.

Will Christie Run for Vice President on Romney Ticket?

The governor said he'd "listen" if Mitt Romney approached him to run for vice president.

Gov. Christopher J. Christie said he'd consider running for vice president on a Republican ticket with Mitt Romney if he's asked, according to the Huffington Post.

“If Governor Romney comes to me and wants to talk about it, I’ll always listen," Christie was quoted as saying. 

Last year, Christie mulled his own presidential run, but ultimately decided the timing wasn't right.

Christie's approval rating with New Jersey voters is stronger than ever, reaching its highest level since he took office in January 2010, according to Bloomberg News. Fifty-nine percent of voters approve of the job the governor is doing, according to a recent poll. 

If Christie chooses to seek a second term as New Jersey governor, he will be up for reelection in 2013. 

rob April 17, 2012 at 04:10 PM
letterman should be making fun of obama biggest joke around
rob April 17, 2012 at 04:12 PM
they might help in pennsyvannia an new jersey
rob April 17, 2012 at 04:18 PM
your name calling compares to the names they called obama dont you have a better way of expressing yourself, what names did you called mcgrevey i wonder. hate for people because of skin color. sexual pref, or being overweight is just being ignorant
Porterincollingswood April 17, 2012 at 04:19 PM
Paul, since you keep bringing this up I will ask again for your solution. There are three primary reasons the % of HOUSEHOLDS not paying taxes is up: 1) Federal tax rates continue to drop on most income segments. The trend is there, it's a fact. All-time lows. The stimulus (Bush's and later Obama's) added new tax breaks, while others were extended (that were supposed to expire). This is across-the-board, rich and poor. 2) Tax credits continue to rise. In many cases, they are expanded and new ones introduced. 3) Wages are stagnant. So, when (a) taxes are lowered and (b) credits maintained / expanded against (c) a consistent wage base...what is the only other possible outcome? Less people will be paying Federal taxes. Take into account the increased local taxes (and that trend is there as well) that are written off against Federal, lowering the latter. In sum, you seem to be against the tax cuts that have led us to a scenario where 47% of HOUSEHOLDS (and this is important to note) don't pay Federal income tax. That's the only thing I can conclude, but I doubt you'd be in favor of raising taxes on the lower and middle classes. So I ask, what's your point in citing the #?
Paul J. DiBartolo April 17, 2012 at 07:10 PM
Sorry you misunderstand me, Porter. I don't think I've really commented here as to whether I am for or against higher or lower taxes. What I have said is this: Fact #1: 47% don't pay the tax; Fact #2: 10% of earners pay 70% of the taxes collected at a rate of 35% of their taxable income. So, our President continues to pander to the 47% who are not paying the tax at all by telling them that the answer to our problems is to get the 10% to pay their fair share insinuating that the 35% the high earners are already contributing which is 70% of all that is coming in is not a fair share...how much is fair? That's all I am trying to ascertain, how much is fair when some pay none? As for solutions, Porter, let's start with getting rid of all the loopholes and move to what might be considered some type of "fair" or "flat" tax. One thing is for sure, a 75,000 page tax code is ludicrous and should be thrown in the trash. Now, have I made my position clear yet, Porter? if not, point out the inconsistencies and I will try to clarify. The one thing I don't want is to be blowing smoke.
Paul J. DiBartolo April 17, 2012 at 07:17 PM
OK, Neil, what is a legal right? 10 people out of 11 people vote Joe Schmoo into office. It just so happens that Joe Schmoo ran on the promise that he would extract money from the 11th person who is not part of the 10 and then give it to the 10 - i.e., entitlements. He frames the law and the 10 vote the law in over the objections of the 11th person. It's legal in that sense but it is not moral and I, frankly, what no parts of it. Again, I ask, Neil, what is a legal right and, once you provide the explanation, please provide the precedence for such? Thanks.
Diogenes April 17, 2012 at 07:40 PM
