Welcome To CT

My Left Nutmeg

A community-driven blog featuring news and commentary on local, state, and national politics.

helphaiti

Donate to CT Dems
Enable ActBlue
for CT Races		 $
John Larson
(1st CD)		 $
Joe Courtney
(2nd CD)		 $
Rosa DeLauro
(3rd CD)		 $
Jim Himes
(4th CD)		 $
Chris Murphy
(5th CD)		 $
Ads on My Left Nutmeg
 
 

 
Contact Info
To contact the site admin email ctblogger at ctblogger@yahoo.com

My Left Nutmeg

Issues vs. Non

by: chele

Sat May 29, 2010 at 17:24:21 PM EDT


I think CEP is a non-issue at this point.  I don't think the function of CEP is to guarantee a win for those who participate, but to allow participation by viable candidates at a financial disadvantage.  As such, it has served its purpose for the Malloy campaign.  Mayor Malloy chose to participate in CEP in this particular election, for whatever reasons, and he's a viable candidate.   Lamont has explained why he chose not to participate in CEP.  This is politics people, and the candidates do what they do in order to win.   Those for whom participation in CEP is the only issue will vote accordingly.   I tend to be cynical when it comes to politics and I'm not willing to award the purity badge solely on participation in CEP.  For me, now, the point is moot.  We have two candidates, a Republican opponent, and a state-load of issues on which the general campaign will be waged.  Any more CEP infighting only serves to keep us off those issues and I will take it as a cynical maneuver by a candidate who has nothing else.

So, on to the real issues.  Let's begin with jobs.   We have two candidates with plans and claims, and we need to assess those plans and claims.  

Disclaimer:  I realize I lean towards Lamont.  Knowing that, I'd like to be given SPECIFIC reasons to vote for Malloy.  I haz questions.

The Malloy campaign claims that the Mayor is better qualified to be Governor on the jobs issue, because during his 14 years as mayor of Stamford, Dannel Malloy created 5000 jobs, or approximately 357 jobs per year.  I have tried to do some research on that, but I have not found the answers to my questions, which are as follows:

During those same 14 years, how many jobs LEFT Stamford?   Does the 5000 figure represent an overall gain in jobs, or a loss?

In what sectors are those 5000 jobs?  

Can anyone pinpoint where exactly the jobs came from?  

Did the jobs go to people who already lived in Stamford, or does that figure represent jobs for new or non-residents?

Are the 5000 jobs sustainable, or are they more of the corporate "in and out" that Stamford experiences with the ebb and flow of corporate tax breaks?

I note that Mayor Malloy used the same 5,000 number in his 2006 gubernatorial campaign against Mayor DeStefano.  Have things remained static in Stamford during the last 4 years?  

Is the number concrete, or a projection?  If it was/is a projection, how did the upheaval in the financial services industry affect that projection, and has that been factored in to the 5000 figure?

Perhaps the Malloy supporters/campaign staff here can help me by answering these questions, or pointing me towards finding the answers.  Once again, as a voter, I'm looking for specificity, not rhetoric.
chele :: Issues vs. Non
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Issues vs. Non | 76 comments
Since I'm running around verifying statistics for CaptCT (4.00 / 2)
I found the Census Bureau's "Economic Census" to be a useful tool for examining this claim, as they reported in both 1997 (in Malloy's first term) and 2007 (in Malloy's last term, right before the nationwide economic collapse).

According to the Census bureau, there were 65,288 jobs in the city in 1997, and 60,568 in 2007. However, the "Arts, entertainment, and recreation" sector did not list the number of employees in 2007 -- and grew from 56 establishments to 79 over the course of that decade. If one were to say that the size of that sector (in number of employees) doubled over that time (a charitably favorable estimate), you could add 1500 to the 2007 total, for 62,058 total.

That would represent a loss of 3220 jobs over that period.

I get the feeling that these links are of the "cached by the website today but gone tomorrow" variety, so here are screenshots of their statistics in case the links break:

1997

2007

There may be a better or more authoritative source of data than the Federal Economic Census, and if anyone has access to that data, it would be very helpful to understand the situation from another angle. And of course there is the possibility that dramatic shifts occurred from 1995-1997 or from 2007-2009 that would make the trend from 97-07 and Malloy's claims regarding 95-09 both factually accurate.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

CT Dept of Labor stats are better, I would think .. (4.00 / 2)
But your point is still valid.

Stamford jobs in 1995: 75,420
Stamford jobs in 2001: 81,706
Stamford jobs in 2007: 76,023
Stamford jobs in 2008: 73,907
Stamford jobs in 2009: ???

CT Dept of labor link is here.

The numbers went up by a huge amount through 2001, then fell by a similar amount. Not sure where Malloy's statistics came from, and there may be some justification for them, but I should have double-checked these numbers myself.

[ Parent ]
Thanks -- that's enough data for weeks of chewing! (0.00 / 0)
I couldn't find the pre-2000 figures, but it'll take a while to find my way around. That's a real wealth of info, though.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
[ Parent ]
about 2000 RBS jobs came in 2009 (0.00 / 0)
There were about 2,000 Royal Bank of Scotland jobs that came online in 2009.

I don't have complete job numbers for 2009 from the CT DOL. There may be justification for the 5,000 number -- but I don't know what basis they're using.

[ Parent ]
Accounting For New Jobs In Stamford (4.00 / 1)
Here's example of Malloy's accounting from the NY Times:

The Royal Bank of Scotland already has employees in Greenwich at RBS Greenwich Capital, but those 700 workers and another 550 from New York would move to Stamford. If the bank grows at its projected rate, the move will bring 1,150 jobs to Connecticut within five years, according to the state's economic analysis of the deal. To bring them here, the state has pledged $100 million worth of tax credits, as well as additional sales tax exemptions for construction materials.

The announcement of the deal contained some inconsistencies. While Gov. M. Jodi Rell said in a statement that the bank would build a 500,000-square-foot headquarters in Stamford, a consultant's economic analysis said the building would take up 550,000 square feet, and the City of Stamford announced it would be 700,000 square feet.

And while Ms. Rell's release said the move would bring 1,150 jobs as the company grows, Stamford Mayor Dannel P. Malloy announced the project would bring ''2,000 initial jobs,'' and 1,000 more ''to be added later.'' He also estimated that the deal would indirectly create 7,000 other jobs.

Note:

1. 700 of the jobs came from Greenwich
2. To create these jobs took $100 million plus in state tax credits
3. 1,150 jobs in 5 years vs. 2,000 right away and 1,000 later (or is it 8,000 later?)

