Alexandria Cortez is a GENIUS

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by fishsmith

They have got to be including Bezo’s salary for this to be true —> 25,000 jobs, with an average annual salary of $150,000
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nope.

25,000 jobs, average salary of 150k. that’s what Cortez was opposed to. Brilliant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

nope.

25,000 jobs, average salary of 150k. that’s what Cortez was opposed to. Brilliant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps NYC could have been as great as San Francisco
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Perhaps NYC could have been as great as San Francisco
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

your point is what? it’s bad when technology companies reside in a town? the insane liberal
policies enabling homelessness, drug use, and public defacatiom, have nothing to do with it? it’s all silicon valleys fault?

how many places put bids in for this office? you know better than the people
who run all those places? wow!!! why aren’t you doing urban planning in distressed areas? think of the benefit your acumen could
provide!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[nightfighter]

Kevin...

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

your point is what? it’s bad when technology companies reside in a town? the insane liberal
policies enabling homelessness, drug use, and public defacatiom, have nothing to do with it? it’s all silicon valleys fault?

how many places put bids in for this office? you know better than the people
who run all those places? wow!!! why aren’t you doing urban planning in distressed areas? think of the benefit your acumen could
provide!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Go rent a place to live in Manhattan, park slope, Cambridge and see what gentrification has done. Just what do you think the problem in SF is, oh I know it’s liberals. The place should be like Oklahoma or someplace controlled by the right, no issues in those places they buy them tickets to SF
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Go rent a place to live in Manhattan, park slope, Cambridge and see what gentrification and liberalism has done. Just what do you think the problem in SF is, oh I know it’s liberals. The place should be like Oklahoma or someplace controlled by the right, no issues in those places they buy them tickets to SF
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fixed it for you.

"Just what do you think the problem in SF is, oh I know it’s liberals."

That's part of it, is it not? Gentrification can also go too far. That doesn't mean that poor communities would benefit from laws that prohibit rich people from moving in.

Most of life is about balance. KS went too far with consevative tax cuts, it failed. CT has been a 40 year experiment in pure liberalism, it has also failed. What are the places that are booming, where upper middle class people are flocking to in huge numbers? There's Boston, which is big and liberal but still a great, well-run city. Most other booming places seem to lean right - TX, TN, Carolinas, FL. Many cities in NH can't build $500,000 houses fast enough. CT, which SHOULD BE a place that people are competing to get into, is shrinking. There is a reason for that.

"The place should be like Oklahoma ".

Once again, responding to something no one ever said. But there ARE places out there, thriving suburbs (which need a nearby job center) where families are flocking to in huge numbers. The 2 that are probably the most hot lately right now, are the suburbs of Nashville and the suburbs of Charlotte. There are plenty of crappy places near those cities. But there are some well-run places near those cities, with very low taxes, and a very high quality of life. It can be done. I have first hand experience with Franklin TN and Fort Mill SC.

Pete, how many liberal places are there, which have a very high quality of life, and a very low cost of living? Are there any? The suburbs of Nashville and Charlotte are right-leaning. CT has exactly zero places to live, which are (1) beautiful family places, and (2) cheap. None. Zip. Zilch. How come?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

about balance. KS went too far with consevative tax cuts, it failed. CT has been a 40 year experiment in pure liberalism, it has also failed.

We just had 8 years of a Dem. gov. (Malloy) and 8 years prior of Rep gov (Roland - who went to jail and Rell). During which period did spending go up the biggest %? Did the Rep. gov. leave a bigger rainy day fund or did the Dem?

Edit - You're big on complaining about pensions. What did the Rep gov. do about the benefits (pension/health care, etc) vs Malloy?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

We just had 8 years of a Dem. gov. (Malloy) and 8 years prior of Rep gov (Roland - who went to jail and Rell). During which period did spending go up the biggest %? Did the Rep. gov. leave a bigger rainy day fund or did the Dem?

Edit - You're big on complaining about pensions. What did the Rep gov. do about the benefits (pension/health care, etc) vs Malloy?

Yes, we've had Republican governors, who didn't do ANYTHING fiscally conservative, either because they didn't believe it or because the liberal legislatures wouldn't let them. Either way, the state's economic landscape is purely liberal, and has ZERO conse3rvative footprint. We have massive taxes, and even more massive spending, thanks to labor unions. Is that a conservative tactic, or a liberal tactic?

"Did the Rep. gov. leave a bigger rainy day fund or did the Dem?"