John Fiore--Your postings must stand on fact and merit, not on any points you think you are scoring by demeaning and instulting others with what can only be described as childish elementary school name calling of anyone who you think disagrees with you. Most of the posts on this site may be contentious with each others' points of view, and that is a good thing. From it new insights emerge if one has an open mind. However, your tone and attitude are characteristic of why our government is ceasing to function for the common good: the attitude that anyone who disagrees with your opinions (not actual facts, mind you) is the enemy and must be demeaned or destroyed. And no, I will not respond to you further, given the tenor of your remarks so far. I would not give you the pleasure of noticing your future posts.
Diogenes April 17, 2012 at 07:46 PM
And Maryann Campling, what I posted to John Fiore applies equally to you. It is always interesting that people are ready to brand someone a "socialist" or a "Marxist" when they have no idea about what these terms mean. By the way, it might be a good thing to read the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 4, verses 32-35 and then get back to us.
Diogenes April 17, 2012 at 07:47 PM
I always wonder if the people who are such inveterate name callers on this site would go up to someone in the supermarket or bank and use these terms to their fellow human beings.
Diogenes April 17, 2012 at 07:55 PM
Paul J. Di Bartolo, much ow what you say is true, please remember that according to this week's Newsweek magazine, (p. 14) 26 of Americas Fortune 500 companies paid no federal income taxes for the years 2008-2111. And the fact that multimillionaires with armies of accountants pay a significantly lower tax rate on their income because it is "unearned income", i.e. derived from speculation in the biggest casino of all -Wall St. , cries out for fairness and justice.
Diogenes April 17, 2012 at 08:01 PM
Paul, please excuse my spelling errors: should be "of" for "ow" & "America's" for "Americas". Thank you.
Neil Kaye April 17, 2012 at 08:03 PM
Legal rights are rights guaranteed under law. No precedence, just simply a definition. I appreciate that you may find certain laws and rights immoral. But, there are important differences between law, ethics, morals, and religion/belief systems. There are many laws that I disagree with it, but I am bound to obey them nonetheless whilst I fight to have them changed via the legal pathway.
Paul J. DiBartolo April 17, 2012 at 08:51 PM
Here's the deal, Neil, the Founding Fathers established this country and the foundation of law on which it is erected, the Constitution. It would be fair to say that they would be astounded at what we have interpreted as rights under the law based on our Constitution. From my study and reading of our country's history I learned that the lion's share of soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War rejected government payments as a right after the War and thought instead that they should be cared for by their families, churches, and communities. Boy, we've come a long way. Now, I'm not suggesting that out soldiers shouldn't be cared for by taxpayer dollars but when did everyone else invite themselves up onto the bandwagon? So let's paint a scenario: we now give 99 weeks of unemployment. I can't remember what it used to be but it was never that high. Suppose someone starts feeling a twinge of sympathy for the long-term unemployed and suggests pushing that out to 3, 4, or 5 years and pushes it through legally. It now becomes an entitlement, so it's legal, thus we have no right to complain, correct? Hey, we're just printing the money anyway, who cares that your money is becoming worth less and less while it sits in your bank account or retirement fund. No, Neil, you can't convince me that we are close together in our thinking. We are miles apart.
Porterincollingswood April 17, 2012 at 11:41 PM
Paul, thanks for responding. Seems to me you have two choices: 1) Gut some combination of Social Security / Medicare or hike the payroll taxes. 2) Slash military spending. But those are not conservative, anti-tax policies of the day. I see Romney attacking Obama for cutting Medicare, so that's a clear indication that nothing will change from here on out. Most of the 47% are households making <$30k (large % at poverty level). Most of the rest of that segment make <$55k. That's household income because the 47% is households, not individuals. You can't save the costly programs above - that Americans of both parties DEMAND year after year, that the most engaged and largest voting blocs support - AND cut the deficit without increasing tax revenue. And you can't squeeze the necessary $'s out of the <$55k HHI set you mention in your email (the 47%). Asking what's "fair" will only lead you to frustration. You need to ask what the available options are given that the majority of Americans will vote, time and time again, to keep government's core programs - military, social secutiry, and medicare / medicaid - fat and growing. Tax rates have lowered for all over the last few decades. But the top tax rates have been slashed from 90%+ in the 50's to 35% now. It's math, it's where the available revenue is. Tax reform is necessary, entitlement reform is too (means testing). But it's 20 years away from happening.