A question regarding funding for CEP. Help, please? (0.00 / 0)
An article by right-wing hack Neil Vigdor in Greenwich Time/Stamford Advocate describes funding for CEP as "taxpayer funding".  But the source of the funding is assets seized by the state, right?  Can anyone with expertise on this help me out?  I'd like to post a comment on it.

In the article, Vigdor talks about using "taxpayer funds", but fails to point out that the Republicans for general assembly in Greenwich are billionaires, and certainly are opting out not to save the taxpayers some bucks, but because they have essentially unlimited financial resources.

Thanks in advance for your research assistance.

[ Parent ]
The source for the funds (0.00 / 0)
The source for CEP funding is the sale of unclaimed assets in CT.  This generates CT about $50 - 70 million each year, $17.5 million of which goes into the CEP fund.

It is not direct tax payer $$.

[ Parent ]
Thank you very much, and please... (0.00 / 0)
do go online to GT and register your objections and clarifications to their story.  You're the expert, and you should speak out.
[ Parent ]
Thanks - I'll tell Cheri (0.00 / 0)
(I am not the spokesperson for CCCT!)
[ Parent ]
But the $ Would Go Into The General Fund (0.00 / 0)
If not used for this purpose?
[ Parent ]
yes (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Not sure. Clarification? (0.00 / 0)
But what I object to in the article is the characterization of the funding for CEP as "taxpayer funds", suggesting that it is taxes paid by income earners from payroll taxes, when in reality it is not taxes on hard-pressed income earners at all, but revenues from the sale of "unclaimed assets".  That is an important distinction that Vigdor should have made, but didn't.  And I believe he didn't because he wanted to twist the substance of CEP to suggest that it was taxpayers being gouged.  In any event, he should have clarified the source of the funding, particularly since on multiple places in the article he had opportunity to do so.

I also object to his misleading characterization of the Republican candidates as somehow opting out of public financing in order to save the taxpayers money, when in fact those opting out are billionaires who possess the ability to swamp their opponents with their own funding.  It's significant that he fails to point this out, because that same writer in virtually every article regarding town resident Ned Lamont in 2006 described him as a "Greenwich millionaire", yet when Scott Frantz, one of the billionaires mentioned in this story, began his campaign for state senate, not once did Vigdor use that same description against him.  And not only has he still refused to refer to him as a "Greenwich millionaire", but Vigdor recently referred to him as an "up and comer".  No such description of Ned Lamont was ever made, though Lamont, with a double-digit lead for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, is most certainly an "up and comer".

Once again, it belies Vigdor's right-wing bias, as well as Greenwich Time/Stamford Advocate/Hearst's endorsement of that bias.

We're still waiting for editor David McCumber to return phone calls from the chairman of the Greenwich DTC to take him up on McCumber's previous invitation to meet to discuss precisely this sort of endemic bias in his newspapers' reporting.  But McCumber, and for that matter publisher Michelle McAbee, refuse to even acknowledge his efforts to contact him.

Typical.

[ Parent ]
I emailed Neil (0.00 / 0)
with the info about where the funds come from, and have sent the article out to our group . . .

Thanks for taking the lead on correcting this info, thomashooker!

[ Parent ]
I posted a reply on the online edition... (0.00 / 0)
but haven't seen any correction in his hit-piece, though you sent him information correcting what he wrote.  Why am I not surprised?
[ Parent ]
Any money not nailed down (4.00 / 1)
... And some that was, was raided last year.

Fortunately there are fewer candidates than SEEC anticipated, so it looks like the fund will be ok.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
Hey Kim (0.00 / 0)
Would you be interested in doing a post on McComish v Bennett and its relevance to us here in CT? I'm interested in the subject, but if I did one of my noodling links-n-commentary type things it would probably just turn into some crazy flamewar. But it seems likely that a ruling will come down this month (before 6/22) and that (absent a package of changes to the CEP by the legislature) that the ruling has the potential to spur the 2nd circuit to action.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
[ Parent ]
Sure (4.00 / 1)
I did a summary of what happened that should be able to be translated into a blog post fairly easily.  I'll see if I can get it up today.
[ Parent ]
yeah dood! (4.00 / 1)
Thanks! I actually am not entirely clear what the courts have ruled (even though I understand the outline of the case that was brought), so I look forward to seeing it.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
[ Parent ]
Cool (0.00 / 0)
I'll have it up some time this afternoon.  It is actually pretty complicated!
[ Parent ]
many thanks (4.00 / 1)
This is a great service, Kim, and all the more so as it is not a topic that is likely to appear in detail in the mainstream media.

I look forward to reading your piece, and I am grateful for the time and effort you have put into creating it.

[ Parent ]
You're welcome! (0.00 / 0)
It should  be up in a couple hours.
[ Parent ]
BTW (0.00 / 0)
I am having someone look at my summary of what happened in Arizona to make sure I translated the legalese correctly.  So I will likely put it up tomorrow - sorry for the delay!
[ Parent ]
update on RBS (4.00 / 1)
As of May 9, 2010, RBS had 2,000 employees, with the capacity to add 1,000 more.

The tax credits are spread over 10 years, and conditional on the number of workers it brings to Stamford.

RBS currently has 2,000 people in its new $400 million Stamford building, said Michael Geller, head of public relations, Americas at RBS Global Banking & Markets.

RBS pays the city of Stamford over $1.8 million in property taxes yearly and the company's building is assessed at $105 million.

According to a study by the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, RBS will generate more than $420 million in new state tax revenue through 2028, $63 million in local tax revenues over the next decade and an additional 3,000 employees working in Stamford.

The property taxes are being used to fund development of Mill River Park improvements:

Under that financing agreement, RBS built a paved public walkway behind its building, which borders the river.

The section, which represents the first addition constructed by the private sector, is expected to be a part of a longer walkway that the city hopes to build along both sides of the river.

The company has said it eventually will extend the walkway to the end of Division Street. [...]

The river was polluted with trash before RBS arrived, said the architect, Roger Ferris. "You can really begin to its promise," Ferris said.

Also, the RBS building is a green building:

In keeping with the city's desire for more green development, RBS is pursuing a gold ranking from the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system.

It would make it the largest building in the state to meet that criteria, Riley said.


