Comments by fjcjr
Posted on June 2 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How can it be that a proposal that will cost $8.8B to comply will shrink power prices? This doesn't make sense.
Posted on May 25 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow! I rarely agree with the positions of the editorial board, but this is a very clever turnabout on Bruno's position. Touché!
Posted on May 21 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Taxes have just gotten out of control". It's ironic that Al Jurczinski would make a comment like that. It never appeared that he took that view when he was proposing budgets! Nevertheless, he's correct - we're taxed into oblivion here, and people are simply tapped out. What is the catalyst that will change it?
Posted on May 18 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's really refreshing to know that no hypocracy is exhibited by the Democrats! Someone has to take the moral high ground!
Posted on May 7 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is unbelievable - debating the state snack? With all the issues facing New York State, they are debating snacks? Oh - I forgot - happy days are here again, and we're open for business!! What a joke. This is further proof we get the government we voted for, not the one we need. It's also interesting that Chuck Schumer is the person you see in a picture of a NYS Senate debate. HIs goal is obviously to be in the media every day (and he's succeeding).
Posted on April 30 at noon (Suggest removal)
If you want a finacial windfall, you arent really interested in getting people to slow down. If they did, there would be no windfall. This is the same argument the legislature used with cigarette taxes: We need to impose very high taxes to get people to stop smoking. When the revenues failed to meet projections, members of the legislature were wondering where the money went. Perhpas the tax worked as advertised, but not as intended. If you want a windfall, say so. If you want to change behavior, say so. The two goals are usually mutually exclusive.
Posted on April 19 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The price paid for insurance is based on risk, not the risk that someone will be in an accident, but rather, the risk that an insurance company will have to pay. People with higher education and "big" jobs aren't necessarily better drivers, or less likely to be in an accident. However, they are less likely to file a claim for a loss, electing instead to "eat" the loss, reducing their loss experience, and hence their insurance rates. People with lower disposable income are not equally able to do this, so the insurance company pays more claims for them, and hence they pay higher insurance rates. This is the exact same reason insurance companies look at people's credit reports. With a higher score and lower indebtedness, statistically they will file fewer claims. At face value this appears to be unfair for treating people unequally, but it is merely based on who is a higher risk.
Posted on February 28 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Really? This is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed? Potholes, taxes, vacant properties, and this is what is front page news? Obviously, we got the government we voted for, not the one we need.
Posted on January 23 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"the district could go ahead with middle schools no matter how the public voted." Hmmm. We've seen this before from our elected school board members. That was an ugly time, and I'd hate to go back there. To say that we can disregard what the voters want, is ill advised, and arrogant.
Posted on December 5 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The oil companies do not "net" anything close to $2.88 per gallon. With crude oil at $97 / bbl, the cost of the raw material to make gasoline before refining or transportation is $2.30 / gallon. The reality is that there is far more tax on a gallon of gas than there is profit for an oil company.