Connecticut

[kybkh]

We are all on the same page in understanding this is the Baby Boomers doing aren't we?

yeah, funny how this shit always goes back to them.

I heard someone on a podcast recently talking about how big of pussies the Boomers were during Vietnam and how the wealthy "Berkeley" types were all draft dodgers and pushed the cost of war down on the middle class. Unlike in WW1 PBS doc where supposedly the well to do were anxious for glory.

Also noted was that by the better educated draft dodging the leadership which was available during the war did not represent this nation's best which could of had a direct influence on the poor performance and unethical behavior displayed by some units.


A Generation of Sociopaths: How the Baby Boomers Betrayed America

[TheOneX]

Public pensions are a cancer. The double-dipping that is common makes it even worse. People "retire" at 45 with a pension from place A, then get a job at place B for 10 years and get another pension. By 55-60 they are taking in multiple pensions for as many years as they ever worked. It's a racket and they all know it. Try to take even part of that away and you'll be able to hear the squealing from 100 miles away.

I think they would get a lot of support if they tried to take away double dipping on pensions. I think the vast majority of people would agree with that. The only people who wouldn't would be those who benefit from that practice.

Often times I find the biggest obstacle in creating change in the right direction is most people, at least the loudest people, want to go to the extreme from the very beginning. The see issues with pensions, and they just want to get rid of pensions altogether, and that is all they argue for. They don't really take into considerations the political practicalities of such a stance. They don't understand you can make more progress faster if you make incremental changes. Go for the low hanging fruit first, in this case would be pension double dipping, then slowly work towards your goal one step at a time.

I see this mistake most often with libertarians and Libertarians. They like to jump straight to "taxation is theft", "make all drugs legal", etc. and any Libertarian candidate that has the sense to only advocate for legalizing marijuana instead of all drugs immediately isn't libertarian enough for them.

[Okeefenokee]

shots fired.

[Okeefenokee]

Public pensions are a cancer. The double-dipping that is common makes it even worse. People "retire" at 45 with a pension from place A, then get a job at place B for 10 years and get another pension. By 55-60 they are taking in multiple pensions for as many years as they ever worked. It's a racket and they all know it. Try to take even part of that away and you'll be able to hear the squealing from 100 miles away.

I think they would get a lot of support if they tried to take away double dipping on pensions. I think the vast majority of people would agree with that. The only people who wouldn't would be those who benefit from that practice.

Often times I find the biggest obstacle in creating change in the right direction is most people, at least the loudest people, want to go to the extreme from the very beginning. The see issues with pensions, and they just want to get rid of pensions altogether, and that is all they argue for. They don't really take into considerations the political practicalities of such a stance. They don't understand you can make more progress faster if you make incremental changes. Go for the low hanging fruit first, in this case would be pension double dipping, then slowly work towards your goal one step at a time.

I see this mistake most often with libertarians and Libertarians. They like to jump straight to "taxation is theft", "make all drugs legal", etc. and any Libertarian candidate that has the sense to only advocate for legalizing marijuana instead of all drugs immediately isn't libertarian enough for them.

natural result of politics. incentive to govern well is in competition with the incentive to self serve. going moderate and reasonable is in competition with going radical, and gaining the notoriety therein.

When these two sides conflict, the deciding factors are how profitable is good governance versus self serving. With the government being such a shit show, there's no expectation of good governance, so failing to provide it brings very few consequences. Naturally, you go with the self serving route, because that's why you're there to begin with, because naive idealists don't have a chance in hell of even getting close.

Until we're ready to implement voter restrictions, this will stay this way.

[TheOneX]

Public pensions are a cancer. The double-dipping that is common makes it even worse. People "retire" at 45 with a pension from place A, then get a job at place B for 10 years and get another pension. By 55-60 they are taking in multiple pensions for as many years as they ever worked. It's a racket and they all know it. Try to take even part of that away and you'll be able to hear the squealing from 100 miles away.

I think they would get a lot of support if they tried to take away double dipping on pensions. I think the vast majority of people would agree with that. The only people who wouldn't would be those who benefit from that practice.

Often times I find the biggest obstacle in creating change in the right direction is most people, at least the loudest people, want to go to the extreme from the very beginning. The see issues with pensions, and they just want to get rid of pensions altogether, and that is all they argue for. They don't really take into considerations the political practicalities of such a stance. They don't understand you can make more progress faster if you make incremental changes. Go for the low hanging fruit first, in this case would be pension double dipping, then slowly work towards your goal one step at a time.

I see this mistake most often with libertarians and Libertarians. They like to jump straight to "taxation is theft", "make all drugs legal", etc. and any Libertarian candidate that has the sense to only advocate for legalizing marijuana instead of all drugs immediately isn't libertarian enough for them.

natural result of politics. incentive to govern well is in competition with the incentive to self serve. going moderate and reasonable is in competition with going radical, and gaining the notoriety therein.

When these two sides conflict, the deciding factors are how profitable is good governance versus self serving. With the government being such a shit show, there's no expectation of good governance, so failing to provide it brings very few consequences. Naturally, you go with the self serving route, because that's why you're there to begin with, because naive idealists don't have a chance in hell of even getting close.

Until we're ready to implement voter restrictions, this will stay this way.

Yup, it is depressing.

[Zlaxer]

https://ctmirror.org/2017/04/24/nappier ... ing-costs/

“With the recent downgrades of the state’s general obligation credit ratings leading to increased borrowing costs — on a relative basis — over the last few years, it is time to counter that trend,” Nappier said. “Under my proposal, we expect higher credit ratings would be achieved by dedicating a portion of the state’s stable and strong personal income tax revenue stream to repayment.”

I get what she's trying to do - but isn't the answer to cut the amount of borrowing? not the price of borrowing? I'm beginning to think CT will be the first state to go bankrupt...Even if the GOP grabs power in the next five years, the "fixed" pension costs are astronomical....and state revenues are actually shrinking.....


http://www.courant.com/politics/hc-tax- ... story.html

Early Indications Show State Tax Returns $200 Million Short Of Expectations

[SuburbanFarmer]

AKA 'Austerity'

[Zlaxer]

AKA 'Austerity'

Probably.....and then federal receivorship.....the far left wants to keep raising taxes even after its been shown that doing so decreases revenues.....they wont stop untill forced to, i.e. Bankruptcy.....

[Zlaxer]

http://www.journalinquirer.com/public/a ... dfa76.html


SURPRISE!!! Revues aren't down by $200,000,000.00 - they're down by $500,000,000.00!!!!

I don't see how Hartford doesn't declare bankruptcy....I don't see how CT avoids it....the DNC's proposed budget actually increased spending!!!

[Zlaxer]

https://ctmirror.org/2017/05/01/cts-tax ... t-at-1-5b/

Analysts for Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s adminstration and the legislature’s nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis downgraded anticipated revenues for the next two fiscal years by $1.46 billion — nearly $600 million next fiscal year and $865 million in 2018-19 — largely because of eroding income tax receipts.

Projected revenues now fall $2.2 billion, or 11.3 percent, short of the funding needed to maintain current services in 2017-18. And with the potential deficit swelling to $2.7 billion, or 13.6 percent, in 2018-19, the biennial shortfall approaches $5 billion.

There's no way CT is going to be able to suck $5B in two years out of it's tax-base (which shrinks every year).....

Any predictions on what happens since States can't declare bankruptcy?