My new hero strikes again

Originally posted by sh76
I heard it on the radio. I don't have a transcript of what she said and I don't remember the exact words. She said something about how the government, by freezing her pay, wasn't compensating her fairly for all of her education and experience.

The sanctimonious gall allegation is not based on the words she used. It's based on her sense of entitlement to a ra ...[text shortened]... ipping the teacher and the other half wishing Christie was their governor or President.

She said something about how the government, by freezing her pay, wasn't compensating her fairly for all of her education and experience.

Maybe she's right. It's entirely possible and it's not galling for her to say so. It's also entirely possible that despite that, freezing teacher's pay might be a necessary thing.

It's based on her sense of entitlement to a raise at taxpayers' expense when everyone else is struggling to stay employed and dealing with drastically reduced public services in the state

Why is it gall for someone to feel that she's entitled to something that her contract may actually say she is. I don't think she should be prevented from getting a raise just because others are struggling though - whether it's at the taxpayer's expense or not.

It's based on her assumption that her sense of "fairness" and her entitlement to compensation for her education trumps the economic realities as they actually exist.

I haven't watched the video (can't right now), but her entitlement to compensation doesn't necessarily trump economic realities, but there's nothing wrong with her fighting for her rights so she isn't just run roughshod.


Of course, none of this means that Chistie is less of a faeces distribution orifice.

I'm not saying that she's being the most reasonable person in the world. Heck, I think she might be galling and a horrible person herself. I would expect my governor to be better than that and not act like an arse when he's talking to his constituents though.

Of course, he could have said something like "Well, we know that you are a valuable resource for your children and the community and you're right that you deserve to be compensated generously. Unfortunately we have to make some very difficult decisions and have to make some sacrifices now in order to prevent even worse sacrifices later" etc.. etc.. etc..

Now that was a bit longwinded... but it had less than 100% excrement content and wasn't what Christie did - which was essentially give her the finger.

Someone making $83k per year hardly has any right to complain about pay.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
But Christie has actual proposals and budgets that he's trying to get passed. New Jersey's legislature isn't exactly a bastion of Rush Limbaugh fans. His rudeness isn't furthering his cause and might actually end up sabotaging his efforts.

But irregardless -- if Christie is able to actually get New Jersey's budget back into balance, he will have prefo ...[text shortened]... understand the need for making tough decisions, I really don't care how he gets it done.

Christie's budgets and proposals reflect the extreme right wing agenda of punishing certain occupations that they don't like, rewarding others that they do and refusing to tax the wealthy an equitable amount. A doctrinaire refusal to even consider any tax increases is hardly a serious way to close a budget deficit nor is it "making tough decisions". He's simply pandering to the uninformed prejudices of a certain group of voters with his rudeness directed at a constituent (I can guess what our right wing friends would say if Obama had acted in the same manner).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Someone making $83k per year hardly has any right to complain about pay.

That's what the right wingers are counting on in this discussion. But Christie has categorically refused to raise taxes during this budget crisis on incomes far higher than that. So the wealthy are not expected to sacrifice while long tenured teachers are.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's what the right wingers are counting on in this discussion. But Christie has categorically refused to raise taxes during this budget crisis on incomes far higher than that. So the wealthy are not expected to sacrifice while long tenured teachers are.

False dilemma.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
False dilemma.

OHHH, brilliant point!

One example of a fairly high paid teacher is not a good case to further this initiative. There are plenty of teachers making far less that this IS going to cripple.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Christie's budgets and proposals reflect the extreme right wing agenda of punishing certain occupations that they don't like, rewarding others that they do and refusing to tax the wealthy an equitable amount. A doctrinaire refusal to even consider any tax increases is hardly a serious way to close a budget deficit nor is it "making tough decisions". He's ...[text shortened]... (I can guess what our right wing friends would say if Obama had acted in the same manner).

if New Jersey's recent democratic governors (McGreevey and Corzine) had taken the necessary tough steps, the budget would have been balanced and Christie wouldn't have had to dish out the bad-tasting medicine. Perhaps Christie's medicine is aimed at an occupation that democrats favor, but at least he's willing to dish out something that doesn't reek of high fructose corn syrup.

