natural to a legislative body. Mandating spending levels or (tacitly anyway) imposing taxes have never been, properly speaking, the roles of the judiciary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 4:16:08 AM EDT
[#3]
Don't worry, economics will take care of this.
Even Supreme Courts can't declare the laws of economics null and void. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 4:19:13 AM EDT
[#4]
I'm afraid to say that there are millions of people who believe the NJ Supreme Court is correct.
We call them libtards. And, yes, libtards are the dumbest ANYTHING to EVER inhabit mother earth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 4:20:56 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Don't worry, economics will take care of this. Even Supreme Courts can't declare the laws of economics null and void. Yup. Libtards can't learn any other way. Well, they won't learn........they'll just blame the problem on something else........maybe Bush again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 4:33:19 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
PLEASE somebody buy my house!!!!!! I need out, Ive had to put up with this garbage state filled with pudding headed voters. This state has been so damn screwed. Its run by incompetent corrupt statist ball lickers. What the court basically is doing is substituting their own version of reallity. If Christie was the great bloated hope that people claim; he would declare NJ BANKRUPT, which it has been for years. Then renegotiate all contracts and void pensions. Yes go screw if you collect a pension as a NJ state worker or teacher. Im sick of paying for you to run off to florida and collect 65k a year. Yes you worked 35hrs a week for 20years and had 2 months vacation each year . Heres a cookie, go fuck yourself. Glad to be gone from that shithole... Best move I ever made 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 4:36:10 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So the courts are saying we dont care what the state can or cannot afford, you must do this or that? The law's the law. Just because a court rules something doesn't make it the law or in conformance with the law. Unless Christie violated the State Constitution or something he should just tell the court to go screw itself if he loses the case. In banana republics. In our country, "just because a court rules on something" does in fact make it the law and in conformance with the law. And government officials always follow the law.... I have a bridge to sell you....cheap.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 4:39:16 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
PLEASE somebody buy my house!!!!!! I need out, Ive had to put up with this garbage state filled with pudding headed voters. This state has been so damn screwed. Its run by incompetent corrupt statist ball lickers. What the court basically is doing is substituting their own version of reallity. If Christie was the great bloated hope that people claim; he would declare NJ BANKRUPT, which it has been for years. Then renegotiate all contracts and void pensions. Yes go screw if you collect a pension as a NJ state worker or teacher. Im sick of paying for you to run off to florida and collect 65k a year. Yes you worked 35hrs a week for 20years and had 2 months vacation each year . Heres a cookie, go fuck yourself. Glad to be gone from that shithole... Best move I ever made
Me too 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:05:18 AM EDT
[#9]
You know maybe it's just the mood I'm in right now but I don't give a fat rat's ass about NJ and all their drama. They made their bed so let them sleep in it. As far as the current "reform" Governor there goes he and those like him are a dime a dozen. I can't fathom why some think the lard-ass is POTUS material. Lots of bombast from him but little else.
Let's just face facts here. NJ is a crap-hole state and as morally bankrupt as they are fiscally. What else can you expect of a state with a 55 gallon drum as it's state flower. I say quit expending effort on such lost causes like NJ, CA, NY, and IL. Get them stew in their own juice and badger the heck out of your Congress Critters so they are never bailed out. As far as I am concerned such goings on in NJ and the other hopeless states is just good for a laugh at this point. Sure it sucks if you live in such a state but U-Haul rents every day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:34:09 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So the courts are saying we dont care what the state can or cannot afford, you must do this or that? The law's the law. Just because a court rules something doesn't make it the law or in conformance with the law. Unless Christie violated the State Constitution or something he should just tell the court to go screw itself if he loses the case. In banana republics. In our country, "just because a court rules on something" does in fact make it the law and in conformance with the law. Courts don't make law in this country, legislatures do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:37:32 AM EDT
[#11]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:37:57 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So the courts are saying we dont care what the state can or cannot afford, you must do this or that? The law's the law. Just because a court rules something doesn't make it the law or in conformance with the law. Unless Christie violated the State Constitution or something he should just tell the court to go screw itself if he loses the case. In banana republics. In our country, "just because a court rules on something" does in fact make it the law and in conformance with the law. Courts don't make law in this country, legislatures do. NJ is just a different breed of banana republic - run by a unionized civil servant class instead of military officers, like the classic banana republic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:38:26 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Im sick of paying for you to run off to florida and collect 65k a year. Imagine if they could only collect if they remained in NJ... And the Employees are the "Statists" right??? 
