Right on, JV.

And yet, Christie has an over 50% popularity rating in NJ. Without business staying in NJ, there is no middle-class. My biggest criticism of Christie is that he should have run for prez. We need him there.

now will you opine on the President with the same critical language?

Do you know how the legislature works? Do you think just because you are the Governor that you can just make it happen?

Similar questions can be asked of the President. Who will pay for the great expansion of government on his watch/ what has he done to improve the American economy? He said that if the economy isn't better in 3 years ,he will be a one term president. Why not focus on his lack of leadership in foreign affairs.Why not talk about ex governor Corzine who raised the sales tax,never funded the government employees pension fund and wanted to sell the Turnpike ansd Parkway to balance the budget?why not be honest and say that you don't like Republicans?

Obama hasn't done very well for any Americans. Should he be reelected, there will be less jobs, more government dependency and more division between the people. Transitory help is one thing, but Obama wants to bring back the Great Society Welfare programs which bred generations of dysfunctional people. This is what creates "us and them". And when the "them" grow to be more than the "us" we'll be like Greece and noone will be able to bail us out.

@ Bill. Bush left office with job losses in the range of 800,000/month. Obama has reversed that trend, reduced government spending and we have had 26 (?) consecutive months of private sector job growth. Of course it could be better, but not returning to what got us into this mess in the first place. It also could be worse. like the 25+ percent unemployment in Spain, etc. The "welfare" tag is Faux Noise.

Job loss occured in the last year under Bush with both houses of congress under democratic rule. Im not sure how ure measuring govt. spending, but national debt is now the highest it has been in history and with no economic relief to show for it.

Furthermore, rather than trying to unite the country, he's scapegoated anyone he can for the current failures in this country. He also denies people due credit for their own successes.

The only good thing that would come out of four more years of Obama is i think it will put the lie to big government being could for the people, any of the people. And that will only come after Obama has pitted americans against eachother.

Bill, we will never agree. So you want to excuse Bush's shortcomings due to his congress, but hold Obama personally responsible for everything thereafter. I'm sure you know that there have been an unprecedented number of filibusters under Obama. That includes the American Jobs Act which some analysts believed would have created about 2 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office also scored it as a net deficit reducer over ten years. Clearly we are in two different worlds about how we got here, who is responsible for much of it and who we trust to lead us forward.

Your "success" reference must be in reference to "you didn't build it" or just a general impression that Obama is a socialist. That's a weak Faux Noise angle.

http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/06/Federal_Spending_Bush_Vs_Obama.png

By the way Bill, are you a professional clown? There is a Bill Porterfield - at least on LinkedIn - who is a clown.

Yes we must vote for Obama,because he kept all his promises, turned the economy around, improved relationships with Muslims,surrounded himself with honest smart people, gave poor people hope and has a great plan for the future. Yes he truly represents "all " Americans and doesn't have any "rich" friends.All this while improving his golf game.
How could someone not vote for him? (pass the Kool-Aid please)

We may agree on where we want to go, but perhaps not on how we can get there. I dont know how you can refer to Obama's "You didnt build it." message as false noise. It's very revealing and in character with his other messages of redistribution and union pandering. He disdains, or has no faith, in individual initiative - which has been the main engine of almost all success throughout history.
Bush was never the sharpest tool in the shed but his main failures came with 2 democratic houses. Obama, having both houses his first two years and the senate now has spent hugely and we are in the slowest "recovery" in history.
The bigger point, at least to me, isnt which party is better but that government is best when it governs least. The public sector appears to be far more prone to corruption than the private sector. The public sector does not create wealth, but it can sure hamper the means to create it. I have never been more certain that four more years of Obama will be an American disaster.

Not a clown but a children's magician - The Great Linguini. But I've mostly retired from that and doing other things.

Of course the public sector creates wealth. What on earth are you talking about?

No, R.Mom, the public sector doesnt create wealth. It redistributes wealth from tax payers. It does not create wealth (profit). There are plenty of books on economics on Earth that explain that.

Bill,

You conflate wealth with money.