[ Parent ]
So did the tax credits disadvantage Greenwich to benefit Stamford? (0.00 / 0)
Do I have that right?  Does Greenwich lose an enormous sum in property taxes from RBS?  Haven't heard anything in the local press, which, BTW, includes two publications- Greenwich Time and Stamford Advocate- whose editors are the same people, and whose owner is the same monopolist Hearst Newspapers.
[ Parent ]
Thanks (0.00 / 0)
This is interesting, and I'm going to spend some time looking at the numbers.  At first glance though, I'm not seeing a gain of 5000 jobs in Stamford in either the Census or CT Dept of Labor figure, except for the boom years between '95 and '01.  Since those jobs appear to be gone by '08, I wouldn't say it's entirely honest to claim to have created 5000 jobs.

Stamford has a 30+ year history of "creating" jobs by giving away millions of dollars in tax breaks to lure corporations to the city, only to have those corporations and jobs move away when the breaks run out.  I assume that same vicious cycle goes on throughout the state -- or at least in Fairfield County --  and the claims of job "creation" by any municipality look pretty bogus to me when they're enticing companies to move one or two towns over.  Corporations are playing Peter against Paul to their own benefit, leaving taxpayers with the increased costs of infrastructure improvement, education, recreation, etc.  

I'll be interested in seeing what the candidates have to say about breaking this cycle and bringing companies to Connecticut that actually want to be in CT, and will actually GIVE to the state, rather than take and move on.  There's got to be a better to create jobs than by paying $87,000 apiece for them, especially knowing that if history holds true those jobs will be gone in five to ten years.

jobs and the national and global economies (0.00 / 0)
The stock market crashed in the fall of 2008 and, as a result, companies all over the state, all over the country, and all over the world slashed jobs. Thousands of people were laid off in Hartford alone.

Mayors can only do so much to create jobs and if many of the jobs that Malloy helped create were lost in 2008, it's probably due to factors outside of his control.  

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."--James Madison

[ Parent ]
There is a claim (0.00 / 0)
of 5,000 jobs created.

Stamford jobs in 1995: 75,420
Stamford jobs in 2001: 81,706
Stamford jobs in 2007: 76,023

["if many of the jobs that Malloy helped create were lost in 2008"- please note the dates I used]

So, from 95-01 we can see 5,000 jobs created. And from 01-07 (before the meltdown) we see most of those jobs gone.

If a candidate is going to make a claim like creating 5,000 jobs, then they should be able to show that they were creating those jobs. Not that the jobs came, and went away. That is not job creation.

What I see is a net increase of 600 jobs from 95-07. And there are a large number of assumptions. Like those are well paying jobs going to Stamford residents. That those jobs come with health care benefits and are paying enough to allow people to live within the city, spend their income in the city and expand the tax base of the city.

This is one of those "fact checking" things that I talked about in another post.

I have no problem with the claim, but the numbers don't seem to support it. So, either the claim is a fiction, or the facts to support it should be made public so that it can be verified.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

[ Parent ]
good points (0.00 / 0)
The numbers show that Stamford lost about 5000 jobs between '01 and '07, before "the stock market crashed in the fall of 2008.  Thanks for pointing out that obvious fact.

That those jobs come with health care benefits and are paying enough to allow people to live within the city, spend their income in the city and expand the tax base of the city.

I haven't had the time to sit down and really look at the statistics provided by mattw and CaptCT.   The Census site breaks the jobs down clearly by sector, and that bears looking at.  We need to look at how many of the jobs "created" provide an actual living wage, and how many of them are minimum wage, part-time jobs without benefits.  As the cost of living in Stamford has risen, how many of those residents who are not employed by the shiny new corporations are being forced out?  


[ Parent ]
DOL stats (0.00 / 0)
Those jobs listed on the CT DOL stats are only those jobs that offer unemployment insurance, as I understand it. They don't count all the other jobs. You can call the CT DOL to check yourself. The number is listed on their website, which I linked to. Select the Contact Us tab.

If you're worried about people earning a living wage, I imagine that you'd also be worried that CT residents who earn $1.3 million or more annually pay only 5% of their income in state taxes (including sales taxes and property taxes) while those earning in the bottom 20% pay 12% of their income in state taxes.

Those numbers come from a report done by CT Voices for Children. You can go to their website and read their report if you want to. I'd link to it, but I doubt you'd read it.  

If fairness is your issue, ask Ned if he thinks it's fair that he pays a lower rate of state taxes than his landscaper.  

[ Parent ]
I will (0.00 / 0)
and I'll ask Dan the same thing.
[ Parent ]
why (0.00 / 0)
You can go to their website and read their report if you want to. I'd link to it, but I doubt you'd read it.

Why would you doubt that?  On what basis?  Are you unable to discuss issues here without getting snotty to people who don't love Dan Malloy as much as you do?

I'm not conversant enough with your past postings to say whether you are always this self-righteously adversarial, or whether there is something in the Kool-Aid the Malloy campaign hands out that causes this kind of knee-jerk negative reaction to anything that remotely looks like a criticism of their boy -- but I started this thread to have a civilized conversation about the issue of jobs, and the Malloy claim of creating 5000 of them in Stamford.  I thanked you for your link to the Dept of Labor site.  I hoped people would weigh in on a) the veracity of the 5000 claim and, b) the best ways to create jobs in CT to benefit the entire state.

It seems we can't discuss ANYTHING without nastiness or CEP coming up, as evidenced in this thread, such that I'm beginning to think that CEP is Dannel's only issue and his supporters will fight tooth and nail to hide that fact.

[ Parent ]
The link to the DOL ... (0.00 / 0)
was included with the original post. Instead of checking the link, reading what the figures meant, or contacting the DOL, you said:

We need to look at how many of the jobs "created" provide an actual living wage, and how many of them are minimum wage, part-time jobs without benefits.

Since you didn't check the original link and doing that kind of research on your own, I figured you wouldn't do it if I posted it in the following comment.

If you want to look at the CT Voices for Children report, here's the link.

Let me know what you think.

[ Parent ]
wtf? (0.00 / 0)
Do you always selectively edit what people say and make wild, snotty accusations?  

Yeah, your link to the DOL was included with the original link, following mattw's link to the Census site.  And I clearly stated that I checked the links, looked at them briefly, and stated that I had not yet had time to sit down and analyze them, not only for the totals but for specifics about the jobs created.  Not all of us have hours to spend on the internet.

I haven't had the time to sit down and really look at the statistics provided by mattw and CaptCT.   The Census site breaks the jobs down clearly by sector, and that bears looking at.  We need to look at how many of the jobs "created" provide an actual living wage, and how many of them are minimum wage, part-time jobs without benefits.
 (see chele @ Tue Jun 01, 2010 at 21:51:55 PM EDT in its entirety)  

You have a lot to say, but much of it seems to be finding ways to make your points dishonestly.  As such, most of what you say should be taken with a grain of salt.

