Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I don't think that the good people of Connecticut will all pack up and move south. My family spent a beautiful day at the beach yesterday with family and friends. Everyone was having a good time and no one was thinking of moving since they have decent jobs and generations of their families live here.
Yep - everyone I came across this weekend was kayaking, boating, jogging, supporting local cafe's/ice cream shops, and none were planning to leave CT. In fact, two families I know purchased second homes in CT along the shoreline.
With all of the doom and gloom bobtn posts, there's equal or greater good. For every CT family that packs up and moves, there will be someone to replace them.
WHat what what? Liberals promise future spending cuts in exchange for immediate tax increases, and the future spending cuts fail to materialize? Is anyone really surprised?
I find the Post to be confusing, vague and prone towards sensationalism. I've read the article twice and looking past the partisan mud slinging can find few concrete details. The article seems to be constructed mainly out of politicians throwing accusations and deflections.
I find the sentiment of Sen. Antonietta Boucher to be particularly heavy on the rhetoric and scare mongering side. "It makes me wonder if people have gotten into their cars and and headed south or west, to states or places where the cost of their taxes is substantially less". Well Ms. Boucher, since we are in the pure conjecturing territory let me throw my own anecdotal evidence into the pot. Yep, some people have left because of the cost. Also, some people have stayed in spite of the cost because they believe that it is worth it to stay (what makes staying "worth it" is a very individual calculation). And some people have decided it was worth it to move from someplace else to Connecticut. Unless there is some empirical data that shows some great exodus of people that I'm not seeing on the ground here then it's just a bunch of partisan hot air that doesn't do much and makes for a divisive conversation with no constructive outcome.
/rant.
WHat what what? Liberals promise future spending cuts in exchange for immediate tax increases, and the future spending cuts fail to materialize? Is anyone really surprised?
The title of the article should have been 220 million in union concessions not there, but that would not fit into the Post's Pro Malloy bias. That is far more vital than the depleted Ct cash situation, for that shortfall is a recurring event-shows Malloys cost savings were phony all along.
Hopefully, my few remaining relatives up in Ct will be unaffected by Malloy's NEXT round of tax increases. Since Ct's income tax is less progressive than most states, I doubt they will be spared, despite far lower than US median incomes.
I find the Post to be confusing, vague and prone towards sensationalism. I've read the article twice and looking past the partisan mud slinging can find few concrete details. The article seems to be constructed mainly out of politicians throwing accusations and deflections.
I find the sentiment of Sen. Antonietta Boucher to be particularly heavy on the rhetoric and scare mongering side. "It makes me wonder if people have gotten into their cars and and headed south or west, to states or places where the cost of their taxes is substantially less". Well Ms. Boucher, since we are in the pure conjecturing territory let me throw my own anecdotal evidence into the pot. Yep, some people have left because of the cost. Also, some people have stayed in spite of the cost because they believe that it is worth it to stay (what makes staying "worth it" is a very individual calculation). And some people have decided it was worth it to move from someplace else to Connecticut. Unless there is some empirical data that shows some great exodus of people that I'm not seeing on the ground here then it's just a bunch of partisan hot air that doesn't do much and makes for a divisive conversation with no constructive outcome.
/rant.
Hey! Don't pick on Toni Boucher. It isn't her fault that she's an idiot. All of that black dye on her head has seeped into her brain. I guess?
The title of the article should have been 220 million in union concessions not there, but that would not fit into the Post's Pro Malloy bias. That is far more vital than the depleted Ct cash situation, for that shortfall is a recurring event-shows Malloys cost savings were phony all along.
Hopefully, my few remaining relatives up in Ct will be unaffected by Malloy's NEXT round of tax increases. Since Ct's income tax is less progressive than most states, I doubt they will be spared, despite far lower than US median incomes.
Kind of like NYC, I guess some have the skills to make it here, some don't.
In all seriousness, can we keep the partisan cognitive restructuring to a minimum? I know every Democrat is evil incarnate and every conservative is the greatest thing since sliced bread, however, to single out Malloy, without discussing the financial situation that he inherited from his Republican predecessors is a bit ingenuous.
"inherited"? what a lame cop-out. Malloy ran as the guy who was going to fix the problems in CT. He wanted the problems, and ran for office, and spent millions to secure his election. To now say "Boo hoo, he inherited problems from evil republicans" is so whiny and puerile. Either fix the problems, or get out of the way and let someone else fix them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff
Kind of like NYC, I guess some have the skills to make it here, some don't.
In all seriousness, can we keep the partisan cognitive restructuring to a minimum? I know every Democrat is evil incarnate and every conservative is the greatest thing since sliced bread, however, to single out Malloy, without discussing the financial situation that he inherited from his Republican predecessors is a bit ingenuous.
"inherited"? what a lame cop-out. Malloy ran as the guy who was going to fix the problems in CT. He wanted the problems, and ran for office, and spent millions to secure his election. To now say "Boo hoo, he inherited problems from evil republicans" is so whiny and puerile. Either fix the problems, or get out of the way and let someone else fix them.
You must have voted for him then, right?
Sorry, it's idiotic to not look at which context the problems were created in and there is plenty of blame to go around-- and it goes back years. I guess if your goal is to solve problems you look at context and assign blame as necessary-- as I do to Malloy, Rell, municipal unions, the legislature, and, of course, our former Gov who appears to be working on his second set of felonies....
As if his opponent didn't spend millions to secure his election? Republicans don't spend millions? Linda who? What's truly purile here is hypocricacy. It's time for the sports team mentality behind politics to go away and have some adult discussion about what needs to be done. Adult discussion requires historical context-- not simply "Me Good" , "You Bad" cavemanesque blaming.
See, you are just looking for scapegoats. To solve problems you don't look at context and assign blame, you fix the problem. Too much money going out and not enough coming in even though we are a highly taxed populace. Fix it. Yet you just want to harp on blame, blame, blame. Who cares if others spent money to get elected in the past, Malloy is in office now, either fix the problem or get out of the way. But, libs always want to start off every news conference and announce "boohooo we inherited problems, so, we have to kick the can down the road!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlassoff
You must have voted for him then, right?
Sorry, it's idiotic to not look at which context the problems were created in and there is plenty of blame to go around-- and it goes back years. I guess if your goal is to solve problems you look at context and assign blame as necessary-- as I do to Malloy, Rell, municipal unions, the legislature, and, of course, our former Gov who appears to be working on his second set of felonies....
As if his opponent didn't spend millions to secure his election? Republicans don't spend millions? Linda who? What's truly purile here is hypocricacy. It's time for the sports team mentality behind politics to go away and have some adult discussion about what needs to be done. Adult discussion requires historical context-- not simply "Me Good" , "You Bad" cavemanesque blaming.
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.