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.
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 #?
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.
Again, I ask, Neil, what is a legal right and, once you provide the explanation, please provide the precedence for such? Thanks.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.