[ Parent ]
cute (0.00 / 0)
You get snippy at me for saying that I doubted you would check the links, then you don't check the links, proving my point, and then you get more snippy.

The reason I'm annoyed, you see, is because you said you wanted to find out where the jobs came from, and I gave you the information, and you didn't even look at it.

If you had gone to that original link, clicked Annual Averages by Towns (Stamford is listed under the towns from O-S), you would have seen precisely which industries those jobs came from.

In the time that you spent making your snide remarks, you could have had all the information you said you wanted.

Here. I'll give you the link again.

Pick any year. Go to Annual Averages by Towns, select O-S, and download the file.

You can either spend your time making another snide remark, OR you can go look at that information you said you wanted.


[ Parent ]
returning the volley (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I want to find out in what sectors the claimed job increases were created, and where they came from.  The ultimate point of that is to figure out whether they are jobs that benefit the community as a whole, i.e. whether they are sustainable, and across all income levels.  

That requires more than a quick drive-by viewing, especially on the DOL site where each year must be downloaded separately and then compared.  As I've admitted elsewhere, math isn't my forte and I need to spend more time on numbers than others might.  A quick comparison, say between 2000 and 2008, doesn't really show the big picture.  Nor does looking at the DOL site alone.   There's an ebb and flow that I believe isn't ultimately beneficial to the city and the state.  One also has to look at housing costs and spending and a raft of other variables in order to see the true picture for ALL residents and taxpayers.  

Of course, I could just follow links that are provided to me, and find out what people want me to find out, based on their biases.  And I could continue to look at things only according to my own admitted biases.  But I'm really tired of politics-by-sound-bite, no matter what side of the political fence it comes from.  We are (or should be) at a crossroads where we stop following slogans and start looking at records and reality.  It's not easy and yeah, it takes more time than replying to your smug attacks.  For example, if I followed your link to a specific CT Voices study, I'd have possibly believed that Connecticut's problems could be solved by taxing wealthy individuals.  I'd have completely overlooked the whole corporate welfare drain which is a huge factor in Connecticut's fiscal situation, and I wouldn't have considered it when thinking about all those jobs that may have been created in Stamford.  

Forgive me if I don't look only at what you want me to, when you want me to -- or accept a candidate based on whether or not he/she remembered my name, came to my party, or told me something he/she wants me to take at face value.  I'm taking the time to look elsewhere in order to get the bigger picture, which seems wise to me given your penchant to delete, omit and selectively cut and paste.  

If you'd reply with substance and leave out the personal attacks, both of us would have more time to look at issues.


[ Parent ]
you asked what sectors those jobs came from (0.00 / 0)
... the link provided that info.

You're welcome, again.

I'm glad you found the CT Voices for Children site. You're welcome, again.

I'm disappointed you ignored their recommendations for a more progressive tax policy.  

[ Parent ]
you know ... (0.00 / 0)
Instead of getting all snippy, you could have gone to the CT Voices for Children website and looked up their report and commented on the substance of it.

You didn't. So, my prediction was correct. Sorry if that annoys you.

Also, if you look at where the actual job figures from the CT DOL ended up getting posted in this diary, you'll see I'm the one who posted them. The figures that contradict Malloy's claim -- I posted those numbers, and offered you a link.

Your welcome.  

[ Parent ]
If someone had asked about the tax rates of different income brackets (0.00 / 0)
Then the CT Voices link would have been informative and useful.

Since that's a tangential subject that you introduced by way of not answering a totally different question about the kinds of jobs which were created in Stamford, maybe chele looked at it and found that it was totally off topic and was just polite enough to point that out.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
taxes and the budget and jobs are all related (0.00 / 0)
Maybe progressives would do better if they understood a bit more about economics.  
[ Parent ]
Now that was funny (4.00 / 2)
attacking "progressives" for not understanding economics.

Tell em again how taxing the rich less will trickle down to those in need,and how giving more stimulus won't create jobs.

See, some of us called Reagan out for his voodoo economics (heck even King George I) because we progressives understood economics.

Tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations do NOT, in general, result in economic gains for the underclasses or the State. It is a very effective way of helping the rich get richer, the poor stay poor and the middle class get poorer.

If nothing else the last 40 years should show that FDR, Truman and Eisenhower were right and Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush (and now Obama) were wrong.

As I have said many times... revert the tax code back to 1952. Adjust the personal tax exemption for inflation. Then sit back and watch the country right itself. Yeah, it a progressive view based on history and an understanding of economics. Not on wild ass theories that somehow giving the rich more will trickle down, create jobs, and make everything good. Because, we have seen that that is absolute bullshit. And let me state that "the rich" and "Corporations" are generally one and the same when it comes to the failures of that policy.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

[ Parent ]
have a job (0.00 / 0)
maybe you don't.  
[ Parent ]
Growing jobs -- big issue (4.00 / 2)
The jobs issue is directly related to budget and tax issues. If you want to create jobs during a recession, you can't balance the budget on the backs of the poor and working class. That makes the recession worse!

That's according to Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, two Nobel prize winning economists.

In this article, Fifty Herbert Hoovers, Krugman explains why governors should NOT be slashing state spending during a recession.

Stiglitz and about 120 other economists agree:

Two highly regarded economists - Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University, and Peter Orszag, director of the federal Office of Management and Budget - wrote during the last recession that spending cuts could actually be more harmful for a state's economy during a recession than tax increases. Stiglitz reiterated the point in a 2008 letter (co-signed by 120 other economists) to New York's Governor David Paterson.

Stiglitz explains that it makes more sense for states to increase taxes on high-income earners, the residents who suffer the least during a recession.

"The more that the tax increases or transfer reductions are focused on those with lower propensities to consume (that is, on those who spend less and save more of each additional dollar of income), the less damage is done to the weakened economy. Since higher-income families tend to have lower propensities to consume than lower-income families, the least damaging approach in the short run involves tax increases concentrated on higher-income families.

Also, raising taxes on multimillionaires is extremely popular:

The second half of Quinnipiac University's most recent poll finds that New Yorkers back the idea of a "millionaire's tax" 4 to 1, with a majority backing a tax hike on people making over $250,000 a year. [...]

By a 61-point margin, 79 percent to 18 percent, respondents support a so-called "Millionaire's Tax," a higher state income tax rate on people making more than $1 million a year.