What I find funny are all the little sheep who blindly follow the agenda of the Politicians.....the SAME politicians who hold multiple jobs, ALL with salaries, benefits, and Pensions, as do ALL of their Family members and Cronies. Do away with all of the Bullshit "Committes" and "Boards of Regents', and force them to have ONE pension ald ALL of the states financial problems will dissapear. People see the "Average" Salaries, and dont realize how skewed they are by Administrators. Take Teachers..the "Average" says $90K. The REALITY is about 55-60K per year, because you have multiple Administrators that make Well over $100K driving those numbers upwards. Same with Police and Fire. Less than 20 years ago, ALL of NJ's pension funds were over-funded..the reason they arent anymore is the Politicians have been raiding them like their own little piggybank, except for Police and Fire, where they were blocked from doing so..in retaliation Gov Whitman allowed the Municipalities to NOT pay into the fund, which was carried over by Jim "I am a Gay American' McGreevey, Codey, and Corzine. Even THEN it was at 95% funded when some rocket scientist at the state decided to invest in Lehman Brothers...and 20% of the fund dissapeard like smoke. So yeah Plowman..get all pissy at the Schmuck who's making around $40K from his or her pension, and Ignore the Politicians like Sharpe James who before he was finally convicted, was looking at 3 HUNDRED Thousand a year in PENSION. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:45:20 AM EDT
[#14]
Uh.......
Considering that financial issues are the bailiwick of the legislature, and that the courts are there only to determine if the Legislature acted LEGALLY (not necessarily WISELY), then I can't immediately see what's wrong with their position. If SCOTUS took the same position after Obama & Co. raised income taxes to 110% of income, I'd agree with them. After all, the power to tax is inherent to Congress. Whether what they do wise things in terms of taxation is a matter for the electorate. Did I miss something somewhere? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:45:36 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
You know maybe it's just the mood I'm in right now but I don't give a fat rat's ass about NJ and all their drama. They made their bed so let them sleep in it. As far as the current "reform" Governor there goes he and those like him are a dime a dozen. I can't fathom why some think the lard-ass is POTUS material. Lots of bombast from him but little else. I always found it classy for ARFCOMMERs to continue to bring up his weight when it really has no bearing on anything. As its said... Stay class 1srelluc... stay classy... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:45:55 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
NJ Constitution says the schools must get funding as the court see's fit. That's a form of despotism. Holy crap! WOW! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:46:56 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Uh....... Considering that financial issues are the bailiwick of the legislature, and that the courts are there only to determine if the Legislature acted LEGALLY (not necessarily WISELY), then I can't immediately see what's wrong with their position. If SCOTUS took the same position after Obama & Co. raised income taxes to 110% of income, I'd agree with them. After all, the power to tax is inherent to Congress. Whether what they do wise things in terms of taxation is a matter for the electorate. Did I miss something somewhere? The legislature in NJ is the one who cut the funding... Unless you're saying you don't know how the administration could be wrong in this case... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:53:54 AM EDT
[#18]
Justify the spending?
