Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Connecticut
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-30-2018, 07:44 AM
 
Location: Hartford County, CT
845 posts, read 673,119 times
Reputation: 461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAE72 View Post
Debunking? That wasn't my intention. What I want perfectly understood is that spending was not reduced enough. And taxes therefore had to be increased.
What I want perfectly understood is that all areas of the scenario need to be looked at, not just the banner to politicize the notion of success or failure.
The plan is to gradually reduce the Income tax, that is not a " slash ". And that is totally dependent upon revenue. Sure Malloy cut spending with one hand, and with the other hand raised taxes more than once. And the second time, it was after he said he wasn't going to.


Where would I cut spending ? Maybe some of those legacy costs can be revisited. Maybe we can stop spending on other mistakes Democrats have made. How much did state tax payers just give to the City of Hartford Mismanagement and out of control spending should be rewarded? How many Employees in this State could get fired from their job , get $ 12,000 in back pay, and then get a $ 30,000 a year pension after having 10 years on the job? This is going on all over the state, and indeed all over the land of Democratic rule.


I have never called the Democrats " evil " . They have their ideology, and I have mine. I actually am just around the middle politically in most of those surveys that capture opinions on specific topics. What I have witnessed in my life time is a complete turn about by the Democratic Party. I was a registered Democrat for many years , and after meeting and talking with some of CT Democrats, my opinion is that they have lost their way. I'm not an illegal , and I don't consider myself a victim. Therefore I am low on the Totem Poll of Democratic priorities.


The bottom line is CT spending needs to be reduced even more . The commitments the previous deals with the State workers made were detrimental to the taxpayer in many ways. Job guarantees during a fiscal crisis , when the money isn't there is ridiculous. Let then sue. Let them strike . There are still 85,000 unemployed residents in CT, twice as much as there are state Employees. Maybe there are a few thousand that would like a state job. maybe they would be happy to work for 20 % less. Why is it that State Employees , or Government employees employment is so much different and special than anyone else? What makes them a protected class of workers? Will the recent SCOTUS ruling start to derail the gravy train they have been on ?
So - essentially - what you are saying is that you understand that Bob Stefanowski won't cut taxes? His plan is to get rid of the income tax over eight years, only if vague revenue targets are met. The question still remains, what else is Bob going to cut? What deep spending cuts is he going to enact to allow him to lower taxes? Is he just going to ignore the entire premise of his campaign and just ignore the tax cut pledge?

Malloy and the Democratic legislature increased taxes to pay for legacy pension costs.

How can these costs be revisited? Do you know how difficult it would be to do this, how much money spent to try and get it past the courts? It would be a case that almost certainly goes to the Supreme Court. States do not have protection from bankruptcy, so going down that route would not work. One gamble you could take is slash all the aid to cities and towns, and have all the state's municipalities to go through bankruptcy to try and make sure property taxes don't double under the lost aid.

Hartford is an incredibly small capital city. A lot of its land is not taxable. The state shorts it on PILOT money (because we need to cut somewhere!) so Hartford's economic malaise is a poster child for what will happen across the entire state if we eliminate aid to cities and towns. Their spending is hardly out of control. A little high, but the tax base is their issue.

The number of unemployed and state workers means nothing. Do you want unqualified workers for the state government? Don't you want the best possible people to cut down on "waste, fraud, and abuse"? These are not simple jobs where you go in and do nothing every day. Do you want the unemployed auto mechanic trying to figure out how to manage the prison system? The unhireable basket weaver to get a job running some programme in the depatment of mental health? An unemployed IT tech to re-do the DMV's system? (that worked so well last time!)

These people get paid money because they do real jobs and real work. In a capitalist society, you hire the best possible candidate for the job. To do otherwise is inefficent and you're throwing money away making it work the second time to fix the screw up the first time. This is common in my field (software development) where they hire someone from overseas, the product sucks, and they pay 2x the amount in the first place to give it to a more qualified person to fix.

 
Old 10-30-2018, 08:21 AM
 
Location: On the Stones of Years
377 posts, read 238,432 times
Reputation: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by ads94 View Post
So - essentially - what you are saying is that you understand that Bob Stefanowski won't cut taxes? His plan is to get rid of the income tax over eight years, only if vague revenue targets are met. The question still remains, what else is Bob going to cut? What deep spending cuts is he going to enact to allow him to lower taxes? Is he just going to ignore the entire premise of his campaign and just ignore the tax cut pledge?

