Google apps
Main menu

Post a Comment On: "WE THE PEOPLE"

"CHRISTMAS IN OCTOBER....SNOW AND EVERYTHING"

19 Comments -

1 – 19 of 19
Anonymous Diogenis said...

Kevin you are a dreamer....Pedro will just hire another flack to spread the gospel of Segarra.

October 29, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Anonymous peter brush said...

Hartford Courant's endorsement
-----------------------------------
Holy establishment credibility, Brook-Man. You should be pleased about the endorsement; congratulations.
On the other hand, it appears the Courant takes the view that in diversity is the council's strength. Like at a Chinese restaurant, the editorial boys/girls take one from column A, one from column B, one from column C... You are said to have common sense and Councilman Cotto is said to be good for art in the parks.
I don't customarily read the Courant. Does it have an opinion on the charter now that we've lived with the strong mayor getting stuff done for a few years?

October 30, 2011 at 8:35 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good riddens. But i am seriously considering removing my funds from webster bank.

October 30, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Anonymous peter brush said...

The Capital City has ... high business taxes that discourage employers and job creation. The city must control spending and find ways to increase its economic base.
-----------------------------------
Making Hartford business friendly through aggressive tax reform;
Reducing the budget – doing more with less;
Aligning city pension plans with those in the private sector;
----------------------------------
I agree with the Hartford Courant and Pedro Segarra.

October 31, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Anonymous Bruce Rubenstein said...

Peter...for the 5 years that Pedro was on the Council didnt he in fact vote to raise taxes every year? Please find me one thing that he did on COuncil that was business friendly.

November 1, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Anonymous peter brush said...

didnt he in fact vote to raise taxes every year?
-----------------------------------
He probably did. When he ran he expressed zero interest in fiscal issues. But, that was then, this is now. The Courant says it is interested in cutting spending, but then endorses a WFP guy. Consistency, clarity? Not so much. But, I like what they're saying.

November 1, 2011 at 9:45 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Courant says it is interested in cutting spending, but then endorses a WFP guy."

-----------------------------------

Peter, you might want to check your facts against your own perceptions. This also goes to the claims against Pedro in voting for raised taxes five years in a row. The past four years have seen the following:

FY08-09: Mil Rate Increase
FY09-10: Mil Rate Increase
FY10-11: Mil Rate unchanged
FY11-12: Mil Rate decreased by 1 Mil

The Voting record for the three people mentioned (2 WFP and Pedro)

FY08-09: WFP-NO, PEDRO-YES
FY09-10: WFP-NO, PEDRO YES
FY10-11: WFP-YES, PEDRO YES
FY11-12: WFP-YES, PEDRO did not vote because he was Mayor at this point and was the person that proposed the budget.

You make a statement that WFP is not about cutting spending. Where are your facts?

November 2, 2011 at 8:05 AM

Anonymous Bruce Rubenstein said...

Peter..Anonymous 8:05AM proves the point.The WFP guys were in fact more frugal with our tax dollars then Pedro was.

I would also believe that the WFP guys were also more frugal then Veronica was.That is why most of us residing in Hartford don't believe that the Hartford Republicans would be "better" then the WFP folks. Indeed if history is an apt guide,the Republicans would be worse then the WFP folks.

November 2, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Anonymous peter brush said...

http://ct-workingfamilies.org/our-values/

I carry no brief for Pedro or the Dems. Now that I mention it, not necessarily for our Republicans, either. I'll take your word for it that the WFP guys voted against the mil rate increases. But, I would note that there's a difference between opposition to property tax hikes and opposition to spending. And, if the WFP of Connecticut is concerned about fiscal policy, its website (above) keeps it pretty quiet. Councilman Cotto's first cause, according to Facebook, is more spending on "the arts." No mention of the city's budget otherwise.
It could be that Cotto and Deutsch are the most fiscally restrained of our council. If that's the case, it's not that much of a surprise that our taxes are high.

November 2, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Anonymous Bruce Rubenstein said...

