Social Networks We Use


CT Tech Junkie Feed

Connecticut Consumers to Begin Receiving E-Book Settlement Refunds
Mar 25, 2014 4:09 pm
Connecticut residents will start receiving refund checks or credits this week for e-books purchased between April 1,...more »
Like New Jersey, Direct Retail Sales of Tesla Automobiles Not Allowed in Connecticut
Mar 19, 2014 12:24 pm
The Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection is co-sponsoring a contest for the auto dealership...more »

Our Partners


An ‘Egalitarian’ Responds

by Paul Bass | Nov 14, 2011 5:50pm
(4) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Congress, Election 2012, Local Politics

U.S. Senate hopeful Chris Murphy brought a question to New Haven—one that we’ll be hearing often in the next year, in Connecticut, and around the country.

Murphy summarized the question this way: “Whether we’re going to have a middle class or not” in America.

Then he offered a longer version, one to which Democratic and Republican candidates for federal office can give genuinely different responses: What’s the best way for government to close the inequality gap?

Murphy gave his answer at length to two dozen students gathered in Yale’s Dwight Hall last Thursday evening. He expects to keep fielding the question over and over as he runs for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Joe Lieberman. He expects his opponents to keep fielding it. He expects candidates for Senate and Congress all across the U.S. to keep fielding it in the 2012 campaign season, which now begins in earnest in Connecticut.

Click here to continue reading Paul’s report.

Tags: , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(4) Comments

posted by: Joe Eversole | November 15, 2011  9:13am

Is Yale really the place to ask about the middle class?

posted by: Joe Eversole | November 15, 2011  9:16am

Mr. Murphy,

You and your cohorts have been in charge of this Country Since 2006.  Your statement that there are more people living in poverty now, is a direct reflection on the reason that you specifically shouldn’t be reelected.  You have been a failure since 2006.  I don’t know about you, but if I had an employee that had been a failure for the past five years, I think he or she would be on the way out the door.

posted by: Dave from News Talk Tonight | November 15, 2011  1:22pm

Mr. Eversole:

Representative Murphy and his party were not “in control” in 2006.  If you were to harken back to that time, you would recall that in 2006, President George W. Bush was in office, the Democrats had a bare majority in both houses, neither of which were veto-proof.  It is therefore a mis-statement to claim that Representative Murphy and his “cohorts” were “in charge of this Country since 2006.”  Now, after the 2008 election, specfically since January 21, 2009, thre has been a Democrat sitting as President, and there were democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, until January, 2011(although NOT with a fillibuster-proof majority, which the Sentate Republicans used repeatedly to cause Democratic initiatives to fail or almost fail).  After that date, the Republicans, who had won a majority of seats in the House of Representatives in the 2010 elections, Representative Murphy and “his cohorts” were in the minority, and therefore not “in charge of this Country.”  To therefore ascribe failure to Representative Murphy or to the members of his political party is not only unfair, it is without a factual basis.  In fact, BOTH parties, Democratic and Republican, have failed the people in coming up with a budget that deals with the needs of the Country and STILL deals with the deficit. It is unfortunate that the members of the Republican party appear hell-bent to adhere to a financial plan that does not work, rather than deal with the issue on a bi-partisan basis.  THAT comment is fair, in that the Republicans have been in charge of the House of Representatives aince January, 2011.  The fact that the poverty level has risen in the last several years is a reflection of the failed Bush economic policies, and the failure of BOTH parties to fix the situation.

posted by: Joe Eversole | November 15, 2011  4:54pm

I disagree.  Mr. Murphy and his cohorts did hold a majority in Congress after 2006.  Upon taking full control in 2008, they managed to pass most of their desired legislation, up to and including the “Obama Care” act.  Having a bare majority, is still a majority.  The fact that the President can veto your legislation doesn’t mean that he will.  In fact, President Bush only vetoed six bills after 2007.  Let us not forget that it was the Democratic House of Representatives that failed to pass a budget.  In addition, the Economy under President Bush was roaring, until the Democrats took control of Congress.  Coincidence? I don’t think so.  The economic policies of the Democrat party from 2006 on are the cause of our current situation.  Although the stock market tanking was bad, the policies of Mr. Murphy and his cohorts exacerbated the condition.  I will agree that both parties have contributed to our current budgetary issues, but the Democrat solution continues to be the same song and dance.  Increasing taxation without meaningful cuts to outlays will only place us in the same position as before.  And before we sling around the ridiculous term Bi-Partisan, lets look at the Compromise offered by Democrats….....(Crickets).