Truck Yourself, This is the NEW Politics Thread

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 16:14:27

The Lt. Gov guy from Illinois dropped out unfortunately, robbing me of more laughter

And there's going to be a hell of a special to fill Murtha's seat

by **kopphanatic** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 16:36:21

traderdave wrote:
kopphanatic wrote:We deride education and science as "arrogance" or "elitism" and we celebrate people that have not really provided meaningful and positive contributions to American society

Absolutely. Your comment reminded me of the article below from Forbes I saw over the weekend highlighting eight millionaire high school dropouts; very responsible reporting there.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/30/millio ... naire.html

We graduate around 75% of our in-going freshman in this country and these guys are going around printing articles for the other 25% saying "Hey, no problem. Jay-Z didn't graduate HS and he is a megastar."

As for Palin, I saw MSNBC was broadcasting it and made a very conscious decision to avoid it at all costs. I am not the brightest bulb in the universe but I actually feel dumber after I listen to her for any more than, say, three seconds. I did catch a couple of highlights on Morning Joe this morning and it is soooooo obvious that for somebody who is supposed to be so "Mavrick-y" she panders like there is no tomorrow.

As to the crib notes, that HAS to be a photoshop job, right? I mean the most recent Republican Vice Presidential nominee did not actually write talking points on her hand with a Bic, did she?

I watched part of the speech and what frightened me was not so much the content of the speech(which I obviously disagreed with), but the fact that parts of the speech didn't make any sense. She can't string coherent sentences together, let alone deliver a good speech. I mean, this is something you usually learn in high school. She rambles and jumps back and forth from different topics with little to no evidence of planning or real thought. And 30-35% of the population seriously thinks she is qualified and capable of being the President of the United States.

I want the President to be a hell of a lot smarter than I am. I'm confident that I would be better prepared to be President than Sarah Palin, and I am by no means qualified or smart enough to hold anything close to that type of job.

by **cshort** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 17:37:56

VoxOrion wrote:I agree. A small number of voices are made hysterical by Sarah Palin, forcing the rest of us to endure them, and her, too often.

Amen. I wonder how long before she wears out her welcome with Fox.

by **Trent Steele** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 17:45:04

if someone could promise me that Palin will never have a job that impacts my life in any meaningful way, I'd be more than happy to ignore her existence. As long as that chance exists, however, (and a year ago there was at least a small chance that she could be the POTUS in the near future whether by virtue of McCain's death or incumbent succession), it's kinda hard for me to pretend she's a non-issue.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 17:46:44

Christie, lawmakers propose sweeping pension, health care changes for public employees

To my eyes, looks like a very promising step forward in sorting out the fiscal mess this state is in.

by **dajafi** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 18:01:55

Republican ideas in the hyper-partisan health care bill

At this point, I don't think it's well understood how many of the GOP's central health-care policy ideas have already been included as compromises in the health-care bill. But one good way is to look at the GOP's "Solutions for America" homepage, which lays out its health-care plan in some detail. It has four planks. All of them -- yes, you read that right -- are in the Senate health-care bill.
...
On Sunday, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell responded to Barack Obama's summit invitation by demanding Obama scrap the health-care reform bill entirely. This is the context for that demand. What they want isn't a bill that incorporates their ideas. They've already got that. What they want is no bill at all. And that's a hard position for the White House to compromise with.

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 18:08:01

Or "Republicans reject hyper-partisan health care bill despite concessions"

by **dajafi** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 18:33:22

Paranoid stylin redux:

On Friday night, Andrew Breitbart introduced “Generation Zero,” a splashy documentary that argues that the financial crisis was deliberately engineered by radical 1960s ideologues. Footage of dancing hippies and pictures of Saul Alinksy — the radical organizer who has become a household name among Tea Parties — were intercut with conservative writers like Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund, historian Victor Davis Hanson, and Manhattan Institute scholar Heather MacDonald, explaining how left-wing theorists had long wanted to bring down capitalism and replace it with a socialist society. In a breakout session on immigration policy, Tancredo explained to Tea Partiers that Democrats wanted immigration reform in order to enfranchise millions of new voters to put them in perpetual power.

PtK, wanna fess up?

by **pacino** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 18:45:40

What I find humourous is most Democrats are far closer to the ptk-style concept on healthcare, but realize it won't get done...so guess what they did? They put up this bill, which is the centrist option in my view. Perhaps they should've started with single-payer as a bluff, then whittled it down to this and we'd all be having a big hug right now while we all go get in line for the death panels.

by **pacino** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 18:50:07

jerseyhoya wrote:Christie, lawmakers propose sweeping pension, health care changes for public employees

To my eyes, looks like a very promising step forward in sorting out the fiscal mess this state is in.

I was expecting some crazy ideas on slashing pension benefits. These are fairly sane, and most states have these. I know PA does. Not sure why NJ is so far behind?

I do fear that the next PA gov and administration will further target state workers. Rendell was no friend to them, though the other option would've been FAR worse.

I'm imaging Sam Rohrer as governor and crying. At least even Republicans outside of Berks County think he's crazy.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 19:10:30

pacino wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Christie, lawmakers propose sweeping pension, health care changes for public employees

To my eyes, looks like a very promising step forward in sorting out the fiscal mess this state is in.