When people produce goods or services they produce wealth. Such happens irrespective of whether someone is producing goods or services in the private sector or in the public sector. Conversely, the social representation of wealth that is known as money can be obtained by people irrespective of whether they create wealth or not. For example, a person can win at a game of roulette in Atlantic city, thereby obtaining money whilst producing no goods or services. As such, a person can obtain wealth without producing wealth in either the public or the private sector.

Ridgewood Mom - a Webster's definition of wealth - property that has economic utility: a monetary value or an exchange value. Public sector services are funded through involuntary tax contributions of its citizens. It is not, objectively, wealth. It may or may not have value but it is not a freely exchanged commodity. Actually, gambling is the creation of wealth. Risk is the work done and freely exchanged for wealth.

Sorry Bill. Vocabulary improvement won't help you here.

It makes no sense to suggest that a government employee who goes to work at something is making nothing and only costing something? And, of course, it is no challenge to point out many many private sector actors who accumulate wealth without creating anything for society whatsoever. There is simply no intelligible correlation between private sector work and "wealth creation" that is in any way exclusive beyond the reach of the public sector.

You can be productive and work in the public sector. You can be productive and work in the private sector. You can be a bum and work in the public sector. You can be a bum and work in the private sector.

I know that you are reaching really hard to find that invisible hand Bill. But it just isn't there.

it may not make sense that something in the public sector can cost something but create nothing, but it happens with regularity. Government does not need to create a profit (wealth) to stay in business. Take a class in economics and learn the definition of wealth. also take one in etiquette, your sarcasm is disrespectful. I wont be responding any more. I have wealth to create.

You make a fine point about government not needing to make a profit to stay in business. And private businesses only need to create profits for themselves to stay in business, without necessarily creating any wealth. What's your point?

I do have some background in economics Bill. As usual, you hide behind personal attacks.

Zizi, I don't usually engage in numbnut rhetoric, but I feel that if Christie wants to dish it out like he is the newest cast member of Jersey Shore, he should take it as well. I am not against private schools and I am not against people making money honestly. I am against two (I'm being kind) faced Republicans who continue to squeeze the true middle class, but continue to live off of the fat: subsidies to oil, big business and the largest on of all, our military. Those would be "brave" and big changes. Not stripping away middle class jobs which would help us to get out of this recession. Romney wants to send us to war in Iran - he has never had skin in the game - dodger. Christie sending his kids to private school is fine, but I wish he has come skin in the game as well - that was part of my point. Sorry for the insults -I was strictly echoing back Christie's tone and anger.

Any i think many of the democrats are demagogues who think of government as being a business unto itself. How many NY politicians are being arrested or investigated for personal profit of sham non-profit groups. Planned Parenthood, was found to charge back to government it's costs by 500%. Charter schools across the country are making more educational gains with less money. But if you question the wisdom of government money for these groups you're accused of being selfish, elitist, racist, etc. Again, The Great Society which created huge welfare programs and progressive education reforms did far more harm than good for it's intended people.

Charter schools across the country are not making more educational gains with less money. On average, charter schools have more money then their mainstream competitors and are more selective in terms of which students they enroll. Yet even with these advantages they fare no better or worse, in terms of average performance on a national scale, then their mainstream counterparts.

Ridgewood Mom, you are absolutely incorrect. Charter schools receive no more funding than public schools, yet do not have the cost per teacher that union schools have. Charter schools have specialized in urban areas throughout the country where students have traditionally outperformed students of publics schools. if they dont perform well they are closed, unlike public schools. Charter schools dont pick their students, they are chosen by lottery. the amount of students that try to get into charter schools vs. the available seats speaks to their success.

... and the students who don't have parents who are dedicated and/or resourceful enough to play this charter school lottery end up where?

Average cost per pupil is slightly higher in NYC charter schools then in traditional public schools. http://gothamschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Screen-shot-2011-02-15-at-2.25.53-PM.png

Funding formulas for charter schools vary wildy but, importantly, there is a strong correlation between funding and success. The same correlation that exists within and between traditional public schools.

Charter schools are NOT more successful on average then traditional public schools. Not even by the standardized testing measures that have been created for the purpose of pushing them. In some cases they are. In more cases they aren't. http://www.data-first.org/questions/how-do-charter-schools-compare-to-regular-public-schools-in-student-performance/

Badly performing public schools ARE closed almost daily. Often even when they are doing a good job in consideration of their circumstances.

Bill, given your views on education I am starting to think that you are a fan of Barack Obama and Cory Booker. No?

yes, parents who care do put their kids into the charter school lottery. again an indication of their superiority. As far as the kids who have parents who dont care enough - it's too bad that the nation's welfare system that encourage mothers to have babies for financial gain. BTW, 50% of charter schools were graded "A" by the city vs. 25% of public schools. Additionally, charter schools educate a higher proportion of minorities as they specialize in disadvantaged areas. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/ny_charters_ace_another_test_OsWJspt79TVRsCTfqvQBDN

I dont know where you get ur info that dysfunctional public schools are closed every day. that's simply not true.

Im a fan of Cory Booker. Certainly not Obama who closed down D.C. charter schools and never saw a union set-up he didnt like.

FYI - i have no more time to respond to this two month blog. I have a job to do so the govt can confiscate more taxes from me.

Amen, its the hypocrisy that gets me ticked off!

Preston,

$250,000 per year is about five times the national average household income. Albeit, it is nowhere near Romney class, or the class which Governor Christie works for. But it is also nowhere near the middle.

Moreover, graduated tax rates do nothing to challenge the principle that a person with an income of $250,000 gets to take home less then a person at $300,000 and more then a person with an income of $200,000 or $150,000 or $100,000 or whatever. People with higher incomes get to be richer. No one has ever challenged this. Now, it may have made sense to feel a bit sorry for some of the more gentle aristocrats who were victims at the guillotine during the French revolution, but if you are simply complaining that there are such things as graduated income taxes then I am sorry for you. It makes no sense to regard persons who get to be wealthier as victims of some sort of tragic economic injustice just because there is a graduated income tax, or feel sorry for them just because the degree to which they get to be richer then everyone else is less extreme.

you say, "get to be wealthier" as if it's an entitlement they receive. I know from earlier posts you believe successful people have just succeeded in some scam but, by law, it's their money first, not the government's. While i understand the practicality of a graduated tax, it is not fair to charge some citizens more money for the same services they provide to other citizens.

Bill: "I know from earlier posts you believe successful people have just succeeded in some scam"

No I don't, nor have I ever implied as such in any posts anywhere. I have only ever argued, with regards to the topic, that being wealthier DOES NOT NECESSITATE that a person is more diligent, hard working, socially upstanding and contributing. You argue that being "successful" means doing better in the world. I argue that sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. I do NOT argue that it always doesn't.

So for me to prove that I am right, I need furnish only one single example of a case where one individual has obtained "success" without contributing much to anyone but himself. For you to prove that your position is the correct one, you must be able to successfully argue that every case everywhere in America in which someone is "successful" is a case in which they have done social good. Would you seriously care to test these two competing positions?

Bill: "but, by law, it's their money first, not the government's. While i understand the practicality of a graduated tax,"

Nonsense. Taxation is legally obligatory.

Ridgewood Mom, you have a short memory. A while back i mentioned how i came from a modest background in the Bronx and am doing well. you replied, im paraphrasing, how you love to hear when people have "beaten the hustle". We are speaking in generalizations, most people in the American system have earned their success.

To reply "nonsense" that money belongs to the earner first says everything about your world view, and a horrid one, in my view, which has destroyed the economies of much of Europe right now.

Speak for yourself about talking in generalizations Bill. I know that you have been generalizing, and see that you have built a remarkable sense of entitlement and system of prejudice based on your generalizations as well. I have not been generalizing. I have been making the point that we shouldn't generalize.

I also did not say that money does not "belong" to the "earner" Bill. I say that a "haver" isn't necessarily a person who has "earned" anything. I think that the "haver" should be the "earner" and don't take anything for granted.

the only entitlement i assume is that ive earned the money my employer freely gives me (he can just as easily fire me) and im "entitled" to keep it.I dont think any one on this side of the free world, except for OBama, consider that a "remarkable sense of entitlement"

No Bill, you assume that everyone who pulls in some income has earned it and that anyone who has not managed as such has done nothing worthy of earning it.

I have no doubt that you work hard for what you have Bill. I wouldn't know. Perhaps you even deserve more.

Are you asking for an iPad or a sheet? How about competent assistance and opportunities in finding a job?