Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Let's face it -- Bloomberg was a terrible mayor   ( talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, justification for the state, Rudolph Giuliani, Blasio, mayors, installation arts  
•       •       •

1742 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Nov 2013 at 2:03 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-11-06 04:55:42 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Pretty much everything in that article is evidence that Bloomy was a good mayor.

Fight back against ridiculous public sector unions? Good
Lessen the impact of ridiculous rent control laws and encourage development? Good
Enact policies that continue to reduce crime and make the city safer for all? Good
Pro gun control? Good
Pro gay marriage? Good


De Blasio is going to see the other side of the coin that Obama did. Obama had the easiest act in the world to follow as pres, so he pretty much can look good even doing a crummy job. De Blasio is going to look like shiat compared to Bloomy and Giuliani even if he does an average job as mayor.


pro stop and frisk = hilariously bad, unless you happen to be white.

NYC's total debt level doubled under Mayor Mike, to $110 billion. interest costs are already bigger than the combined budgets of the NYPD and Fire department.

stubborn $1 billion deficits closed with accounting tricks, and several years of refusing to sign contracts with any of the city's unions ;eaves a back pay gap of over $7 billion.
 
2013-11-06 07:26:14 PM  

Captain Dan: I think Bloomberg was one of the best mayors in the history of New York City.

1. He kept crime low while reducing the city's jail population by half.

2. He made NYC more attractive to business/tourism and promoted economic diversification.

3. He didn't give away the fisc to public unions, and took steps to rein in public employee benefits.

4. He encouraged real estate development.

5. He was socially tolerant.

6. He limited people's ability to make dangerous choices (e.g. smoking cigarettes, eating trans fats, drinking soda, owning guns), even though he knew these restrictions would be unpopular.

The rationale for restricting personal liberty is that each of the aforementioned actions carries risk not only to the decision-maker, but to others - cancer from second-hand smoke, increased health care premiums from a more obese citizenry, a higher chance of being injured/killed by a gun.

I'm not 100% on board, but I admire a politician willing to risk unpopularity in order to make people's lives better.

7. He governed in a non-partisan way.  Many of his policies were liberal (raising taxes, increasing teacher salaries, adopting traffic congestion pricing, supporting gay marriage, increasing funding for HIV awareness and treatment).  Many were conservative (stop and frisk, opposing rent control, encouraging trials with charter schools, not giving a shiat about income inequality as long as everyone's living standards increased commensurately).  He took the best ideas from both sides.

The country needs more leaders who are led by empirical evidence instead of by dogmatic ideology.


What's your opinion on limiting Air Conditioning for the benefit of the collective?
 
2013-11-06 07:40:05 PM  

another cultural observer: What's your opinion on limiting Air Conditioning for the benefit of the collective?


Is this a cultural reference I'm missing, or an actual issue?  If the latter, I don't know enough to have an informed opinion.
 
2013-11-06 07:44:32 PM  

whidbey: but I love watching the social conservatives freak about petty bullshiat like banning Big Gulps, though.


How is hating a big gulp ban a socially conservative position?  It's such an overreach it pissed off everybody.
 
2013-11-06 08:04:18 PM  
bloomberg was a worthless jew bastard who ran NYC as if it were his own playground, with his own 'army'.
 
2013-11-06 08:13:09 PM  
He will be known for anti-soda and wealthy private police.
 
2013-11-06 08:51:32 PM  

Lsherm: whidbey: but I love watching the social conservatives freak about petty bullshiat like banning Big Gulps, though.

How is hating a big gulp ban a socially conservative position?  It's such an overreach it pissed off everybody.


Not really. Liberals understand that eventually we are going to have to pay for our unhealthy habits, and yes that means either banning unhealthy foodstuffs or putting high taxes on them to discourage consumption.

Conservatives not so much.
 
2013-11-06 09:02:19 PM  

dumbobruni: Debeo Summa Credo: Pretty much everything in that article is evidence that Bloomy was a good mayor.

Fight back against ridiculous public sector unions? Good
Lessen the impact of ridiculous rent control laws and encourage development? Good
Enact policies that continue to reduce crime and make the city safer for all? Good
Pro gun control? Good
Pro gay marriage? Good


De Blasio is going to see the other side of the coin that Obama did. Obama had the easiest act in the world to follow as pres, so he pretty much can look good even doing a crummy job. De Blasio is going to look like shiat compared to Bloomy and Giuliani even if he does an average job as mayor.

pro stop and frisk = hilariously bad, unless you happen to be white.


Stop and frisk was outstanding and very beneficial for minorities, as they live in the highest crime areas and thus primary beneficiaries of the resulting reduction in crime.   The only people who complain about it are race-baiters.  Oh, and criminals.  They hate stop and frisk as well.


NYC's total debt level doubled under Mayor Mike, to $110 billion. interest costs are already bigger than the combined budgets of the NYPD and Fire department.

stubborn $1 billion deficits closed with accounting tricks, and several years of refusing to sign contracts with any of the city's unions ;eaves a back pay gap of over $7 billion.