I went to catholic school for 11 years. They did wonders on a shoestring budget. Because they had the ONE THING that kids need to succeed in school, and it's the ONE THING money CANNOT buy. Involved Parents. You could spend a trillion dollars a year per child and have him still drop out in 10th grade at age 24 with straight Ds if he doesn't have parents who give a shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:56:17 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
NJ Constitution says the schools must get funding as the court see's fit. That's a form of despotism. Holy crap! WOW! Why? Removing the ability to properly budget from the Legislature and Executive obliges them to raise taxes - basically, a confiscation of property. Writing it into a 'Constitution' doesn't make it anymore respectable. Laws derive their power from morality - they aren't a substitute for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 6:02:36 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Uh....... Considering that financial issues are the bailiwick of the legislature, and that the courts are there only to determine if the Legislature acted LEGALLY (not necessarily WISELY), then I can't immediately see what's wrong with their position. If SCOTUS took the same position after Obama & Co. raised income taxes to 110% of income, I'd agree with them. After all, the power to tax is inherent to Congress. Whether what they do wise things in terms of taxation is a matter for the electorate. Did I miss something somewhere? Yes, you are supposed to be outraged and demand the court be arrested for treason, and probably then anyone who gets upset by the arrests, all the while wondering out loud why people don't understand you only want to restore "true freedom" and arguing that it is fundamentally impossible for fascism to spring from the right, as the right is all about freedom and the rule of Constitutional law, and the left is the only political side capable of subverting such things. Otherwise you, too, are a libtard, and I am supposed to ask you why you even post here if you do not agree with the mob. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 6:16:05 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh....... Considering that financial issues are the bailiwick of the legislature, and that the courts are there only to determine if the Legislature acted LEGALLY (not necessarily WISELY), then I can't immediately see what's wrong with their position. If SCOTUS took the same position after Obama & Co. raised income taxes to 110% of income, I'd agree with them. After all, the power to tax is inherent to Congress. Whether what they do wise things in terms of taxation is a matter for the electorate. Did I miss something somewhere? The legislature in NJ is the one who cut it the funding... Unless you're saying you don't know how the administration could be wrong in this case... They did so only because they knew the SC would overturn it Vood. It's a lot like the "Ethics" reform crap.."Oh we WANT to, but we just cant get the votes to do it" Same Shit different day with those scumbags. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 6:29:32 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh....... Considering that financial issues are the bailiwick of the legislature, and that the courts are there only to determine if the Legislature acted LEGALLY (not necessarily WISELY), then I can't immediately see what's wrong with their position. If SCOTUS took the same position after Obama & Co. raised income taxes to 110% of income, I'd agree with them. After all, the power to tax is inherent to Congress. Whether what they do wise things in terms of taxation is a matter for the electorate. Did I miss something somewhere? The legislature in NJ is the one who cut it the funding... Unless you're saying you don't know how the administration could be wrong in this case... They did so only because they knew the SC would overturn it Vood. It's a lot like the "Ethics" reform crap.."Oh we WANT to, but we just cant get the votes to do it" Same Shit different day with those scumbags. I don't see how the SC can legislate funding however. They can mandate that it must be funded... but I don't know how they can get away with demanding more funding.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 6:35:12 AM EDT
[#23]
Defund the court to pay for the schools!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 6:39:26 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh....... Considering that financial issues are the bailiwick of the legislature, and that the courts are there only to determine if the Legislature acted LEGALLY (not necessarily WISELY), then I can't immediately see what's wrong with their position. If SCOTUS took the same position after Obama & Co. raised income taxes to 110% of income, I'd agree with them. After all, the power to tax is inherent to Congress. Whether what they do wise things in terms of taxation is a matter for the electorate. Did I miss something somewhere? The legislature in NJ is the one who cut it the funding... Unless you're saying you don't know how the administration could be wrong in this case... They did so only because they knew the SC would overturn it Vood. It's a lot like the "Ethics" reform crap.."Oh we WANT to, but we just cant get the votes to do it" Same Shit different day with those scumbags. I don't see how the SC can legislate funding however. They can mandate that it must be funded... but I don't know how they can get away with demanding more funding.... School budgets have been a scam for decades. EVERY year the School budget got voted down by the taxpayers, and every year the BoE wne to the state, and suddenly the SAME budget that was denied was mandated by the State. I dont have a problem with the teachers themselves, most of the ones i know work their asses off, it's the Administrators that are the problem, as well as the NJEA, who Lobby to save Administrator jobs...even if it costs Actual TEACHER layoffs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 6:40:45 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