So, doing what makes sense -- raising taxes on high income earners -- also makes political sense, especially when you factor in that CT's millionaires pay only 5% of their income in state taxes (including income, property, sales), and the poorest wage earners pay 12% of their income in state taxes.

So, the jobs issue and the budget and tax issue are linked. The choice is obvious. A more progressive tax structure is needed to help dampen the recession and eventually lead to job growth.

Ned Lamont says cutting spending would be his priority. Malloy recommends tax reform that includes a more progressive tax structure.
 

In this election cycle (4.00 / 4)
...it will absolutely be political suicide to be the guy running on the "raise taxes" platform.  Have you been to a tea party?  It would be like throwing chum to the sharks!

Face it, in order to get ANY Progressive ideas implemented here in Connecticut, we first need to get a Democrat elected!  The over-riding theme this year is going to be "make government run better", not "raise taxes". Don't believe for a second that the media will educate the voters on the nuances of a progressive tax structure; all the low information voters will hear is "the Democrat wants to raise taxes".  

You can't tax your way out of a recession; and especially not if a Republican sits in the governor's chair.

Connecticut Bob

[ Parent ]
I think the point that needs to hammered home over and over... (0.00 / 0)
is this:

Face it, in order to get ANY Progressive ideas implemented here in Connecticut, we first need to get a Democrat elected!

And the emphasis here is ANY, not which ones will be implemented or who is more progressive or what is the most important progressive idea, but ANY!

[ Parent ]
disagree (0.00 / 0)
All Ned has to say is, Why should I pay a lower state tax rate than my secretary?

I don't think Dan Malloy's "tax reform plan" is a difficult sell. It's actually a strong selling point. One component of Malloy's plan is easing the burden of property taxes -- something every homeowner can relate to. Remember, Obama campaigned on a similar tax reform concept -- raising the marginal rates on high income earners -- and won.  

But even more to the point: How will Ned fund his big ideas when the state is billion$ of dollars in the hole?

[ Parent ]
what (0.00 / 0)
did Dan do as Mayor of Stamford to ease the burden of property taxes on homeowners in Stamford?

Please be specific.

[ Parent ]
Malloy talks about creating a new tax structure (0.00 / 0)
... in a conversation with the Yale Democrats. Reducing reliance on property taxes to fund education is a part of a progressive reform plan:


[ Parent ]
We have a progressive tax structure (0.00 / 0)
... after the 2009 budget deal, even though the stair-step is at an absurdly high level (hh income of $1M+/year). The video didn't have any proposed figure or concrete change to the current setup (though it was obviously an excerpt of a longer discussion.) Do you (or maybe ChrisMC, who I think filmed this) have any material on what Dan's reformed tax structure would look like?  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
[ Parent ]
no, we do not (0.00 / 0)
... have a progressive tax structure. We have a progressive income tax, but income taxes are only a small piece of state taxes. There are also sales taxes and property taxes. Property taxes are offset by mortgage interest deductions.

CT Voices for Children did a report, added up all those taxes, and showed how the lowest-to-middle wage earners get totally screwed, while those earning more than $1.3 million pay the least.

In terms of concrete figures, perhaps both candidates can offer those up and then discuss them in a debate -- or some other forum.  

[ Parent ]
Maybe (0.00 / 0)
Maybe Lamont wants to cut state spending on corporate welfare.  Or do you know otherwise?  The jobs issue and the budget and tax issue are indeed linked, but not only where you'd like them to be.  
[ Parent ]
Why CEP is an issue... (4.00 / 1)
Ned Lamont has received more than $300,000 in campaign contributions so far in this campaign.  Donations have ranged from $20 (from a nurse) to $3,500 (from investment bankers). For the April 10 filing, 590 individuals - from in state and out of state -- chipped in $319,141. The average donation was $541.

Compare that to the CEP program. Malloy received 4,000 donations from in-state residents. The average donation was $63.

I was going to point out some of the influential people who donated to the Lamont campaign, but you can go look at that yourself if you want to. That's not the point.

The point is: When a candidate self-finances or relies on big donors, the small donor has a smaller voice.  On the other hand, the CEP program forces candidates to go out and talk to -- and listen to -- ordinary voters, lots of them. And that's a healthy thing for any candidate.

 

Most ordinary voters don't join DTC's or attend political functions or donate to politicians (0.00 / 0)
Malloy concentrated on winning the 2010 Convention, so he didn't talk to ordinary voters.  He primarily talked with those voters who were already active in politics and who'd cast him a vote at the Convention.

When I first moved to Connecticut from Illinois in 1983, I registered as a Democrat but didn't participant in any Democratic functions, didn't donate to any candidate, nor was I ever invited to participate in any Democratic event or group.  That's were most ordinary Democratic voters are today too.  It wasn't until 2002 that I got politically active and I did so on my own initiative.

[ Parent ]
issue (2.00 / 1)
I don't understand what you're saying here.  Are you really trying to say that Ned Lamont doesn't listen to smaller donors?

I'm in favor of CEP, academically.  As I have pointed out elsewhere, I don't have a problem with wealthy candidates, I don't have a problem with self funding.  I look at where the wealth, and the donations, come from.

CEP was not an issue for me between Lamont and Malloy.  It is my opinion that at THIS point, in THIS election, the CEP issue is being beaten to death purely as a political strategy.  That isn't the point of CEP and it's pretty damn cynical to try and make it the point.  

How cynical?  I have a Lamont sign at my desk.  Someone went by and commented, "So, you're voting for the millionaire."   Never mind that the person making the comment is worth several million.  Never mind that he has contributed many, many thousands of dollars to political candidates -- in fact, almost half my salary in this cycle, and we haven't even gotten started.  He obviously doesn't have a problem with giving large contributions to candidates, Dannel Malloy included in the past.  But because the Malloy campaign has decided to make CEP an issue, it's "So, you're voting for the millionaire."  That's just b.s. of the worst, most cynical kind.  

So, I've decided it IS an issue for me now.  The more the Malloy campaign brings it up, the less I think of him.  If he's using this as a campaign tactic, I'm going to assume that he's cynically using all his other "progressive" stands to attract the "progressive" vote as well.  Because, after all, his record doesn't show that he's been "progressive" in the past.

[ Parent ]
you say, (0.00 / 0)
"I look at where the wealth, and the donations, come from."

Honestly, I don't think you do.

I did look up Ned's donors, and in order to not start another flame war, I'm not going to get into it here because it's not fair for me to slam Ned for the handful of people I researched who, in my opinion, aren't what you'd call "progressives".