Malloy rammed TWO massive income tax hikes down our throats, and the state's debt and deficits are higher. Our credit rating has been downgraded multiple times under Malloy. The rainy day fund is because of tax receipts related to the stock market, which means it's thanks to Obama and Trump and the feds. Nothing to do with state policies. We're looking at multi-billion dollar deficits for the next two years, as always, despite the fact that the national economy is booming. Our real estate prices haven't recovered from the recession at the national pace, nor has unemployment. We're dying. We are in a self-perpetuating cycle of higher expenses (thanks to union benefits locked in by contracts) and declining revenues (people are leaving to avoid the collapse. But we have a rainy day fund, so to you, all is well.

"What did the Rep gov. do about the benefits (pension/health care, etc) vs Malloy?"

All governors have made it worse in my lifetime. Malloy extended the state's debt term out for many years, so kids not born yet will be asked to pay for things they had no say in. Hooray!!

Roland and Rell were complete disasters. They also did NOTHING conservative. Nothing.

You're so bound to ideology, that you deny our state's economic situation? How big do you think that rainy day fund is? Because the long term debt is many tens of billions of dollars.

We are at an inflection point, where higher tax rates lead to less revenue collected, because people are leaving. The liberal response? Tolls! Hooray! Never mind we have an astronomical gas tax already, which was specifically implemented to replace tolls. But now we need both.

How do you Kool Aid drinkers suppose things get the way they are in the suburbs of Nashville or Charlotte, compared to here?

We know its possible to offer citizens a high quality of life with low taxes. There is no debating that. It's irrefutable fact. There are places like that. Exactly none of them, are in CT?

Good luck making that wrong.

70 miles away in NH, there is no income tax or sales tax. And those places look even better now, with the limitation on deducting SALT taxes. Which means more people will leave, which means less revenue, which means higher tax rates on the patsies who stay.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Fixed it for you.

"Just what do you think the problem in SF is, oh I know it’s liberals."

That's part of it, is it not? Gentrification can also go too far. That doesn't mean that poor communities would benefit from laws that prohibit rich people from moving in.

"Most of life is about balance. KS went too far with consevative tax cuts, it failed. CT has been a 40 year experiment in pure liberalism, it has also failed. What are the places that are booming, where upper middle class people are flocking to in huge numbers? There's Boston, which is big and liberal but still a great, well-run city. Most other booming places seem to lean right - TX, TN, Carolinas, FL. Many cities in NH can't build $500,000 houses fast enough. CT, which SHOULD BE a place that people are competing to get into, is shrinking. There is a reason for that."

"The place should be like Oklahoma ".

Once again, responding to something no one ever said. But there ARE places out there, thriving suburbs (which need a nearby job center) where families are flocking to in huge numbers. The 2 that are probably the most hot lately right now, are the suburbs of Nashville and the suburbs of Charlotte. There are plenty of crappy places near those cities. But there are some well-run places near those cities, with very low taxes, and a very high quality of life. It can be done. I have first hand experience with Franklin TN and Fort Mill SC.

Pete, how many liberal places are there, which have a very high quality of life, and a very low cost of living? Are there any? The suburbs of Nashville and Charlotte are right-leaning. CT has exactly zero places to live, which are (1) beautiful family places, and (2) cheap. None. Zip. Zilch. How come?

As usual anything that is bad is liberal.
I think what drives regional economies is not just left or right and to say so is simplistic, just look at your examples of Boston and Nashville.

What makes suburbs beautiful in your eyes is beyond me and I do know something about suburbs and growth. I grew up in the fastest growing place in the US in the 50s and 60s. Suburbia is not the greatest place in my eyes. I could blindfold you and take you to most any suburb in the US and you would feel right at home with Applybees, Olive Garden, the chain drugstore, supermarket, Walmart and Home Depot, the same crap in people's yards and they better be up to your standards of neatness. If that is your idea of utopia, it's pretty sad.
But all of life is simple in your eyes, just pass a law that says you can't: #^&#^&#^&#^& in the street, do drugs, be homeless, not make enough money and when they don't comply just lock them up and get them out of sight. Welcome to the Middle class dream of the 60s, that got us to where we are today.

[fishsmith]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

nope.

25,000 jobs, average salary of 150k. that’s what Cortez was opposed to. Brilliant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m not buying 25K jobs averaging $150K. That falls into the if it sounds too good to be true pile.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by fishsmith

I’m not buying 25K jobs averaging $150K. That falls into the if it sounds too good to be true pile.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s what amazon was promising. the governor of NY believed them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[fishsmith]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

that’s what amazon was promising. the governor of NY believed them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just like Mahty Walsh believed the BS GE promised for Fort Point in Boston.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by fishsmith

Just like Mahty Walsh believed the BS GE promised for Fort Point in Boston.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah... that has been interesting this week.

This was not a great look for AOC. There may be reasons to be against the Amazon expansion but it was not a win-win to be celebrated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device