Bullshiat.  You need to include all sorts of agencies that aren't under the mayor's authority to add up to a doubling of debt.  Actual GO debt of NY has gone up at a much slower pace than the debt of the US since 2002, and just about equal or slightly lower than GDP growth.

I'm sure the 'back pay gap' is bullshiat too, but citation please.
 
2013-11-06 09:37:29 PM  

dumbobruni: Debeo Summa Credo: Pretty much everything in that article is evidence that Bloomy was a good mayor.

Fight back against ridiculous public sector unions? Good
Lessen the impact of ridiculous rent control laws and encourage development? Good
Enact policies that continue to reduce crime and make the city safer for all? Good
Pro gun control? Good
Pro gay marriage? Good


De Blasio is going to see the other side of the coin that Obama did. Obama had the easiest act in the world to follow as pres, so he pretty much can look good even doing a crummy job. De Blasio is going to look like shiat compared to Bloomy and Giuliani even if he does an average job as mayor.

pro stop and frisk = hilariously bad, unless you happen to be white.

NYC's total debt level doubled under Mayor Mike, to $110 billion. interest costs are already bigger than the combined budgets of the NYPD and Fire department.

stubborn $1 billion deficits closed with accounting tricks, and several years of refusing to sign contracts with any of the city's unions ;eaves a back pay gap of over $7 billion.


And the budget as a whole nearly doubled as well.  It's disingenuous to compare things like debt levels in absolute numbers without giving any context (like 2013 dollars or % of annual budget).  And with interest so cheap right now, the interest on $110 billion isn't that much as a % of the whole budget.

And the union workers haven't signed a contract because they were holding out for a softee like de Blasio.  The huge advantage Bloomberg had over any other politician was his incorruptibility(might also be his biggest disadvantage), he didn't need campaign contributions from anyone so he could tell everyone FU.  The union workers have been getting 1 % increases a year or so, even though they aren't working under a contract.  When they sign their new contract it's up to de Blasio if he gives them the "back pay" from retroactive raises.  Bloomberg would have given them a new contract but they felt they could do better with de Blasio and they were probably right.

There was an article in the NYT recently about the house de Blasio rents out and how good a landlord he is.  Towards the end, they mentioned that he doesn't even charge enough enough rent and actually loses money on the property.  Reading that scared me; if the mayor can't even run a 3 story house without at least breaking even the cities finances are screwed.  I just hope he's not going to whine that it's Bloomberg's fault for the next 4 years.  The excuse probably won't go far anyway since Bloomberg is a billionaire.
 
2013-11-06 10:51:23 PM  

whidbey: Not really. Liberals understand that eventually we are going to have to pay for our unhealthy habits, and yes that means either banning unhealthy foodstuffs or putting high taxes on them to discourage consumption.

Conservatives not so much.


[citation needed]

Yeah, you might want to consult the poll data before you make such blanket statements like that.
 
2013-11-07 12:33:58 AM  

blue_2501: whidbey: Not really. Liberals understand that eventually we are going to have to pay for our unhealthy habits, and yes that means either banning unhealthy foodstuffs or putting high taxes on them to discourage consumption.

Conservatives not so much.

[citation needed]

Yeah, you might want to consult the poll data before you make such blanket statements like that.


Yeah but nothing.

Generally it's the right-wing who opposes actions like banning unhealthy food substances. See=transfats

And any "poll data" is going to reflect this. I could care fark all if you can find a few cherry-picked examples of supposedly disgruntled liberals biatching about their "freedoms" or whatever angle you're trying to go with this.

In fact, I doubt you're going to find anything.
 
2013-11-07 08:05:17 AM  
Well, Bloomberg's news service is terrible. It's a noise machine that attributes any shift in a regularly variable number to whatever's going on that day. In turn, it might be responsible for that variability for posting so much farking noise.

/Bloomberg stock goes to zero as everyone gives up on chasing the minute in favor of the year
 
2013-11-07 08:09:31 AM  

wildcardjack: Well, Bloomberg's news service is terrible. It's a noise machine that attributes any shift in a regularly variable number to whatever's going on that day. In turn, it might be responsible for that variability for posting so much farking noise.


They need to do an investigative report on how noise is causing the stock market to fluctuate.
 
2013-11-07 08:30:11 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Joe Peanut: Captain Dan:4. He encouraged real estate development.

For the very rich, yes.

I make about 3 times the national average.  I cannot afford to live in Manhattan anywhere south of Harlem, or in any part of the outter boroughs closer to the city.  I'm now in 500 square foot rental in Red Hook, Brooklyn.  Nice area, but a major pain to get to work since the subways don't come by here, and there is only one bus line (B61).  And forget buying.  If you don't have a spare $100k sitting in the bank, you can't even afford the down payment on anything decent.

And before anyone else says it:

What is the remedy for that? Was Bloomberg supposed to make it so unappealing to live below 96th street that prices would drop?