My point is that Ned hangs out in a world where a married couple, friends of his, can toss $7000 to his political campaign without batting an eye -- giving money to a candidate who really doesn't need it, like giving coal to Newcastle as they say. This provides a massive advantage in terms of getting his name and message out.

So, in effect, you have a group of Ned and his friends -- a few hundred people, maybe -- who can decide the election in a state of 3 million people. That's not good for Democracy.

CEP is.

You can argue that Ned's ideas will win the day, not his money. But without a fair airing of those ideas either in a debate or some other format, it's all about money and ad buys.

When Ned ran against Lieberman in 2006, it was only because he had his own money he could compete. That's not the case here.  


[ Parent ]
I Miss John Orman (0.00 / 0)
He had a good story about this.

"I am not a Blogger...But I play one on the internet."
[ Parent ]
You mean John Orman, the Lieberman lover? (0.00 / 0)
I boo Orman when he speaks at anti-Iraq war rallies because he still supports that warmonger.
[ Parent ]
You are probably thinking of John Olsen (0.00 / 0)
John Orman ran against Lieberman for a while before Lamont stepped up.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
[ Parent ]
Yes, John Olsen (0.00 / 0)
My faux pas
[ Parent ]
Let me take issue with your contention (4.00 / 2)
To cut to the chase, I believe it is important to have a system in which both wealthy individuals can run, and a CEP-type system can help the Dan Malloys of the world run.  The worst of all worlds is a system where a guy like Joe Lieberman sucks at the corporate....let me change that, a guy like Lieberman is dependent on corporate contributions from people who have their own selfish interests at heart, or who legally bribe Lieberman by offering his wife a high-paying job as an unregistered lobbyist to help kill health care reform.  So Lieberman is entirely beholden to his right-wing friends who want nothing better than to kill reform at every level.

But let's not condemn people of wealth who want to step forward to make this state and this country a better place.  Let's recall that in 1776 Benjamin Franklin was a very wealthy man, having created an international franchise business for printing businesses.  And John Hancock was reputed to be the richest man in the thirteen colonies, yet he put not only his assets on the line, but his life.  Teddy Roosevelt was the scion of a rich New York family, yet he implemented many of the progressive era reforms that Democrats had been pushing for.  FDR was another man born to wealth and privilege, yet who would want an America bereft of blessings for which we have FDR to thank?  And would we really want John Corzine of New Jersey to have been disqualified from running for U.S. Senator, then governor of New Jersey?  How 'bout Bloomberg?  Ronald Reagan?  I certainly disagree with his entire legislative agenda, but would Republicans have wanted him disqualified because he arrived on the national scene as a wealthy man?  

And now we have Ned Lamont.  Already we can see that Ned Lamont's courage in standing up to chicken hawk Lieberman, and through his challenge, standing up to the Bush war agenda, is singularly responsible for the fact that two months from now the last American combat troops will leave Iraq.  Would we want him to have been prevented from using his family wealth to challenge Lieberman, who is now one of the most unpopular politicians in Connecticut state history?  That's what I thought.

We need men and women of courage and ability and moral decency to step forward to run our state and our country.  It matters little whether they are born to wealth, are self-made men and women of wealth, or they are not wealthy.  What we need is a system that permits all to compete effectively without having to prostitute themselves and sell out the interests of their constituents for corporate bucks.  Dan Malloy is getting exactly what he should get: a state-funded opportunity to challenge Ned Lamont minus the legal bribes from corporate interests.  And that's what we all deserve.

So Malloy should put a cork in his rants about Ned Lamont's money and about Malloy's being the "clean election candidate".  Lamont did this nation a service four years ago, and Dan Malloy has been presented with millions in state funds with which to make his case to Democratic voters.  And both are to be commended.

[ Parent ]
agree, sort of (0.00 / 0)
I agree with this:
let's not condemn people of wealth who want to step forward to make this state and this country a better place.
 
But where have they been the past two decades as the state spiraled into disrepair -- and as our country has spiraled into a financial and environmental mess? Really. What have all the benevolent rich folk been doing? I don't think they noticed that real wages have been declining for a generation, but I wouldn't expect them to. But you'd think they'd notice bridges collapsing, sewage seeping into Byram Beach, the financial meltdown, that sort of thing.

The "people of wealth" (your words) who founded our country had indentured servants, employed slaves on their plantations, and they drove Native Americans off their lands, committing genocide in the process.

But they also created a sort of imperfect Democracy that we've been trying to improve on for the past 200+ years -- one that has allowed many people from all over the world to improve their lives.

Historically, that imperfect Democratic system has worked best when commoners were actively engaged in the Democratic process -- unions, activists, etc. Think of FDR, end of child labor laws, FDA, etc.

CEP allows more people to be involved with the Democratic process.

So yes. I agree that people of wealth can benefit, and have benefited, our country, and they can still do so today. But I'd be more trustworthy of today's oligarchs if they had a better track record. (Honestly, today's rich folks suck compared to the FDR-style rich folks.)

Let's ask the candidates if they think we need to reform CT's hedge fund industry. That might give us a clue as to how much progress we'll see over the next four years.    

[ Parent ]
Ned Lamont was stepping up (4.00 / 1)
teaching kids in Bridgeport and standing up against Lieberman.  Jim Himes was embarking on a second career boosting affordable housing in our region.  And then he, too, stood up against chicken hawk Shays.  Dick Blumenthal was fighting against corporate excesses as attorney general.

Regarding the hedge fund industry, let's point out that it was the rating agencies and the commercial banks that colluded to pass on crappy mortgages bound to fail to those hedge funds.  Let's keep in mind that it was the non-bank mortgage lenders that connived to put unsuspecting borrowers into high-cost subprime mortgages.  It wasn't the hedge funds that were to blame.  Indeed, hedge funds were trying to save their investors' money by, get this, hedging their investments.  In fact, that's how they got their name.

And John Hancock did not own slaves, nor did Benjamin Franklin.

So I think the criticism is a bit off-base here.

[ Parent ]
three points (0.00 / 0)
1. Ned and Jim deserve all the credit in the world for what they've done in recent years. And, you're right, they should be encouraged to make the state and country a better place. I'll use FDR as my model: In the 1930s, FDR increased the top tax rate on millionaires to 90%, put a cap on executive salaries, raised estate taxes, and signed the Glass-Steagall Act to regulate banking. I encourage Ned and Jim to look at the positive effects of those policies, and how they might be adapted for the 21st Century.

