Four posts? Okay, okay Paul. We get your point!!!!!!!

4 post? you must be seeing things :) Yeah I did the 'ole it aint posting thingy, so I resubmit. All 4 showd up at the exact same time.

"Cut the dang spending. That is what every family in America has to do when they cannot afford something. Of course, this does not include Congress..."

Pot, kettle. Kettle, meet pot.

Congressive, you must of sort of, like totally overlooked this

How big were the Bush tax cuts? According to the Treasury Department*, there have been 19 significant federal tax cuts since the end of World War II. Three of them have been passed under the Administration of George W. Bush—the Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), the Job Creation and Workers Assistance Act of 2002 (JCWA), and The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA).

These tax cuts was fought against by just about every Democrat in congress. So apparantly all the Kettles and Pots you are talking about in Congress are Democrats - I never knew that

But hey thanks for playing!

Pot, meet kettle

1% may not seem like much but for my business that means $800 a month more in sales tax. Raising taxes that much would do one of two things, many small retail businesses would close or they would just cheat. In the end the government would receive less tax money.

So Corzine shuts down the government. He must want to emulate Bill Clinton when he shut down the government due to his dispute with the GOP. That way he can become a 'hero'.

But then...

No government employee gets paid.

No tax revenue from the casinos.

No State services except for emergencies and public safety.

That would be a great plan Jon, if it wasn't for the fact your own party is in charge, and NJ residents are already POed at Dems for other financial burdens you placed on them the second you were sworn in.

Whoops, you were right Paul! I'm wearing my 3D glasses leftover from a 50's sci-fi movie.

When George W. Bush went on a spending spree, Republicans across the board roared in outrage. Even though I, personally, can see the justification for his spending increases, they still go against the conservative grain.

(First reason is that he found himself in the same position I did, when I bought a house after years of "deferred maintenance" by its previous owner. I didn't go nuts on things like lavish additions or haute decor, just had to catch up on some essentials, like a roof and a boiler. Bush faced a similar situation on a significantly larger scale.

Second was the prescription medicine payment bill. I think he looked ahead and saw that it was coming, one way or another, so decided to do it now, rather than let a future Dem do it and really mess it up.)

Anyway, when a Republican spends too much money, Republicans flip out, complain, and think it is a violation of conservative values. When a Dem spends too much money, Dems think it's great and then go looking for someone else's pockets to pick to pay for it.

And Paul was suggesting that the STATE of NEW JERSEY cut its spending. As the STATE OF NEW JERSEY is not responsible for rebuilding the military, fighting a war, or helping the nation's elderly, snide comments about pots and kettles simply do not apply.

Not to worry, bankrupting the country has one, clear result; voted out. See ya later dudes.

My goodness. The topic is NJ and the libs have to deflect to Bush. Can they ever stay on topic?

3moreyears, you dems still dont get it. Bush won get over it, He cant be re-elected seeing as how he has been elected twice now.

necon wannabe, the Libs are in a tizzy because they dragged out everything they could possibly invent or distort to go after Bush---and he kept winning. So now what?

Actually run against the 2008 GOP nominee on political issues? Nah---too danagerous, since they don't have any. They have to wait till WE have an issue, and then be against it.

Try to recyle the Bush All Hate All The Time rhetoric? Tempting---they know from experience that there is an element of their party that is so negativist that this is the only type of thing that will ever attract them. But the mainstream Dems are already tired of the loathing-based non-platform, and will probably rebel against any effort to dress it up in new clothes for a new candidate.

Invent new lies to tell about the new candidate? What's left? When you look at the litany of lies they have come up with in their attempts to smear Bush, it's hard to imagine that they could come up with anything new.

And their big problem is, they are still running against Bush. Their minders have done too good a job. They have their rabble so well programmed, so hooked on running around with torches and pitchforks, howling at the very thought of Bush, that they simply cannot grasp the fact that they really need to get over it and move on.