Neil Kaye April 18, 2012 at 12:11 AM
I accept the laws as passed even when I disagree. I also believe that all citizens retain the right to complain and clearly do so on forums such as this with abandon. Rather than rant and complain, I choose to work for changing the laws through the correct channels. That to me is what democracy/republics and representational government is about. I hope you will continue to work vigorously to have the laws rewritten to your liking and I can assure you I will continue to get them written to my liking. And, I will defend your right to disagree and to be heard. We all can speculate but never know what the founding fathers would say. I think they would be surprised that women and minorities are allowed to vote and that we elect a President and VP from the same party now rather than separately as they wanted. I hope they would be pleased that the experiment in the new form of government they created in the 1700's has stood the test of time and still exists. They did believe in the Roman Rule of Parens Patriae and clearly in their actions considered this a function of government. Jefferson wrote that the Constitution should be thrown out and written anew every 20 years as he didn't believe that a set of rules or documents could be crafted for the changes that would occur. I think they would be amazed at the Internet, at flight, telecommunications and air conditioning. I do apologize for suggesting that we might find any common ground. I didn't mean to offend you.
Paul J. DiBartolo April 18, 2012 at 12:27 AM
Here's the fact, Jack, er, I mean, Neil:-)..."The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those would not." Who said that? Thomas Jefferson. Not to worry, mate, we're almost there. "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide" (John Adams). As for laws, it's not my intent to pass laws written to my liking, as you suggest. It is my belief that we should pass laws that can stand Constitutional muster. Which brings us to the point, just because a law is passed does not make it good, right, Constitutionally sound, or worthy to be obeyed. Remember, it used to be legal to own other people. Right now it's legal to kill a child in the womb. We still have a chance to change that. If we can't get it right we probably won't be around much longer.
Paul J. DiBartolo April 18, 2012 at 12:51 AM
I'm curious as to exactly what you might be suggesting, Porter. Are you suggesting that we should return to using a 90% tax rate for anyone? Additionally, I would be curious as to who actually went out and worked all year and then paid 90% of their taxable income in taxes. I would guess that people who found themselves there had ways around that kind of thievery...er, I mean, taxation just like G.E., a company that made 45 Billion dollars of domestic profit and paid no corporate income taxes. It's just plain stupid to enact such a law when no one would actually follow it. I'm sure the highest earners have many ways around the current tax rates due to loopholes while the guy who just makes it into the top bracket has a much harder time getting out of it. So who is really being penalized? It's time to stop the class warfare and make it fair for everybody. Get rid of the loopholes and let everyone get in the game. I know for a fact that Obama is insincere. He hired a man to be Treasury Secretary that had not paid all his own taxes until he found out that he was being considered for the job then he scurried around to make it alright. BTW, that was before Obama tried to hire Corzine as Treasury Secretary and we all know about him.
Neil Kaye April 18, 2012 at 01:11 AM
I hear your concerns and fear. Thankfully, I remain optimistic about our great country.
Porterincollingswood April 18, 2012 at 01:36 AM
First off, there is a difference between a tax rate (which is what you seem to think I meant) and a TOP tax rate (which I clearly stated), the latter being only applied to the TOP tax bracket. That was, in fact, at 91% under Eisenhower and people paid it. It was, ironically, at a time that most older Americans consider the Golden Age of the nation. A time when Americans wanted for nothing, the middle class flourished, and the wealthy built huge fortunes. It sparked what historians agree to be "The American Century". I have no idea how you get to me suggesting the TOP tax rate should go to 90%. That's not practical or workable. Let's bring it back up to what that pro-tax, big-spending socialist Reagan was happy with - 50%. I just can't understand how you square the demand for huge benefits, low taxes, and no debt. There was no answer, because there is no answer. The math doesn't work. Lookit, you are for raising taxes, just on the poor and middle class. Your flat tax proposal does that. Your lament over the 47% suggests that. And that's fine, why not just admit it?