School budgets have been a scam for decades. EVERY year the School budget got voted down by the taxpayers, and every year the BoE wne to the state, and suddenly the SAME budget that was denied was mandated by the State. I dont have a problem with the teachers themselves, most of the ones i know work their asses off, it's the Administrators that are the problem, as well as the NJEA, who Lobby to save Administrator jobs...even if it costs Actual TEACHER layoffs. Its one thing for the state to get involved... another if the court does. At least with the state (in theory) they can be 'voted out' (hah!). The judges however.. not so much.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 6:45:51 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Maybe if there wasn't 3 different public schools in every 1/2 square mile town in this state, it wouldn't be an issue. I mean seriously, if you drive up and down the highways of this state, you'll go through 10 different towns for every 30 miles you drive. Each one of those towns has its own school district, superintendent, 3 to 5 public schools, a principal for each, some even have a superintendent and principal for each, a set of teachers in every room, building maintenance personnel, extra curricular expenses... I'm all for shared services in this state, but Police and Fire is not where it should start. It should start where it will have the most financial impact and the least negative impact on the tax payers and that's clearly in the dam schools. The employees are paid more, they have higher levels of benefits and the costs to maintain the redundant system is exponential. Combine the school districts, reduce the amount of actual buildings, reduce the amount of staff and you ultimately reduce the amount of redundant funding. *snip* Nail meet hammer +1 Privatize public education. Competitive bids every 5 years to provide education services to the districts, will get the cost down. Under the over site of elected school boards( for better or worse). Free market forces will if unfettered produce a equal or better outcome. Or just issue vouchers. My town spends 12k a year, Newark 25k, catholic school in area 4k. Test scores at Catholic school are way better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 6:53:31 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm starting to think countries where the Military is considered the guardian of last resort of the national interest is better than our system where the Courts occupy that role. This is EXACTLY the sort of thinking that precedes a military coup in many countries around the world. Steve All other things being equal, I'd rather have the Military forcing tax increases to buy more fighter jets and tanks than the Courts forcing tax increases to finance public sector pensions. Both are shitty though. I am having a hard time believing that, even though it's in black and white and right in front of my face. If you really believe that, I'm sure there is a country that would welcome taking your property by force, so please move there. Let us know how that works out for you, if you can still afford to post on ARFCOM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 6:55:04 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
School budgets have been a scam for decades. EVERY year the School budget got voted down by the taxpayers, and every year the BoE wne to the state, and suddenly the SAME budget that was denied was mandated by the State. I dont have a problem with the teachers themselves, most of the ones i know work their asses off, it's the Administrators that are the problem, as well as the NJEA, who Lobby to save Administrator jobs...even if it costs Actual TEACHER layoffs. Its one thing for the state to get involved... another if the court does. At least with the state (in theory) they can be 'voted out' (hah!). The judges however.. not so much.. Term Limits for Superior, Apellate, and State SC Judges would be a start. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 7:04:03 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Don't worry, economics will take care of this. Even Supreme Courts can't declare the laws of economics null and void. Eventually, yes. It's pretty much like them making a ruling on gravity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 7:11:39 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm starting to think countries where the Military is considered the guardian of last resort of the national interest is better than our system where the Courts occupy that role. This is EXACTLY the sort of thinking that precedes a military coup in many countries around the world. Steve All other things being equal, I'd rather have the Military forcing tax increases to buy more fighter jets and tanks than the Courts forcing tax increases to finance public sector pensions. Both are shitty though. I am having a hard time believing that, even though it's in black and white and right in front of my face. If you really believe that, I'm sure there is a country that would welcome taking your property by force, so please move there. Let us know how that works out for you, if you can still afford to post on ARFCOM. Didn't read the second sentence, did you? Although, from what I've read, military spending is actually the best form of .gov spending in terms of 'stimulating' the economy - it results in a greater impact on GDP Growth in terms of the $$$ appropriated. Personally, I hate all tax increases. They've been proven ineffective in terms of checking deficit spending, both in static and dynamic terms - in other words, .gov, in anticipation of increased revenue, increases spending beyond the static estimate of the revenue increase plus the fact that the static estimate of the revenue increases are invariably wrong because of the dymanic (read 'negative') effect on economic growth. Seriously, are there people here who believe the Court is doing the right thing for NJ, legalistic arguments aside? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 7:21:08 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Didn't read your own sentence, did you? You said you would "rather", and I never said it was not shitty.Quoted: Didn't read the second sentence, did you?Quoted: I am having a hard time believing that, even though it's in black and white and right in front of my face. If you really believe that, I'm sure there is a country that would welcome taking your property by force, so please move there.Quoted: All other things being equal, I'd rather have the Military forcing tax increases to buy more fighter jets and tanks than the Courts forcing tax increases to finance public sector pensions.Quoted: This is EXACTLY the sort of thinking that precedes a military coup in many countries around the world.I'm starting to think countries where the Military is considered the guardian of last resort of the national interest is better than our system where the Courts occupy that role. Steve Both are shitty though. Let us know how that works out for you, if you can still afford to post on ARFCOM. Although, from what I've read, military spending is actually the best form of .gov spending in terms of 'stimulating' the economy - it results in a greater impact on GDP Growth in terms of the $$$ appropriated. Personally, I hate all tax increases. They've been proven ineffective in terms of checking deficit spending, both in static and dynamic terms - in other words, .gov, in anticipation of increased revenue, increases spending beyond the static estimate of the revenue increase plus the fact that the static estimate of the revenue increases are invariably wrong because of the dymanic (read 'negative') effect on economic growth. Seriously, are there people here who believe the Court is doing the right thing for NJ, legalistic arguments aside? I'd rather not have the military acting as revenue collectors. What happens when the military decides that instead of taking your liquid cash, they'll take your physical property instead? No thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 7:34:25 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Personally, I hate all tax increases. They've been proven ineffective in terms of checking deficit spending, both in static and dynamic terms - in other words, .gov, in anticipation of increased revenue, increases spending beyond the static estimate of the revenue increase plus the fact that the static estimate of the revenue increases are invariably wrong because of the dymanic (read 'negative') effect on economic growth. Seriously, are there people here who believe the Court is doing the right thing for NJ, legalistic arguments aside?
I'd rather not have the military acting as revenue collectors. What happens when the military decides that instead of taking your liquid cash, they'll take your physical property instead? No thanks. Meh, my point still stands - both suck, but military spending is much more useful, both in direct terms of the function of the goods bought and the indirect economic impact of the purchase. I'm fascinated at how all of these insolvent states are going to get themselves out of the box they've put themselves in - the bill is going to come due within the next 5 years (if not sooner) and something is going to give. I have a sinking feeling it's going to be some form of Federal Bail Out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 7:37:43 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm starting to think countries where the Military is considered the guardian of last resort of the national interest is better than our system where the Courts occupy that role. This is EXACTLY the sort of thinking that precedes a military coup in many countries around the world. Steve All other things being equal, I'd rather have the Military forcing tax increases to buy more fighter jets and tanks than the Courts forcing tax increases to finance public sector pensions. Both are shitty though. I am having a hard time believing that, even though it's in black and white and right in front of my face. If you really believe that, I'm sure there is a country that would welcome taking your property by force, so please move there. Let us know how that works out for you, if you can still afford to post on ARFCOM. Didn't read the second sentence, did you? Although, from what I've read, military spending is actually the best form of .gov spending in terms of 'stimulating' the economy - it results in a greater impact on GDP Growth in terms of the $$$ appropriated. Personally, I hate all tax increases. They've been proven ineffective in terms of checking deficit spending, both in static and dynamic terms - in other words, .gov, in anticipation of increased revenue, increases spending beyond the static estimate of the revenue increase plus the fact that the static estimate of the revenue increases are invariably wrong because of the dymanic (read 'negative') effect on economic growth. Seriously, are there people here who believe the Court is doing the right thing for NJ, legalistic arguments aside?