But there is no question that Christie will be facing the fight of his life. New Jersey's voters are generally no fans of extreme right wing agendas. This is not Texas. We're predominantly the sorts of people that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck like to make fun of.

But the guantlet is on the ground. Those who don't like Christie's offerings are perfectly free to offer their own ill-tasting brew. Perhaps as you have suggested, someone might suggest a pay freeze for police. Someone else may suggest raising tolls. Someone else might suggest raising the income tax. But at least we've gotten away from the same old do-nothing kool-aid that McGreevy and Corzine were offering.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
if New Jersey's recent democratic governors (McGreevey and Corzine) had taken the necessary tough steps, the budget would have been balanced and Christie wouldn't have had to dish out the bad-tasting medicine. Perhaps Christie's medicine is aimed at an occupation that democrats favor, but at least he's willing to dish out something that doesn't reek of hi ...[text shortened]... en away from the same old do-nothing kool-aid that McGreevy and Corzine were offering.

Perhaps you missed it, but if you check some websites relating to news around late 2008, you might find that there was this little thing called a collapse of the US financial system. This led to the Great Recession which busted the budgets of virtually all US states which even slightly attempt to provide services to their population. Neither McGreevey or Corzine were responsible for this though some of the people that Christie is hellbent on protecting from responsible tax increases were.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's what the right wingers are counting on in this discussion. But Christie has categorically refused to raise taxes during this budget crisis on incomes far higher than that. So the wealthy are not expected to sacrifice while long tenured teachers are.

As usual you are talking nonsense. The 'wealthy' will not only continue (rightly) to pay more in taxes than the less wealthy, but will usually suffer substantial capital losses in an economic downturn since any investments they possess will immediately lose value.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Perhaps you missed it, but if you check some websites relating to news around late 2008, you might find that there was this little thing called a collapse of the US financial system. This led to the Great Recession which busted the budgets of virtually all US states which even slightly attempt to provide services to their population. Neither McGreevey or ...[text shortened]... some of the people that Christie is hellbent on protecting from responsible tax increases were.

New Jersey's budget weaknesses have existed for many years. It dates back at least to Whitman's unpaid for income tax cuts in the mid 1990's. Pretty much ever since, it's become an annual ritual for everyone to complain about how high the property taxes are, and about how we need to take care of the state's structural budget deficits. But it's also been an annual ritual for governors to wave magic wands that promise tax cuts and-or spending increases to everyone.

The recent economic crisis definitely hasn't helped matters. But it simply is driving home the reasons why previous administrations should have been taking responsible action. Perhaps McGreevey or Corzine could have proposed a major increase to the state's income tax or gas tax. But that would've taken guts. Guts neither of those two clowns had.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
New Jersey's budget weaknesses have existed for many years. It dates back at least to Whitman's unpaid for income tax cuts in the mid 1990's. Pretty much ever since, it's become an annual ritual for everyone to complain about how high the property taxes are, and about how we need to take care of the state's structural budget deficits. But it's also been a ...[text shortened]... ome tax or gas tax. But that would've taken guts. Guts neither of those two clowns had.

Well thank goodness Christie has had the "guts" to "have proposed a major increase to the state's income tax or gas tax".

Oh, he hasn't?😞

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
As usual you are talking nonsense. The 'wealthy' will not only continue (rightly) to pay more in taxes than the less wealthy, but will usually suffer substantial capital losses in an economic downturn since any investments they possess will immediately lose value.

The wealthy in the US are grossly undertaxed and some of their major sources of income (like capital gains and dividends) are taxed at lower rates or are largely exempted from taxes at all.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Not in ChristieWorld: http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/politics/91330469_Christie_asks_police_for_few_pay_sacrifices.html

Okay; take one point from him.

But he's still got a bunch in the bank as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by sh76
Okay; take one point from him.

But he's still got a bunch in the bank as far as I'm concerned.

How many points does David Patterson get? He's proposed at least as far reaching cuts in state spending as Christie has.