2. Regarding hedge funds, Dick Blumenthal disagrees with you:

As hedge funds themselves raise capital in more conventional ways -- going public, selling bonds and unsecured securities -- they must play by rules requiring disclosure. ... There must be adequate, accurate transparency of how much risk and in what forms an investor can anticipate and what controls exist to assure that risk strategies are followed and internally enforced. [...]
New potential dangers are emerging and expanding --in the growing dimensions of leverage and debt, and increasing use of new financial instruments such as credit default swaps. ... Hedge funds remain a regulatory black hole.
(See also: Madoff, Bernie.)

3. Regarding our founding fathers, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, among others, owned slaves. Ben Franklin, John Hancock, and the rest of the founding fathers, ratified a Constitution that considered these slaves 3/5 of a person.

 

[ Parent ]
Hedge funds did not cause this crisis (0.00 / 0)
I agree with Blumenthal's call for greater disclosure, especially regarding risk.  But the hedge funds did not cause this financial meltdown, the commercial banks, the and the non-bank mortgage institutions, helped along by the rating agencies, did.  So Blumenthal and I do not disagree.

You say that Ned and Jim should be "encourage", but both have already stood up for what is right; Jim Himes has already voted for new financial regulation, for health reform that will keep millions more people alive, and more people out of bankruptcy.  And Ned has already kept Americans alive by being the driving force behind the movement that is stopping the war in Iraq.

[ Parent ]
my point was that (0.00 / 0)
... hedge funds needed to regulated. You seemed to take issue. Glad you agree that the industry needs better regulation.

Ned and Jim are still actively engaged in government, or are trying to be, and should continually be encouraged to do what's right on a vast number of issues. Don't you think?

I don't think the work on financial reform, health care reform, peace in Iraq, etc., are anywhere close to being done, to put it nicely. They would probably tell you the same thing.

And I don't think Ned has a budget plan capable of dealing with the state's problems. So, he should continue to try to improve it. Malloy has a better idea of what needs to be done, but he needs to provide more specifics.


[ Parent ]
Ben Franklink also said that they, the Founding Fathers, were men, not demi-gods (0.00 / 0)
and he knew that they could not solve the slavery issue in their day.  At the time of the signing of the Constitution, slavery was legal EVERY WHERE around the globe.  England didn't abolish it until 1831.
[ Parent ]
slavery was legal because it was good for business (4.00 / 1)
... that doesn't disprove my point. "People of wealth" -- our founding fathers -- legally enslaved other human beings because it enhanced their wealth.

Russia abolished slavery in 1723. Portugal abolished slavery n 1761. In 1772, a British judged issued a landmark ruling that essentially defined slavery as illegal. Vermont abolished slavery in 1777. Scotland banned slavery in 1778. In the U.S., it would take a Civil War to ultimately decide the issue, because "people of wealth" couldn't deal with having to pay for their cheap labor.
   

[ Parent ]
Russian changed former slaves into serfs so they be taxed. (0.00 / 0)
From Wikipedia on Russian Empire

The class of kholops, close to the one of slavery, remained a major institution in Russia until 1723, when Peter the Great converted the household kholops into house serfs including them into poll taxation. Russian agricultural kholops were formally converted into serfs earlier in 1679.

Serfs are unfree peasants under feudalism.  It's a form of modified slavery.

Serfdom was abolished much later


In 1859, there were more than 23 million serfs living under conditions frequently worse than those of the peasants of western Europe on 16th-century manors. Alexander II made up his own mind to abolish serfdom from above rather than wait for it to be abolished from below through revolution.

The emancipation of the serfs in 1861 was the single most important event in 19th-century Russian history.

As far as Portugal,


Although Portuguese Prime Minister Marquês de Pombal abolished slavery in mainland Portugal (and in the Portuguese colonies in India ) on the February 12th, 1761, slavery continued in Portugal's overseas colonies, particularly in Brazil, until its final abolition in 1888.
(Wikepedia on Slavery in Brasil)

[ Parent ]
CaptCT (0.00 / 0)
this is the third or fourth time in as many days that you have brought forth research that has facts in it that once checked are found to be lacking.

It's like someone saying that the entire reason for the civil war was slavery, and ignoring the industrialized infrastructure of the North relative to the non-industrialized South as a major issue, as well as issues of taxation and other components that led the South through secession.

This is not to say that slavery was NOT an issue, but to ignore all the other issues and focus on that one is just as un-factual as to claim that slavery wasn't an issue.

This is NOT an attempt to say that you are knowingly omitting data, but we are getting to a preponderance of information is going to cause doubt about the veracity of your posts. So, like I did with sufi, I am trying to give you a nice heads up that your posts are starting to damage your brand.

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

[ Parent ]
Please ... (0.00 / 0)
 Here's my source.

Larkspur's info confirms my data, doesn't refute it. We probably used the same source.

Larkspur said:

slavery was legal EVERY WHERE around the globe.

That was false. Tell Larkspur to check her facts.  

[ Parent ]
??? (0.00 / 0)
I provide links, so you can check the veracity of my posts.

You don't.

See, here's a link:

"This question of Slavery was more important than any other; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present."[31]  The slavery issue was related to sectional competition for control of the territories,[32]  and the Southern demand for a slave code for the territories was the issue used by Southern politicians to split the Democratic Party in two, which all but guaranteed the election of Lincoln and secession.

Obviously, it wasn't the ONLY reason for the Civil War. It was by far the Number One reason.


[ Parent ]
puhlease... (0.00 / 0)
http://americanhistory.about.c...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

http://www.buzzle.com/articles...

and I could find many more references...

Why was slavery so important to the southern states? The cotton gin. But most farmers didn't own slaves. Most farmers weren't involved with the salve trade and didn't care about the slave trade. The huge agri-businesses were all in favor of it. The people with money who were the corporatists of their time and place.

So, when you get down to it, it was the corporatists in the South protecting their investments and way of life. If they had been a bit smarter,like their Russian counterparts, they would have just moved all the slaves to indentured servitude and avoided the whole bloody war mess for a generation or two.

Every time I have had this debate with someone (and it happens every so often) I start by addressing the economics of the situation, because for corporatists it's always economics. It's not about human right or civil rights (just ask Nike and everyone else who uses sweatshops to make goods), it's about bottom line profits. If there had been a better bottom line profit to have been made by agri-business by elimination of slaves, they would have been doing it in droves.
 

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

[ Parent ]
I can't believe ... (0.00 / 0)
you're arguing that slavery was not the number on cause of the Civil War?

From your link:

Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery.

Again, your link:


The coexistence of a slave-owning South with an increasingly anti-slavery North made conflict likely, if not inevitable.

