U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 07-01-2011, 01:28 PM
 
Location: New England
8,156 posts, read 12,743,329 times
Reputation: 3164
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff View Post
That's just the thing... The supplemental expenditures are not in the pie chart! They're not part of the formal "budget."
I dunno man, someone's not giving the right information. Here is what's on Wiki:
Discretionary spending: $1.378 trillion (+13.8%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is where they claim to source the information.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-01-2011, 02:16 PM
 
Location: Austin
2,066 posts, read 1,322,135 times
Reputation: 2268
No layoffs soooo why not a raise for union employees? I just read the 40,000 state workers are getting a 2.5% raise. Way to stand tough, Malloy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2011, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Fairfield County, CT
7,108 posts, read 4,852,401 times
Reputation: 3836
Quote:
Originally Posted by JViello View Post
I dunno man, someone's not giving the right information. Here is what's on Wiki:
Discretionary spending: $1.378 trillion (+13.8%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is where they claim to source the information.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/fy10-newera.pdf (broken link)
Quote:
Emergency and supplemental spending
The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed below.[6] Starting in the fiscal year 2010 budget however, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are categorized as "Overseas Contingency Operations" and included in the budget.
By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Indirect costs such as interest on the additional debt and incremental costs of caring for the more than 33,000 wounded borne by the Veterans Administration are additional. Some experts estimate these indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct costs.[7]
Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2011, 02:29 PM
 
8,241 posts, read 9,371,779 times
Reputation: 4839
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee View Post
No layoffs soooo why not a raise for union employees? I just read the 40,000 state workers are getting a 2.5% raise. Way to stand tough, Malloy.
The rejection of the negotiated concession agreement is the reason why raises are being implemented. The terms of the state employees current contract are still in effect, and the state is bound to honor that agreement, barring serious legislative action/intervention(i.e:Wisconsin) into the collective bargaining process. Malloy didn't "give" them raises.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2011, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
590 posts, read 558,775 times
Reputation: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn View Post
7wishes, I'm not talking of those out of work temporarily. For tens of millions, its a way of life, from the day they were born. If not handicapped, the proper term for them are bums.

There is nothing wrong with a one-time, short-term hand up, but all is wrong with handouts. 47% pay no Federal Income taxes. Far too high a percentage. I would love to see either a flat tax or an AMT starting at dollar one earned. That is 47% w/o skin in the game.
47% may not pay taxes at the federal level, but in modern day America it would be nearly impossible for a person to go thru life without paying taxes. Even a homeless person who pays bus fare is indirectly paying the gas tax. A homeless person who buys a burger at McDonalds pays a sales tax or in some states a "prepared foods tax"

Everyone in modern day America has skin in the game.

And for everyone who wants to eliminate welfare except for the elderly & handicapped. You only need to visit a country(s) where that already happens.

I suggest you visit these countries; Mexico, Haiti, Dominican Republic, India, Pakistan, Morocco, all of South America (except for Argentina) and all of Africa (except for Egypt & South Africa)

After visiting one of those countries let me know if you still want to eliminate all welfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2011, 05:49 PM
 
8,241 posts, read 9,371,779 times
Reputation: 4839
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGompers View Post
And for everyone who wants to eliminate welfare except for the elderly & handicapped. You only need to visit a country(s) where that already happens.

After visiting one of those countries let me know if you still want to eliminate all welfare.
I'm not concerned so much with eliminating welfare. But, we desperately need to become much smarter about administering it. WTH are we doing tearing down projects and replacing them with housing units that cost 200 or 300,000 in places like Stamford??? Sell that very valuable land to private developers, and take the proceeds from the land sale and purchase existing housing stock in less expensive communities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2011, 08:11 PM
 
Location: Connecticut
590 posts, read 558,775 times
Reputation: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratford, Ct. Resident View Post
I'm not concerned so much with eliminating welfare. But, we desperately need to become much smarter about administering it. WTH are we doing tearing down projects and replacing them with housing units that cost 200 or 300,000 in places like Stamford??? Sell that very valuable land to private developers, and take the proceeds from the land sale and purchase existing housing stock in less expensive communities.
I can get behind that. I find that perplexing as well. I'm not familiar with Stamford, but I would imagine the property is valuable.

There is a project in Middletown called something like NEAT (north end action team). Where they rehabbed numerous buildings and are now offering them for sale at reduced prices.

One example, they have a 4 bedroom 2 bath condo priced @ $119,900. Of course to qualify for this you need to be a moderate income person. According to their numbers a single person could not make more than around $38,000 (I don't remember the exact numbers), but then again why would a single person need 4 bedrooms?

You can view some of the homes here North Village Condominiums | Middletown

All these properties are new and or newly rehabbed. According to the literature they built and or rebuilt 17 houses at a cost of $7,000,000
which is about $412,000 per unit. So, where did the money go?

IMO with these properties they should have been condemned then sold to the highest bidder. This area of Middletown also has views of the Conn river.

Something similar was done in Hartford a number of years ago too the development is called "Dutch Point" I think. I remember the area before and it was a slum. There is also some housing project being rebuilt now in Meriden on RT 71. It's called something like "Chamberlain Highway Heights"

Now I'm not a cold person and am probably more socially liberal than most people. However, I can't understand the coddling we do of poor people when it comes to housing. The housing should be sufficient, but it shouldn't be so good that they would never want to leave. Poverty is one of the world's best motivators.

There is no way on Earth I could afford a new 4 bed 2 bath condo anywhere in Conn. and I earn a very good salary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2011, 08:30 PM
 
16,549 posts, read 7,061,218 times
Reputation: 6075
Stratford Ct resident:" But, we desperately need to become much smarter about administering it."

Smart and government are mutually exclusive. They have no incentive to be smart; they simply confisticate more from the productive to mask their mistakes. Until they/we are Greece.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2011, 09:40 PM
 
657 posts, read 462,389 times
Reputation: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee View Post
No layoffs soooo why not a raise for union employees? I just read the 40,000 state workers are getting a 2.5% raise. Way to stand tough, Malloy.
You do realize that totally stagnant wages are rapidly outpaced by inflation right? How long is long enough for a worker to wait to get such a small raise?

Where I come from, we call that 'cost of living' raises.. I've always gotten them yearly.. and I've only ever worked in the private sector. I don't know what the various cost of living rate increases are the past year, but if it's keeping pace with that, it doesn't seem too evil to me, regardless of the economic situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2011, 09:44 PM
 
657 posts, read 462,389 times
Reputation: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGompers View Post
Now I'm not a cold person and am probably more socially liberal than most people. However, I can't understand the coddling we do of poor people when it comes to housing. The housing should be sufficient, but it shouldn't be so good that they would never want to leave. Poverty is one of the world's best motivators.
Sounds good to say, but what evidence do you have to back that up?

Poverty is a huge cause of depression, self-destruction and turning inward - I've never heard that it's much of a motivator. Maybe if you were wealthy and then became poor, it would be.

It's also true that in general a homeless person costs a city more to deal with than just _giving_ them a place to live, let alone reduced cost housing where they PAY a (for them) significant chunk of money. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a well-known New Yorker piece about that subject, complete with sound numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top