Peter...on that note the Republican Veronica Airey-Wilson voted for increased spending every year when she was on the Council,parroting Eddie,while the WFP didnt or voted the same.That proves there isnt a distinction enough to warrant a change to the R's.The 3 present Republicans running for Council,including their Chair, all of whom were active at the time,offered not even a peep to Ms Airey-Wilson's voting for prolificate spending.So why should we vote for them if they offered no objection to her prolificate spending?

November 2, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bruce: Where do you come up with "most of us residing in Hartford don't believe that the Hartford Republicans would be "better" then the WFP folks"? Maybe you believe this personally, which is fine, but how do you know what most residents currently believe?

Oh, and the "stench" comment you made a few weeks ago explaining why you stopped seeking election as the HDTC Chair still has me, dem state central and "most" of the old Hartford political cronies chuckling.

November 3, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Anonymous peter brush said...

its website (above) keeps it pretty quiet
---------------------------------
Got my WFP flyer in the mail today. No reference to budget or any problems associated therewith. What we are promised is if we vote for their four we'll get "change." Given our decades long muni government of social activism, progress, and justice (not to mention higher taxes and lower bond ratings), a change could be a positive thing.

November 5, 2011 at 3:21 PM

Blogger KEVIN BROOKMAN said...

Peter,

I could send you a brochure promising a brand new car in your driveway Wednesday morning if you vote for me, doesn't mean it is going to happen.

Their promises mean nothing if we don't hold politicians accountable.

November 6, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Anonymous Bruce Rubenstein said...

Peter under the 4 decades you mentioned, I hope that you realize that accept for the 1 term of the WFP and the 2 of PFC,the rest were Republicans,mostly in the minority.Those Republicans almost always voted for higher taxes and increased spending.

November 6, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bruce: Here you go again. Do you think anyone believes you have researched the last forty years of city council votes, in order to make the statement that the various republicans on council during that time "almost always voted for higher taxes and increased spending"? Your claims seem to have little merit, other than entertainment value.

November 6, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Anonymous Bruce Rubenstein said...

Dear Anonymous 7:05 PM;

I will tell you how I researched it when you tell us your name.

November 6, 2011 at 11:07 PM

Anonymous peter brush said...

Their promises mean nothing
------------------------------------
Agree that promises are to be distinguished from actions, but don't agree that they mean nothing. I'm not too well informed on the individuals running for local office. I have to go on their party affiliation, at least in part. Budget not the only issue, but if it could be demonstrated to me with scientific certainty that the WFP were the most fiscally prudent I'd give its four guys serious consideration. In the case of folks not affiliated with a party, for example Kevin B., I view them as non-WFP. (Forgive me if this post is redundant of one I tried to post yesterday.)

November 7, 2011 at 7:58 AM

Anonymous GiGi said...

Peter,

Based on your comments on this blog, here are my suggestions for your vote if your top priority for a candidate is fiscal conservative-ness.

Listed in most conservative to least:

Cory Brinson
Ken Kennedy
Kevin Brookman
Sweets Wilson
Michael Fryar


Here are the most progressive (or liberal or whatever) again...from most to least:

Larry Deutsch
Luis Cotto
rJo Winch
Alex Aponte

Here are the unknowns (at least to me) followed with what my thinking is on their leanings:

Gerry Pleasant (Conservative)
Raul DeJesus (Progressive, or whatever Minnie and Arroyo say)
David McDonald (Progressive)
Shawn Wooden (maybe progressive - don't know)
Kyle Anderson (maybe conservative - don't know)

November 7, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Anonymous Bruce Rubenstein said...

GiGi...thank you for your list,however these designations mean very little in the overall scheme of things.You completely left out 2 of the WFPers...and mislabled a few others,in my estimation.

Nevertheless aside from Kennedy( a genuine consevative ) and Brookman ( who I think is more a moderate then a conservative) the others said not a peep when fellow Republican Veronica voted for every increased spending bill and every increase of taxes.Therefore they seem to be more "enablers" then consevatives,or a conceirge at the Hotel of Big Spenders.

November 7, 2011 at 2:47 PM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot