Attention: open in a new window. PDFPrintEmail

We will become like lower Westchester if we’re not careful

Thursday, 02 February 2012 01:00

To the Editors:

The last election proved to me, and I hope I'm wrong, that the residents in this area don't care if we become like lower Westchester, ungovernable and a bunch of freeloaders who believe the working class owes them a living.

We had a very decent leader in Charles Duffy, but the "kumbaya" gang slandered and maligned him, causing many voters to stay home and not vote. That's the M.O. of the Democratic Party.

Robert Astorino, Nan Hayworth, Robert Castelli and Greg Ball had better watch their backs, because they are decent and honest patriots who love Westchester and they believe achievers are not evil — that's a trait the "gang" dreads.

The "kumbaya" gang, a.k.a the 1960s misfits, are still trying to change this country, state and county into a third world country. Their base is made up of takers not givers.

Jeff Morris, your dream ends when other people's money runs out — a little saying Margaret Thatcher made famous.

Conservatives, independents and true Republicans must vote together or we will end up like Yonkers, and their neighbors.

CHARLES SEMENETZ

Vista, Jan. 30

< Prev   Next >

Comments 

 
#1 KatResident 2012-02-02 10:28
My only comment Mr. Semenetz pertains to your assertion that the more Democratic leaning people "are still trying to change this country, state and county into a third world country". Not true at all sir. The fiscal policies of your Presidents Reagan, HW, and W Bush already succeeeded in doing that! The income distribution within the US today looks much more like a Third World country than any other Developed nation in the world -- and it all started with tax cuts for the weallthy and trickle down economics that never trickled down.
 
 
#2 mundtt 2012-02-05 16:25
Compelled to respond to crazy ol' Semenetz? Are you that insecure? The wheels must be almost off, KatRes. But you'll have company in that regard in a few months, when it becomes clear that BHO's verbal diatribes won't work this time: "change you can believe in" is coming!

In the mean time, just keep chanting "democrats good, republicans bad!" and "democrats always right, republicans always wrong!". Is it not curious how when times are crummy, such as now, it all derives from the prior republican admins? And yet when Slick Willie was riding high, it had nothing to do with prior republican admins? Nope -- just pure genius by that that lovable rascal, his Slickness. Disingenuous? Not if one is a democrat.

And that income distribution problem? While it may exist on paper, the effects are far from clear. But we do know this much: Tax all the so-called 1%ers at 50% and it won't put a dent in the deficit your guy BHO has run up. That is fact!
 
 
#3 mundtt 2012-02-05 16:26
But let me close by once again complimenting you on your skills at mis-direction. 2-3 weeks ago, you were up to your old tricks, using numbers without context. You were factually correct in stating that that KLSD was ~#40 [#37 to be exact, on the spreadsheet I saw] statewide costs per student. What you didn’t say – as it seriously undercuts your position – that many small systems were the one higher, eg, Fire Island’s 55 students coming in at ~$95k/student. Strip out the sub-1000 pupil systems and ~25 are eliminated; below 2000 takes out another 5-6. Looking at only the 3000+ schools, KLSD is #5 or 6 after LI schools (Not even the unions try to use small districts as comps!)
 
 
#4 mundtt 2012-02-05 16:26
So among the highest cost/student in NY – size-adjusted, the state that is the highest in the nation, approaching private school pricing, without private school scores [as the NYT again unfortunately referenced today]. Nice try. Keep swinging; one day you will hit an accurate return. Let me get you started on a response: uh….state mandates uh……housing values uh……invisible barrier at the NJ and CT borders that make teachers materially more expensive
 
 
#5 KatResident 2012-02-08 11:00
Sorry Mundtt -- can't give credit for 20+ million jobs created in 8 years under Clinton to the Presidents before him. Cant give credit for the budget surpluses created in years 7 and 8 of his Presidency to the policies enacted by Reagan and HW Bush 8- 20 years earlier. The current annual budget deficit now under Obama is exactly the same as it was running in the first quarter of 2009 as Obama took office in the midst of the worst financial collapse since 1929 created by the "deregulation" supply side economics of W Bush. At least now the deficit problem is still huge but the economy seems to be on an upswing, job growth is steady but slow, the stock market is much higher and seems relatively stable, housing hopefully is at or near its bottom. When Bush left office, it appeared we were heading for a fate similar to the prolonged Depression of the 1930s. Every other day a huge Wall Street firm was on the verge of collapse. The American auto industry almost completely wiped out.
 