Porterincollingswood April 18, 2012 at 01:53 AM
C'mon, Paul - I don't think Mao had a tax rate of 90%. If that happened it's load up the truck Clampett style and head for Mexico, or hop back on the boat to the Ireland!
Paul J. DiBartolo April 18, 2012 at 02:20 AM
Ouch...typo, G.E. earned $5 billion of domestic profit. I missed the SHIFT key. Anyway...I understand that only those in the top income bracket pay the top tax rate. I'm not sure where you were taking that. I will state that I don't know anyone who ever paid that and I would be hard pressed to think that any of them were happy about it. Since you seemed to approve of it I took the next logical step and suggested that it be applied again. Like you, I agree that it is unworkable. How it worked back then I am unsure. As for 50%; that might be do-able in extremely good times, but when you're depending on people to create jobs and then raise their taxes...Oh, well. Look at what the continually rising minimum wage is doing to our youth job market. As for benefits, why do you suggest I am demanding huge benefits? As it stands if we don't deal with the S.S. crisis, nobody will get any benefits. Nor am I suggesting that the poor pay more taxes. I don't know why you keep trying to imply that. I'm stating that people making somewhere north of $350K are paying 35% and I don't think it would somehow be more fair to try to get more from them. Again, a democracy will last only as long as people are able to extract what they haven't earned from others who have earned it. That wisdom comes from people who know much more about it than I. So, when that well goes dry the whole house of cards will collapse. We can fix it now or wait for the collapse. The choice is ours.
Schu April 18, 2012 at 04:30 AM
Actually you're wrong again, on everything
Schu April 18, 2012 at 04:33 AM
Dear Cinna, Bet you love the 2% cap on your property taxes that was Christie, before it was increasing 3-5% a year. Hard working people love Christie, lazy public sector union hate this governor.
Diogenes April 18, 2012 at 01:16 PM
We can find various quotes from the founding fathers that will justify most any political position we already have. (Federalists, andi-federalists, and libertarians such as Thomas Paine.) In America there are those who regard what the founders wrote and said as if it is religious dogma. This results in religio/legal fundamentalist thinking from such jurists as Antonin Scalia with his dogmatic view of what he terms an "originalist" interpretation of the constitution, as if the founders of the 1790's were somehow prescient of all today's issues and events. No other countries revere their founders in such religious terms, except for countries like North Korea and other communist countries, where the reverential cult of personality is substituted for religion.
Neil Kaye April 18, 2012 at 01:41 PM
Diogenes, thanks for shedding light on the topic.
Loretka May 10, 2012 at 07:00 PM
Earlier this year, Christie was being pressured to run for the presidency. He consistently said that his allegiance was to the State of New Jersey and he had a job to do here and would not leave New Jersey etc. etc. etc. So what happened? He no longer feels any obligation to the State of New Jersey? He would consider being a running mate with Romney? Is that because Romney is not liked and is a bad choice of the Republicans and they need somebody who is liked to run with him? Anyway ---- I am most curious as to why Christie would abandon New Jersey for the vice presidency after all his talk about he owes the people of New Jersey.
Linda May 11, 2012 at 02:54 AM
Actually he did not get my vote Mr. Fiore.
Linda May 11, 2012 at 03:05 AM
Why? Because he's a politician. All politicians are spin doctors and liars.
Loretka May 12, 2012 at 04:09 AM
AMEN !!!!!
Loretka May 12, 2012 at 04:15 AM
To Neil Kaye's explanation of "entitlements" ----- I say AMEN. Social Security is an entitlement that we paid for in all our working years ---- an insurance policy that was "sold" to us by the USA government, for which we paid the premium out of every one of our paychecks. Then the same government "borrowed" (or stole) from the SS fund. I say "put it back".

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something