This is the SAME court that ruled in contradiction to the State Constitution allowing a LITERAL last-minute candidate substitution when the Incumbent Democrat Candidate's poll numbers showed that he COULD NOT WIN....and allowed Lautenberg to replace him on the ballot, even though it was patently Illegal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 7:44:25 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
This is the SAME court that ruled in contradiction to the State Constitution allowing a LITERAL last-minute candidate substitution when the Incumbent Democrat Candidate's poll numbers showed that he COULD NOT WIN....and allowed Lautenberg to replace him on the ballot, even though it was patently Illegal. Exactly. The way people are tacitly defending the Courts in NJ as custodians of the Rule of Law don't really get it. They're political players exercising power to defend their interests. And they're doing it in a manner that will harm the State's economy in the long - and very possibly short - run. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 7:48:57 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Personally, I hate all tax increases. They've been proven ineffective in terms of checking deficit spending, both in static and dynamic terms - in other words, .gov, in anticipation of increased revenue, increases spending beyond the static estimate of the revenue increase plus the fact that the static estimate of the revenue increases are invariably wrong because of the dymanic (read 'negative') effect on economic growth. Seriously, are there people here who believe the Court is doing the right thing for NJ, legalistic arguments aside?
I'd rather not have the military acting as revenue collectors. What happens when the military decides that instead of taking your liquid cash, they'll take your physical property instead? No thanks. Meh, my point still stands - both suck, but military spending is much more useful, both in direct terms of the function of the goods bought and the indirect economic impact of the purchase. I'm fascinated at how all of these insolvent states are going to get themselves out of the box they've put themselves in - the bill is going to come due within the next 5 years (if not sooner) and something is going to give. I have a sinking feeling it's going to be some form of Federal Bail Out. Too many electoral votes at stake not to bail out NJ, CA and IL. Right now, the plan is more bond sales, guarenteed by federal bond insurance, so the Feds are effectively co-signing the bonds of California, right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 7:53:29 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm starting to think countries where the Military is considered the guardian of last resort of the national interest is better than our system where the Courts occupy that role. This is EXACTLY the sort of thinking that precedes a military coup in many countries around the world. Steve All other things being equal, I'd rather have the Military forcing tax increases to buy more fighter jets and tanks than the Courts forcing tax increases to finance public sector pensions. Both are shitty though. I am having a hard time believing that, even though it's in black and white and right in front of my face. If you really believe that, I'm sure there is a country that would welcome taking your property by force, so please move there. Let us know how that works out for you, if you can still afford to post on ARFCOM. Didn't read the second sentence, did you? Although, from what I've read, military spending is actually the best form of .gov spending in terms of 'stimulating' the economy - it results in a greater impact on GDP Growth in terms of the $$$ appropriated. Personally, I hate all tax increases. They've been proven ineffective in terms of checking deficit spending, both in static and dynamic terms - in other words, .gov, in anticipation of increased revenue, increases spending beyond the static estimate of the revenue increase plus the fact that the static estimate of the revenue increases are invariably wrong because of the dymanic (read 'negative') effect on economic growth. Seriously, are there people here who believe the Court is doing the right thing for NJ, legalistic arguments aside?
This is the SAME court that ruled in contradiction to the State Constitution allowing a LITERAL last-minute candidate substitution when the Incumbent Democrat Candidate's poll numbers showed that he COULD NOT WIN....and allowed Lautenberg to replace him on the ballot, even though it was patently Illegal. That's exactly right. and I forgot about that. That court ruled for Lautenberg and it was VERY questionable legally from all I read. And more amazing is the idiots in NJ voted in Lautenberg. I'm beginning to understand members feelings when they say "fu** NJ, let them wallow in their stupidity". |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 7:54:01 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Personally, I hate all tax increases. They've been proven ineffective in terms of checking deficit spending, both in static and dynamic terms - in other words, .gov, in anticipation of increased revenue, increases spending beyond the static estimate of the revenue increase plus the fact that the static estimate of the revenue increases are invariably wrong because of the dymanic (read 'negative') effect on economic growth. Seriously, are there people here who believe the Court is doing the right thing for NJ, legalistic arguments aside?
I'd rather not have the military acting as revenue collectors. What happens when the military decides that instead of taking your liquid cash, they'll take your physical property instead? No thanks. Meh, my point still stands - both suck, but military spending is much more useful, both in direct terms of the function of the goods bought and the indirect economic impact of the purchase. I'm fascinated at how all of these insolvent states are going to get themselves out of the box they've put themselves in - the bill is going to come due within the next 5 years (if not sooner) and something is going to give. I have a sinking feeling it's going to be some form of Federal Bail Out. Too many electoral votes at stake not to bail out NJ, CA and IL. Right now, the plan is more bond sales, guarenteed by federal bond insurance, so the Feds are effectively co-signing the bonds of California, right now. Financing current obligations through bond issuance is so wrong-headed and corrupt. We couldn't buy F22s but we could finance 'Build America Bonds'.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 7:57:56 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is the SAME court that ruled in contradiction to the State Constitution allowing a LITERAL last-minute candidate substitution when the Incumbent Democrat Candidate's poll numbers showed that he COULD NOT WIN....and allowed Lautenberg to replace him on the ballot, even though it was patently Illegal. Exactly. The way people are tacitly defending the Courts in NJ as custodians of the Rule of Law don't really get it. They're political players exercising power to defend their interests. And they're doing it in a manner that will harm the State's economy in the long - and very possibly short - run. Well, they ARE in theory supposed to be exactly that. Problem is here in NJ, the Courts, especially the Supreme Court have become as politically biased as the legislature. 75% of the states problems boil down to ONE THING Corruption at the state level. Deal with THAT, and everything else will fall into place. Laying off the Roadside Assistance guy on the Turnpike who's making < $50K isnt much of a savings when you compare it with a Mayor, who is also a County Freeholder, and a State Assemblyman, who serves on umpteen different commissions and boards..all to the tune of $350K per year in salary and benefits.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 8:03:08 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
That's exactly right. and I forgot about that. That court ruled for Lautenberg and it was VERY questionable legally from all I read. And more amazing is the idiots in NJ voted in Lautenberg. I'm beginning to understand members feelings when they say "fu** NJ, let them wallow in their stupidity". At the time it was going on, My partner and I, both rather vocal conservatives, were talking to one of our County Freeloaders, who at one time was our municipal judge. REALLY nice guy, even if he is a Libtard. Anyway we were going back and forth on the whole Torricelli/lautenberg theng, with him trying to justify it, when i finally said "Ok Al, Lets turn the tables..it was a REPUBLICAN in the exact same situation..The what??" his answer: " We'd be in court because they would be violating the State Constitution". he just COULDNT see the hypocrisy in that  Se we get Frank Lautenberg Redux....another Hypocrite. His first campaign for US Senate, he publicly humiliated his femake opponent by implying that she was Senile and too old to handle the Job...yet now, as he is almost 20 years OLDER than she was at that time, suddenly HE can handle it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 8:06:28 AM EDT
[#40]
Jesus Christ AJ.........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 8:11:06 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Jesus Christ AJ......... We've cot a couple of thousand Cops, Firefighters, Teachers, and Municipal workers unemployed, MORE have taken pay and benefit cuts to STOP layoffs (Despite what the Brain trust here would have you believe)..guess how much the POLITICIANS have given up, or Cut. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 8:12:45 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jesus Christ AJ......... We've cot a couple of thousand Cops, Firefighters, Teachers, and Municipal workers unemployed, MORE have taken pay and benefit cuts to STOP layoffs (Despite what the Brain trust here would have you believe)..guess how much the POLITICIANS have given up, or Cut. Please STOP........I can't take any more.........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 8:28:40 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
NJ Constitution says the schools must get funding as the court see's fit. Isn't NY similar? State pensions guaranteed in the state constitution or something to that effect? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 8:31:55 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is the SAME court that ruled in contradiction to the State Constitution allowing a LITERAL last-minute candidate substitution when the Incumbent Democrat Candidate's poll numbers showed that he COULD NOT WIN....and allowed Lautenberg to replace him on the ballot, even though it was patently Illegal. Exactly. The way people are tacitly defending the Courts in NJ as custodians of the Rule of Law don't really get it. They're political players exercising power to defend their interests. And they're doing it in a manner that will harm the State's economy in the long - and very possibly short - run. When people say "Activist Judges".. they have to look no further than NJ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 8:45:24 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