 
#6 KatResident 2012-02-08 12:57
And Mundtt, I know you love it when I give you more government data facts to digest. Here's another one for you to rant about. Its not just the one percenters who need to pay more in taxes. But if you simply put in the 30% AMT for anyone with AGI over $1 million, you would net about $100 bil each year. Not enough to solve the problem, but a good down payment. Here's a bigger one for you. Look up what percentage of total fed govt revenue came from corporate taxes during the Eisenhower administration. Hint -- the answer is around 40%. Look up the data for today. The answer is Around 9% -- and with huge profitable firms like Verizon and GE paying zero taxes in some years. Now maybe 40% was too high -- but maybe 9% is a little too low?? Let's settle on 20% thru elimination of corporate welfare abuse -- and let's see if we really have made some progress on the deficit problem. If you simply agree to those -- I would be more than happy to find an equal amount in spending cuts.
 
 
#7 johncw 2012-02-10 14:50
KatResident:

Who signed into law the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act? That would be Bill Clinton - on November 12, 1999. Most likely the biggest mistake of his presidency. This led directly to the financial diasaster of 2008/09.
 
 
#8 KatResident 2012-02-11 11:10
Yes Johncw it was a mistake by Clinton to sign the Republican led legislation into law. He should have been more like Obama and stood up against the repeal -- also known as the Gramm Leach Bliley Act (all Republicans) which was part of the anti-regulation, pro big business movement of the Republicans beginning with Reagan in 1980. Obama and the Democrats learned their lessons after 2008 -- todays Republicans have not
 
 
#9 mundtt 2012-02-17 20:15
zzzzzzzzzzzz. Once again much hot -- quite the "taxing" read.

Yet not one word about --how should it be described -- your intentional lack of precision in explaining just how high KLSD cost vs other schools. So let me remind you: KLSD is ~50% higher than the average of those NY schools whose populations ranges +/- 500 and +/- 1000 either side of it. If you were Pinocchio, your nose would be a foot long!

Otherwise keep the faith, as that is all you have........certainly not facts. Here is the CBO this month: "Therefore, to put the federal budget on a sustainable path, policymakers will need to allow federal revenues to increase to a much higher percentage of GDP than the average over the past 40 years, or make very large changes to Social Security and federal health care programs..."

Your "good down payment" is just more unfounded BS. Looking forward to dissecting the budget hoax of your fearless leader BHO.
 
 
#10 KatResident 2012-02-18 06:44
Yes Mundtt we do need federal govt revenues to increase to a much higher percentage of GDP than the average over the past 40 years. Why? Because for most of the past 40 years beginning with the Reagan tax cuts (except for 2-3 years under Clinton when we actually had surpluses) we have had unsustainable budget deficits. Dont you remember the fear generated by Reagan's first couple of $200+ billion deficits? Especially when under that horror Presidency of Carter we never exceeded $100 billion deficit! Dont you recall that Reagan's deficits in today's dollars would be about $700 to $800 billion annually? Dont you recall that the deficit was already running at $1 trillion a year annually at the end of the W Bush Presidency? So yes -- revenues must rise significantly because we have had unsustainable revenue deficits for most of the past 40 years -- and it's all due to the tax cuts enacted by Reagan and W Bush.
 

Commenting is reserved for registered users.

Log in or register a new account.

The Lewisboro Ledger, 16 Bailey Avenue, Ridgefield, CT 06877  |  Contact The Lewisboro Ledger
Copyright © 2012  Hersam Acorn Newspapers  |  User Agreement and Privacy Policy  |  Search  |  Advertise  |