Free Republic

That has the facts completely reversed. The early campaign was completely on topic by Lonegan and completely dismissive by Christie, who acted as though anointed by the bosses.

Since the bosses in NJ appear to have the same goals regardless of party, I’d be against anyone openly claimed by them regardless of party.

When Christie realized he really had a fight on his hands, he came out slinging and has not stopped to wipe his hands since then. Only recently has he become something, and that something is a weak “me-too” candidate.

I don’t know what campaign you’ve been watching, but it’s not the one in NJ.

Even now, you can’t tell me what Christie’s plans are on tax cuts, spending cuts, encouraging business, stemming the exodus of high-earners, dealing with COAH, Abbott, NJ Supreme Court, illegal aliens, gun ownership. If you can say anything about Christie that can be documented, it will be generalities and unsupported rhetoric.

We are all grown up now, and no longer desire our elected officials to pat us on the head and reassure us that, while they don’t know what they are doing, it will all be for the best. That’s Christie. That’s been the last dozen politicians in both NJ and the national scene, including our Senators. THAT’s OVER!

That’s bunk and right out of the Christie playbook of lies, big lies and whoppers. And, of course, the Big Lie about the 70% which includes about 25% who expect benefits from filing and have NO taxes to pay.

Since the story was about flat vs “progressive” or “graduated” tax, I don’t know why you’d toss that in anyway.

What’s far more germane in my view is that Christie has had only one stint in elective office, during which he raised taxes, for which he was tossed out by the voters. Why should we wait for that sorry pol to mislead the whole state and have to wait 6 years to pull him out?

BTW, I teach a course at BCC. Today I asked my class if they knew what a progressive or flat tax was. None knew. Some people hear “flat” and they think “head”.

As a follow up, it is just one tax that has been talked about here, but the major tax burdening NJ residents is a property tax that is probably the highest in the nation. The income tax was supposed to relieve a portion of that in support of education and has not done so. The sales tax was also supposedly enacted to help education but has also just been absorbed into the general funds.

Lonegan’s plan addresses both these issues by apportioning the income tax equally to all school districts, thus relieving 20% of the property tax. That’s an across the board reduction with some gravitas. Moreover, that real reduction is in place of a hokey “rebate” that is NOT a rebate, but merely a separately borrowed sum that is distributed each year around election time to get the governor’s name in front of voters.

If a company is found to be paying a dividend without the income/free cash flow to support it, and in fact is paying the dividend with borrowed money, the BOD will be tossed. If a mutual fund is paying dividends not justified by its NAV, it’s called fraud. So if NJ keeps paying a “rebate” that is borrowed at some interest, AND is not justified by the state’s real income, what else is there to call it but a gimmick? It could be called fraud, and Jon Corzine and Chris Christie support it.

Most of your commentary reveals a belief in the politics of envy. Which branch of conservatism did you say you represent?

It is important to remain civil and I will do my best, but you sound like you’ve gotten into the wrong tent and are rattling around disruptively.

Since we don’t agree at all on the concept of flat versus “progressive” income taxes, is there common ground on cutting the size and cost of government? Christie has paid lip service in the form of “waste and corruption”. Was there an actual plan in there somewhere, or was his “across the board” cutting, unsustainable in an unchanged expense environment, mere rhetoric as I suspect, or code words for taxes on something else you don’t currently expect or call taxes?

I don’t expect you to speak authoritatively for Christie, so perhaps you could provide a link?

The effect is twofold. One, on the $20,000/yr income, it is a tax of about $11/week, and it broadens the tax base, generally considered a fair tax rationale. On the other hand, I’m not sure why YOU don’t “like” the tax plan and would appreciate more information, since you’ve posed it in a personal way, yet dealt with the issue like an opposing politician.

I said twofold and there were two, but related. The real second is the one of skin in the game, by which I mean that a taxpayer is now among those whose opinions are validated by their participation: they will be interested in seeing costs cut, government spending decreased so that the flat tax can be lowered until there is no income tax at all.

Meantime, the upwardly mobile among the $20K/ann workers will be looking forward to the day when the difference between the flat tax and the current tax is in their favor and with businesses returning to the “open for business” New Jersey, that day will no longer be infinitely far off.

As to what is fair, that is a pretty fundamental issue, and within the framework of Conservatism or even conservatism, there is not much from Das Kapital (where the progressive income tax was heavily promoted as fair) that we can agree on.

I think it’s already fair that a person who earns $500,000 pays 2.9%, or $14,500 to just NEW JERSEY. It is not up to you or the government to regulate the oeuvre of wealth-creation as a matter of public policy, and I sincerely doubt there will be any personal benefit to that taxpayer at all as a result of that tax.

One more thing we strongly disagree on is the Corzine would love to run against Lonegan. We got sold that bill of goods with the media selection of McCain “FOR” us. Not buying it again.

Henry V, after Agincourt. We need the win first.

I have not heard a single anti-Christie ad from Corzine, and Christie has run the most dishonest and misleading campaign I have watched closely: a presumptuous campaign of an anointed candidate, and after discovering it was INDEED a race, a rank negative lie. To the extent he has proposed anything they were generalities that only under pressure finally gave way to Lonegan-like claims in some areas after Lonegan led the way. We don’t need any more people who want to run on the basis that they would do what’s good for us after they got in office and figured it out.

We have been (mis)led that way before, both in the state and on the national level. We are not children to be coddled and handled and we are not following those kinds of would-be leaders any more. I am not, in any case.

It is a powerful mistake to vote for the lesser of two evils as would be the case with Corzine-Christie. In both cases, you end up with an evil. It’s not a joke. It’s not the Survivor/Bachelor/Bachelorette/Dancing with the stars...it’s not Family Feud: we are voting for the best person to be governor, not as a guess about who else will vote. Lonegan is that best man.