Malloy and the Democratic legislature increased taxes to pay for legacy pension costs.

How can these costs be revisited? Do you know how difficult it would be to do this, how much money spent to try and get it past the courts? It would be a case that almost certainly goes to the Supreme Court. States do not have protection from bankruptcy, so going down that route would not work. One gamble you could take is slash all the aid to cities and towns, and have all the state's municipalities to go through bankruptcy to try and make sure property taxes don't double under the lost aid.

Hartford is an incredibly small capital city. A lot of its land is not taxable. The state shorts it on PILOT money (because we need to cut somewhere!) so Hartford's economic malaise is a poster child for what will happen across the entire state if we eliminate aid to cities and towns. Their spending is hardly out of control. A little high, but the tax base is their issue.

The number of unemployed and state workers means nothing. Do you want unqualified workers for the state government? Don't you want the best possible people to cut down on "waste, fraud, and abuse"? These are not simple jobs where you go in and do nothing every day. Do you want the unemployed auto mechanic trying to figure out how to manage the prison system? The unhireable basket weaver to get a job running some programme in the depatment of mental health? An unemployed IT tech to re-do the DMV's system? (that worked so well last time!)

These people get paid money because they do real jobs and real work. In a capitalist society, you hire the best possible candidate for the job. To do otherwise is inefficent and you're throwing money away making it work the second time to fix the screw up the first time. This is common in my field (software development) where they hire someone from overseas, the product sucks, and they pay 2x the amount in the first place to give it to a more qualified person to fix.


Yes, that is what I am saying. No new tax increases. No tolls. What and where will be cut? I'm not sure, I haven't looked that deeply into it, but there isn't anything imaginable that at least should not be looked at and considered.


The Democrats support and champion the fact that the taxpayers here support at least 100,000 illegals. How much is that costing taxpayers? The ACA added 7 million to Medicaid nationally , Malloy was one of the first to take it on and back it. Able bodied working people getting health care courtesy of the taxpayer. Medicaid should be reserved for whom it was designed for, the really poor, children of the very poor with mothers without financial support from Fathers. On one hand , the Dems want to increase the list of the eligible , and their policies and ideology support the continued increases of those they desire to have the tax payer pay for. Do some research . Take a look at the percentage of patients in CT Hospitals that are on Medicaid. This is the path paved by Democrats here and nationally. The Wealth Gap in CT us one of the biggest problems, and Democrats help make it worse nearly day by day. What will the percentages be in 5 years ? 10 years ?


The Janus Decision should give an indication of where the Courts may stand on continued issues regarding compensation and fairness for the taxpayer. It is somewhat unknown for sure, but without an effort, it is just business as usual. Force their hand,. put them on notice, the people have had enough.


I am not in favor of the elimination of aid to cities and towns. They truly should get what they deserve. And what they deserve should be based on the behavior and practices that occur. If you keep rewarding mistakes , keep supporting poor decisions, the money train never stops. This hasn't happened overnight. These are the results of an ideology, a mindset that goes against basic principles.


Do you actually believe that out of the 85,000 unemployed CT citizens some or many could not do a job as good ,or better than a current State employee ? I never said they were " simple jobs " . But hey, maybe there indeed are some " simple jobs" that either could be eliminated or done for less. Maybe more can be privatized. I know quite a few State Workers. The ones that retired were fed up. Couldn't take the inept management . Okay, that's anecdotal for sure , but again, there isn't anything in those jobs that makes them special. Especially with a population Like CT with a high percentage of College Grads and higher education levels.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Connecticut
34,727 posts, read 56,531,322 times
Reputation: 11163
Here is one of the better articles I have read on tolling and the election. What angers me is the misinformation being used to scare people in the election. The Federal Highway Administration has clearly said Connecticut will not lose federal money, nor will it have to repay past federal money used on our highways if tolls are implemented here. Why are candidates still claiming this will happen? Are they that misinformed or are they choosing to push an agenda by out and out lying? This is very disheartening. Jay

https://www.theday.com/article/20181027/NWS01/181029426
 
Old 10-30-2018, 11:37 AM
 
Location: On the Stones of Years
377 posts, read 238,432 times
Reputation: 379
Is this the same type guarantee that said the Feds would allow the Tribes to build another casino away from Tribal Land ? Nothing is a sure thing unless it is approved and in writing. Regardless of the give back of Federal Highway Funds, there is more than enough to argue against the installation of tolls. Take another example right next to us. Despite the Tolls for the NY Sate Thruway, and the fanfare over a new Tappan Zee Bridge, 30 % of the NY State Thruway, a Toll Road for a very long time, has been rated poor. In addition, other State Highways in NY have suffered as well , paving which was once said to be every 12 years, in many areas has been put off for 10 more years.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 01:12 PM
 
1,984 posts, read 1,440,309 times
Reputation: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAE72 View Post
If you are going to " look at Kansas" . make sure you take a long hard look at the details, and the differences when comparing it to CT.


