[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

Another company with a (North American) HQ in CT shedding people: Virgin Atlantic

It doesn't say how many cuts will be in CT but if they are not touching front-line staff I bet the HQ in Norwalk will shrink some.

Malloy had gone since Thursday without a job cut story. These days, for DM, that is a long time.

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by atlaw

a true progressive. spend to prosperity, that'll work

If I were you, I'd be a bit more concerned about what's going on in my own state. Last I checked AZ is facing a $1 billion defecit of its own.

And no, I did NOT vote for the current administration we have now. I am NOT happy with what's happening here. Unless you're a government employee or on some form of public assistance, there's little to be optimistic about in this state.

[clutchrider]

Originally Posted by MikefromCT

And no, I did NOT vote for the current administration we have now. I am NOT happy with what's happening here. Unless you're a government employee or on some form of public assistance, there's little to be optimistic about in this state.

The problem here is that they are the ones who end up being the majority of the vote from the larger cities and not necessarily a valid representation of the state as a whole, almost a good case for an electoral college to ensure fair representation...almost.

What I've discussed with my father several times is how only those who pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Now that is a topic for a different forum/thread altogether but one that I would not mind standing behind.

The other interesting point is that with all of these layoffs and moves happening from companies, there has not been a peep from the governor. All we hear is that so many taxes were let through that were opposed or not supposed to be part of the bill yet obviously enough of the legislature went ahead and voted for them. And it kills me to see the absents from the voting, great representation when your elected official is not present to do their job.

[GoHuskies]

Originally Posted by clutchrider

What I've discussed with my father several times is how only those who pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Now that is a topic for a different forum/thread altogether but one that I would not mind standing behind.

This could be interesting.

Eliminate all forms of welfare.
Eliminate lower income housing.
Reduce unemployment to a flat 6 months pay with no extensions.
Eliminate all funding for lower income healthcare.
Reduce funding to school districts that under perform.
Provide free bus transport to anyone who can't afford to live here and dump them all in surrounding states.

We could make Connecticut into the poster child of ideal society where everyone has a good job, nice home, and contributes back into society with taxes. Most likely also a white Connecticut but hey that's simple economics not racism.

Oh wait now who is going to cut my grass or bag my food?

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by clutchrider

The problem here is that they are the ones who end up being the majority of the vote from the larger cities and not necessarily a valid representation of the state as a whole, almost a good case for an electoral college to ensure fair representation...almost.

What I've discussed with my father several times is how only those who pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Now that is a topic for a different forum/thread altogether but one that I would not mind standing behind.

The other interesting point is that with all of these layoffs and moves happening from companies, there has not been a peep from the governor. All we hear is that so many taxes were let through that were opposed or not supposed to be part of the bill yet obviously enough of the legislature went ahead and voted for them. And it kills me to see the absents from the voting, great representation when your elected official is not present to do their job.

Everyone pays taxes. Sales taxes especially. So I'm not sure the eligible voting population would change at all by excluding those who don't pay taxes.

[clutchrider]

Originally Posted by GoHuskies

This could be interesting.

Eliminate all forms of welfare.
Eliminate lower income housing.
Reduce unemployment to a flat 6 months pay with no extensions.
Eliminate all funding for lower income healthcare.
Reduce funding to school districts that under perform.
Provide free bus transport to anyone who can't afford to live here and dump them all in surrounding states.

We could make Connecticut into the poster child of ideal society where everyone has a good job, nice home, and contributes back into society with taxes. Most likely also a white Connecticut but hey that's simple economics not racism.

Oh wait now who is going to cut my grass or bag my food?

You missed the point.

Originally Posted by Mike 75

Everyone pays taxes. Sales taxes especially. So I'm not sure the eligible voting population would change at all by excluding those who don't pay taxes.

Sales tax is different from filing taxes each year. The goal is to make sure that we are not simply hemorrhaging money and adding taxes when the state doesn't even properly collect or govern the collection of current taxes. It's a way of saying that if you would like to have a say in how the government and legislature is run by voting, then file your taxes each year.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by clutchrider

You missed the point.

Sales tax is different from filing taxes each year. The goal is to make sure that we are not simply hemorrhaging money and adding taxes when the state doesn't even properly collect or govern the collection of current taxes. It's a way of saying that if you would like to have a say in how the government and legislature is run by voting, then file your taxes each year.

Fundamentally, I don't see any difference between the two. In either case I'm paying money to the state b/c they said so. One can get into the discussion that sales taxes are more regressive, but that's a different argument.

I with you that the state gov't is delusional. But the solution is to stop electing Dems to the legislature. I have relatives that vote the Dem party line and then complain about the budget. When I suggest that they might want to consider voting differently next time, they look at me like I'm crazy.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

Everyone pays taxes. Sales taxes especially. So I'm not sure the eligible voting population would change at all by excluding those who don't pay taxes.

And people forget that renters are indirectly paying real estate taxes with their rent payments. Jay

[clutchrider]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

I with you that the state gov't is delusional. But the solution is to stop electing Dems to the legislature. I have relatives that vote the Dem party line and then complain about the budget. When I suggest that they might want to consider voting differently next time, they look at me like I'm crazy.

Oh you have those in your family to.

It's impossible to have a discussion with mine because it always turns into an argument about race, discrimination, etc. etc. It's really impossible to just talk about the issue without them thinking there is an ulterior motive behind my dialogue because I might have a nicer upbringing/current life status than the discussion allows me to have an opinion for. Not saying I am rich or upper class or any of that, just saying that people's perceptions lead to bias.

[MikefromCT]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

Fundamentally, I don't see any difference between the two. In either case I'm paying money to the state b/c they said so. One can get into the discussion that sales taxes are more regressive, but that's a different argument.

I with you that the state gov't is delusional. But the solution is to stop electing Dems to the legislature. I have relatives that vote the Dem party line and then complain about the budget. When I suggest that they might want to consider voting differently next time, they look at me like I'm crazy.

Well, this current wave of Dems thinks that we can still afford to be generous with things like state employee raises and their benefits, and of course, welfare benefits. Currently, CT is a contender for the most liberal states in the country when it comes to public assistance, and is one of only a handful of states where a person is eligible for welfare within 24 hours of moving here. While there should be some sort of a support system in place, the current one we have is deeply flawed. There's a certain word that our state's leaders have to start implementing into their vocabulary if they really want to get serious about fiscal issues, a very dirty, daring, risque word that everyday people like myself have used for years when they realize they can't afford certain things that really are costly and unnecessary, and that is the word NO.