Again, your link:

Among the top reasons for the Civil War, an important one was the practice of slavery. In the United States of America, the economy of the Northern states was primarily dependent on industries and wages, while the Southern states were more of agricultural economies, which were largely dependent on the production of cash crops, such as cotton. The farmers from the Southern states required large number of labors to work in their fields.

The entire Southern economy depended on cheap labor from slavery.

In fact, because of that, a form of slavery -- peonage -- continued to exist in the South into the 1930s. Go read "Slavery by Another Name" - by Pulitzer Prize winner, Douglas Blackmon.

[ Parent ]
what part of this didn'tyou understand? (0.00 / 0)
Every time I have had this debate with someone (and it happens every so often) I start by addressing the economics of the situation, because for corporatists it's always economics. It's not about human right or civil rights (just ask Nike and everyone else who uses sweatshops to make goods), it's about bottom line profits. If there had been a better bottom line profit to have been made by agri-business by elimination of slaves, they would have been doing it in droves.

Take a close look at the economics of the non-plantation farmers in the south at the time. Amazingly enough you will find almost no slaves. Why? Because the economics didn't work on a small farm in CT or South Carolina. Agri-business (the large plantations) required it for viability (in their opinion). In much the same way, if you go to any large agri-business today in the Imperial Valley in CA and look at their pickers - odds are that they are mostly illegal immigrants. Cheap underpaid and overworked labour. Slavery today? You bet!

http://www.gourmet.com/magazin...

I don't know what you would call the sweatshops in Malaysia, but I would call that slave labour.  

Slavery is an economic condition. The South seceded because the politicians who were bought and paid for by the corporatists were protecting their employers interests (the threat of Lincoln emancipating their "low cost workers" and destroying their business). Slavery comes about when large business finds better economics in using slave labour rather than paying someone a living wage to do the work. Whether it's tomato growers in FL or Nike in Malaysia, as long as these companies are focusing on the bottom line and buying politicians, they will continue their corporatist ways.

Whenever you think it was about civil rights or human rights rather than economics, read about the army of the North and the US Colored Troops, under the command of white officers. Read the Militia Act of 1862 (where the pay is outlined and the Colored Troops got substantially less pay then the same anglo private). "I fear that many high officials outside of Washington have no other intention than that these men shall be used as diggers and drudges." - General Daniel Ullman, commander of the Corps d'Afrique.

You mention the westward expansion, but... "The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted with them." - Abraham Lincoln, October 16, 1854.

May I suggest reading
The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
or
Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Jeffrey Hummel

While I may not agree with all their conclusions. they have an interesting view of the economics of the time and have asked (and in some cases) answered some interesting questions with direct references and well researched work. Their view that the economics of slavery was already faltering and the system would have failed on it's own raises some interesting questions about Lincoln's choices to go to war, and what the benefits were in doing that (like I said, I don't agree with all their conclusions, but it is an interesting read).


The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

[ Parent ]
further confirming my point (0.00 / 0)
See how easy it is for people of wealth and power to enslave other people, legally? They do this to have a steady source of cheap labor.  

But slavery wasn't legal "EVERYWHERE around the globe" at the time of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it was becoming illegal in more places by that time.

See this timeline.  

[ Parent ]
Your first point... (0.00 / 0)

 is superb in showing how far this nation has fallen under corporatist control. FDR was considered a class traitor by the rich, but should be seen as an economic hero to the middle class and the poor. As far as regulating the banks, FDR was quoted as saying, " I welcome their hatred." Contrast that to President Obama, essentially begging the big banks to loan money to small businesses. Who's really running the show?

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a
[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
You have no idea what I do or do not do, despite your overweening smugness.

If you think Dannel Malloy does not hang out in a world where his friends can throw buckets of money at him, you are woefully uninformed about the life of Dan Malloy.  He chose not to take it his friends' money -- this time.  Whether his "poor boy outsider" political strategy works or not, time will tell.  But we are well past the time for him to stop whining about other people's money.  

Dan seems to be doing quite well in getting his message out.  I think you can stop worrying on that front.  At the moment he seems to be Teh King of the Internetz. (And I do enjoy clicking his video links at every website I visit, every time.)  Dan is getting

You say here that a few hundred of Ned's "friends" will decide the election.  Elsewhere you say Dan got thousands of small donations.  I've never been good at math, but I do have a sense of numbers -- and if thousands of people think highly enough of Dan to give him money and only a few hundred of Ned's friends think enough of him to give money, I'd say that Dan's ahead, by your accounting.  So what are you worrying about?


[ Parent ]
Issues vs. Non | 76 comments
 
0 user(s) logged on.
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Spotlight

Use the Spotlight tool to send a diary to offline journalists, with your feedback or suggestions.
(What is Spotlight?)


Search


   Advanced
My Left Nutmeg Feeds

Links


Connecticut's War Dead

Blogroll
Powered By
- SoapBlox

Connecticut Blogs
- Capitol Watch
- Colin McEnroe
- Connecticut2.com
- Connecticut Bob
- ConnecticutBlog
- CT Blue Blog
- CT Energy Blog
- CT Local Politics
- CT News Junkie
- CT Smart Growth
- CT Voices for Civil Justice
- CT Voters Count
- CT Weblogs
- CT Working Families Party
- CT Young Dems
- Cool Justice Report
- Democracy for CT
- Drinking Liberally (New Milford)
- East Haven Politics
- Emboldened
- Hat City Blog (Danbury)
- The Laurel
- LieberWatch
- NB Politicus (New Britain)
- New Haven Independent
- Nutmeg Grater
- Only In Bridgeport
- Political Capitol (Brian Lockhart)
- A Public Defender
- Rep. David McCluskey
- Rep. Tim O'Brien
- State Sen. Gary Lebeau
- Saramerica
- Stamford Talk
- Spazeboy
- The 40 Year Plan
- The Trough (Ted Mann: New London Day)
- Undercurrents (Hartford IMC)
- Wesleying
- Yale Democrats

CT Sites
- Clean Up CT
- CT Citizen Action Group
- CT Democratic Party
- CT For Lieberman Party
- CT General Assembly
- CT Secretary of State
- CT-N (Connecticut Network)
- Healthcare4every1.org
- Judith Blei Government Relations
- Love Makes A Family CT

CT Candidates
- Chris Murphy for Senate
- Susan Bysiewicz for Senate

- William Tong for Senate


Other State Blogs
- Alabama
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin


More blogs about connecticut+politics.
Technorati Blog Finder


 
Powered By
MLN is powered by SoapBlox
 
Powered by: SoapBlox