In your position, the best remedy would be to completely eliminate rent control. Let those apartments go on market rents, it would drop the price to a level that you making 3x national average might be able afford something.


How about:

1 - Don't give eminent domain rights to big developers to take over huge chunks of land previously occupied by old, affordable apartment buildings, and replace them with huge glass towers with apartments worth many millions of dollars each.

2 - If you must stop subsidizing affordable middle class developments, allow the current residents to buy them as a coop instead of selling it to the highest bidder.  That's what happened under Bloomberg in Peter Cooper Village, Stuyvesant Town, and many Mitchell Lama developments all over the city.  I used to live in Waterside Plaza.  In 2005 or thereabouts under Mitchell Lama, I was paying $1,200 for a nice 1-bedroom on the 30th floor with all utilities included.  When it was announced that Waterside would no longer be subsidized, the residents got together and offered the city to buy Waterside as a coop.  instead the city sold it to some private developers, which raised the rent to astronomical levels, and started to charge for utilities.  Nearly everyone had to move.  My old apartment now goes for over $3,100/mo.  In Waterside alone, that was over 1,400 middle-class families kicked to the curb to open space for people who can afford $3,100/mo for a 1-bedroom.
 
2013-11-07 08:49:21 AM  

wildcardjack: Well, Bloomberg's news service is terrible. It's a noise machine that attributes any shift in a regularly variable number to whatever's going on that day. In turn, it might be responsible for that variability for posting so much farking noise.

/Bloomberg stock goes to zero as everyone gives up on chasing the minute in favor of the year


Lots of his money comes from other sources, like the trading terminals.  I can't believe what those cost a year.
 
2013-11-07 12:19:14 PM  

Joe Peanut: Debeo Summa Credo: Joe Peanut: Captain Dan:4. He encouraged real estate development.

For the very rich, yes.

I make about 3 times the national average.  I cannot afford to live in Manhattan anywhere south of Harlem, or in any part of the outter boroughs closer to the city.  I'm now in 500 square foot rental in Red Hook, Brooklyn.  Nice area, but a major pain to get to work since the subways don't come by here, and there is only one bus line (B61).  And forget buying.  If you don't have a spare $100k sitting in the bank, you can't even afford the down payment on anything decent.

And before anyone else says it:

What is the remedy for that? Was Bloomberg supposed to make it so unappealing to live below 96th street that prices would drop?

In your position, the best remedy would be to completely eliminate rent control. Let those apartments go on market rents, it would drop the price to a level that you making 3x national average might be able afford something.

How about:

1 - Don't give eminent domain rights to big developers to take over huge chunks of land previously occupied by old, affordable apartment buildings, and replace them with huge glass towers with apartments worth many millions of dollars each.

2 - If you must stop subsidizing affordable middle class developments, allow the current residents to buy them as a coop instead of selling it to the highest bidder.  That's what happened under Bloomberg in Peter Cooper Village, Stuyvesant Town, and many Mitchell Lama developments all over the city.  I used to live in Waterside Plaza.  In 2005 or thereabouts under Mitchell Lama, I was paying $1,200 for a nice 1-bedroom on the 30th floor with all utilities included.  When it was announced that Waterside would no longer be subsidized, the residents got together and offered the city to buy Waterside as a coop.  instead the city sold it to some private developers, which raised the rent to astronomical levels, and started to charge for utilities.  Nearly everyone had to move.  My old apartment now goes for over $3,100/mo.  In Waterside alone, that was over 1,400 middle-class families kicked to the curb to open space for people who can afford $3,100/mo for a 1-bedroom.


1). Examples please. Who owned the building previously? They should decide what happens to the building/land.

2) who owned the building previously? If they were getting $1,200 from the tenant and $1,900 in subsidies, why shouldn't they be able to rent it out for $3,100 if the subsidies disappear? If you get a benefit (cheap coop or subsidized rent), someone else is paying for it.
 
2013-11-07 04:38:20 PM  

Captain Dan: Rent control and zoning restrictions hurt the rich and non-rich alike.  That's not intuitive, which is why these measures are usually popular, but it's well-known amongst economists.


Economists... the witch doctors and court astrologers of our age.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/oct/24/students-post-crash- ec onomics
 
2013-11-07 05:56:16 PM  

whidbey: Lsherm: whidbey: but I love watching the social conservatives freak about petty bullshiat like banning Big Gulps, though.

How is hating a big gulp ban a socially conservative position?  It's such an overreach it pissed off everybody.

Not really. Liberals understand that eventually we are going to have to pay for our unhealthy habits, and yes that means either banning unhealthy foodstuffs or putting high taxes on them to discourage consumption.

Conservatives not so much.


So it's not facism when you do it?  You know what you sound like?  People who claim being a gay man is a health hazard because of the higher risk for HIV.  Are liberals clamoring to ban unhealthy sexual habits?
 
Displayed 18 of 68 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report