I was expecting some crazy ideas on slashing pension benefits. These are fairly sane, and most states have these. I know PA does. Not sure why NJ is so far behind?.

Jersey's gargantuan pension underfunding (among the highest per capita in the nation, if not THE highest) is bipartisan in origin & maintenance. There is certainly little harm, & probably much good, in pursuing Christie's sensible proposals, but Jerseyans should be clear that implementation of the entire set will mean the problem merely gets worse more slowly. These are the kinds of solutions that politicians run from at the first opportunity.

by **jerseyhoya** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 19:23:08

I'm not really an expert on how it got so bad, but I think the main culprits over the past 15 years or so (not sure if anything before that was relevant) were Whitman investing the pension funds in the stock market and projecting returns on the investment going forward as if the 1990s stock market bubble would last forever (and subsequently promising way too much in benefits not to mention losing a ton of money when the bubble burst), then McGreevey sold our tobacco settlement and used other state money as short term budget fixes while neglecting contributions to the pension funds, and finally Corzine continued down the path of McGreevey in neglecting contributions to the fund and making sure the public sector unions were happy at all turns.

by **phdave** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 20:00:40

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm not really an expert on how it got so bad, but I think the main culprits over the past 15 years or so (not sure if anything before that was relevant) were Whitman investing the pension funds in the stock market and projecting returns on the investment going forward as if the 1990s stock market bubble would last forever (and subsequently promising way too much in benefits not to mention losing a ton of money when the bubble burst), then McGreevey sold our tobacco settlement and used other state money as short term budget fixes while neglecting contributions to the pension funds, and finally Corzine continued down the path of McGreevey in neglecting contributions to the fund and making sure the public sector unions were happy at all turns.

Isn't it wonderful when the parties work together?

by **VoxOrion** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 20:59:54

pacino wrote:What I find humourous is most Democrats are far closer to the ptk-style concept on healthcare, but realize it won't get done...so guess what they did? They put up this bill, which is the centrist option in my view. Perhaps they should've started with single-payer as a bluff, then whittled it down to this and we'd all be having a big hug right now while we all go get in line for the death panels.

They might have started where they did because they didn't want to pass something that wouldn't have any public support. I mean, supposedly each representative is expected to vote on behalf of the will of the people they represent.

BAHAHAH I slay me. What I meant to say is each of these representatives votes in such a way to ensure their continued re-election into infinity.

But really, I think the "centrist option" ended up out there because of that.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 21:17:23

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm not really an expert on how it got so bad, but I think the main culprits over the past 15 years or so (not sure if anything before that was relevant) were Whitman investing the pension funds in the stock market and projecting returns on the investment going forward as if the 1990s stock market bubble would last forever (and subsequently promising way too much in benefits not to mention losing a ton of money when the bubble burst), then McGreevey sold our tobacco settlement and used other state money as short term budget fixes while neglecting contributions to the pension funds, and finally Corzine continued down the path of McGreevey in neglecting contributions to the fund and making sure the public sector unions were happy at all turns.

That's probably right. The last time NJ has a fiscally responsible governor, he was run out of town thanks to the wisdom of some local talk radio hosts on NJ 101.5

Yes, I'm talking about Jim Florio. He did maintain the state's AAA bond rating, but evidently that's not how you get re-elected.

by **dajafi** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 21:30:22

The true greatest political accomplishment ever would be to make fiscal responsibility, or good governance generally, an elections winner.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Feb 08, 2010 21:36:58

For any interested, a relatively decent short summary of the NJ pension calamity timeline, tho maybe too kind to Corzine, from Fortune mag.

by **pacino** » Tue Feb 09, 2010 00:36:31

I just realized how absurd it is that John McCain is somehow against Miranda rights and for special designations for special prisoners.

by **traderdave** » Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:30:31

Another issue that helped create NJ's pension problems is some of the structure of the system. If you read the article drsmooth posted (thank you) you'll notice that police/firemen get 50% of their salary after 20 years. My understand, which certainly is not perfect, is that education positions are paid out on their last three years of service.

So if a teacher works for 17 years at salaries between $50k and $70k and then applies for and gets a district superintendent position making $150k to $160k for their last three years, they get a pension based on the $155k average salary but they paid in most of their career at a $60k average salary. At 50% pension benefit that would amount to nearly $50k more a year in retirement. Again, that is just my understanding of how it works.

by **allentown** » Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:58:59

dajafi wrote:The true greatest political accomplishment ever would be to make fiscal responsibility, or good governance generally, an elections winner.

It just doesn't work. Fiscal responsibility, when your state, city, or nation is in a deep financial hole is to give $.98 of government for $1.00 of revenue and use the $.02 to get the books back in shape. The opposing politician will promise $1.10 of government for $1.00 in tax revenue. The spendthrift looks like the efficient manager, as the voters sense they are getting more for their tax $. Look at Clinton and Bush on the federal level. Clinton was giving $.99 of services for $1.00 of tax revenue, that is he was if you ignore stealing the social security service, yet Bush made this out to be an immoral action -- it's your money, why is the government taking more of it than it needs? Bush made a lot of voters happy by giving tax cuts, prescriptions meds, and two, at the time popular, wars without paying for them. He stretched the envelope and gave us about $1.15 of service for each tax $.

Archived

Truck Yourself, This is the NEW Politics Thread