The issue in Kansas was not the tax cuts per se , but a strong contributing factor is that the Legislature kept spending,. That's what helped the ride over the fiscal cliff. If you have less money coming in, you should be spending less. So they were then forced to raise taxes on many who could least afford it. Does higher Property Taxes ring a bell ?
But when spending becomes an addiction, withdrawal is painful. And the less spending part is what Democrats have the greatest difficulty with. Kansas isn't as close to NYC as CT is. They have an entirely different economy . Kansas is in the top 10 if Agricultural states. CT is Insurance and Financial.
The Kansas legislature was GOP controlled. The GOP have a majority in almost every government office in the state. And they could not cut spending. Given that CT republicans have shown much less fiscal constraint then others in the country there is nothing to say that what happened in Kansas wouldn't happen here if we cut revenue with out a real plan.
 
Old 10-31-2018, 06:56 AM
 
Location: Coastal Connecticut
21,572 posts, read 27,817,504 times
Reputation: 6675
Thoughts?

https://m.ctpost.com/business/danhaa..._medium=social
 
Old 10-31-2018, 09:29 AM
 
Location: On the Stones of Years
377 posts, read 238,432 times
Reputation: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by East of the River View Post
The Kansas legislature was GOP controlled. The GOP have a majority in almost every government office in the state. And they could not cut spending. Given that CT republicans have shown much less fiscal constraint then others in the country there is nothing to say that what happened in Kansas wouldn't happen here if we cut revenue with out a real plan.


When have Republicans controlled the Legislature in CT ? Answer. Since 1992 Never.
When have Republicans controlled the Legislature and the Governorship ? Answer. Since 1992 Never
When have the Democrats held all three ? Answer . Since 2011.


You are attempting to make an analogy with Kansas ?
 
Old 10-31-2018, 10:43 AM
 
1,984 posts, read 1,440,309 times
Reputation: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAE72 View Post
When have Republicans controlled the Legislature in CT ? Answer. Since 1992 Never.
When have Republicans controlled the Legislature and the Governorship ? Answer. Since 1992 Never
When have the Democrats held all three ? Answer . Since 2011.


You are attempting to make an analogy with Kansas ?
Correct Kansas has been GOP controlled since the early 90's they could pass what ever they want too. Still couldn't actually cut spending. Our republicans tend to be a bit more moderate on things like welfare and medicare it would be a shock to see them makes the cuts necessary to close the current budget gap never mind close the budget gap while cutting taxes. To me the current plans floated by Stefanowski and the GOP in the legislature will almost certainly make our debt load worse.
 
Old 10-31-2018, 11:29 AM
 
Location: On the Stones of Years
377 posts, read 238,432 times
Reputation: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by East of the River View Post
Correct Kansas has been GOP controlled since the early 90's they could pass what ever they want too. Still couldn't actually cut spending. Our republicans tend to be a bit more moderate on things like welfare and medicare it would be a shock to see them makes the cuts necessary to close the current budget gap never mind close the budget gap while cutting taxes. To me the current plans floated by Stefanowski and the GOP in the legislature will almost certainly make our debt load worse.


You may be correct, but I am willing to let them have a chance. I think the Dems have controlled too much for too long of a time here . The Democrat Party has moved more to the left in the last 8 years nationally, and some of the Dems here have been on that bus. I thought I heard a John Larson Ad early this morning , still mentioning something about 91 and building a tunnel. I guess John wants a better view of the CT River from his Limo as he drives from one Max eatery to another. Who knows ?
 
Old 10-31-2018, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Hartford County, CT
845 posts, read 673,119 times
Reputation: 461
Lamont +7 in Emerson College Poll

Looks like Ned is going to take a victory on Tuesday, and Oz will show significant strength. Will be interesting to watch.
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.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 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.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top