PLEASE somebody buy my house!!!!!! I need out, Ive had to put up with this garbage state filled with pudding headed voters. This state has been so damn screwed. Its run by incompetent corrupt statist ball lickers. What the court basically is doing is substituting their own version of reallity. If Christie was the great bloated hope that people claim; he would declare NJ BANKRUPT, which it has been for years. Then renegotiate all contracts and void pensions. Yes go screw if you collect a pension as a NJ state worker or teacher. Im sick of paying for you to run off to florida and collect 65k a year. Yes you worked 35hrs a week for 20years and had 2 months vacation each year . Heres a cookie, go fuck yourself. Sovereign immunity; no bankruptcy needed. Sovereign immunity: the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution; hence the saying, "the king (or queen) can do no wrong". In many cases, states have waived this immunity to allow for suits... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 9:02:05 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So the courts are saying we dont care what the state can or cannot afford, you must do this or that? The law's the law. Just because a court rules something doesn't make it the law or in conformance with the law. Unless Christie violated the State Constitution or something he should just tell the court to go screw itself if he loses the case. In banana republics. In our country, "just because a court rules on something" does in fact make it the law and in conformance with the law. Judicial supremacy is supported by absolutely nothing other than judicial opinion. If it so fundamental, how did the Framers manage to leave it out of the Constitution? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 9:06:12 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Well, they ARE in theory supposed to be exactly that. Problem is here in NJ, the Courts, especially the Supreme Court have become as politically biased as the legislature. 75% of the states problems boil down to ONE THING Corruption at the state level. Deal with THAT, and everything else will fall into place. Laying off the Roadside Assistance guy on the Turnpike who's making < $50K isnt much of a savings when you compare it with a Mayor, who is also a County Freeholder, and a State Assemblyman, who serves on umpteen different commissions and boards..all to the tune of $350K per year in salary and benefits.. That's just simply awful. Seems like being a NJ politician is a rather lucrative position. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 9:07:31 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So the courts are saying we dont care what the state can or cannot afford, you must do this or that? The law's the law. Just because a court rules something doesn't make it the law or in conformance with the law. Unless Christie violated the State Constitution or something he should just tell the court to go screw itself if he loses the case. In banana republics. In our country, "just because a court rules on something" does in fact make it the law and in conformance with the law. Judicial supremacy is supported by absolutely nothing other than judicial opinion. If it so fundamental, how did the Framers manage to leave it out of the Constitution? Marbury vs. Madison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 9:08:44 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, they ARE in theory supposed to be exactly that. Problem is here in NJ, the Courts, especially the Supreme Court have become as politically biased as the legislature. 75% of the states problems boil down to ONE THING Corruption at the state level. Deal with THAT, and everything else will fall into place. Laying off the Roadside Assistance guy on the Turnpike who's making < $50K isnt much of a savings when you compare it with a Mayor, who is also a County Freeholder, and a State Assemblyman, who serves on umpteen different commissions and boards..all to the tune of $350K per year in salary and benefits.. That's just simply awful. Seems like being a NJ politician is a rather lucrative position. it's been said that "All you need to do is get elected Once"...and you're set for Life. Oh and you have to be a Dem...(Not that nj republicans are for the most pat THAT much better) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 9:09:27 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Financing current obligations through bond issuance is so wrong-headed and corrupt. We couldn't buy F22s but we could finance 'Build America Bonds'.
Even blatantly corrupt Keynsian spending is one thing (for example, the "Green Zone" money that Emmanual Cleaver is giving his voting block in his district) but whole idea of just floating a bond to keep the lights on and the prisons locked is worse than evil, its stupid. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
