Anyone watch the debate last night? I thought Quinn did well, and it wasn’t a great outing for De Blasio. Quinn also landed the Daily News endorsement this morning, and they made pretty much the best case that can be made for her:
Somehow you’re only able to perceive expensive interests when they support Democrats. Unions and other groups endorse candidates in every election.
I totally hate his fucking elitist obnoxious smug-assed nasal-voiced aged-yuppie scum guts.
The 85% or so of the city residents that live outside of Manhattan below 125th street and a few upscale neighborhood in western Brooklyn and Queens just aren’t on his radar, unless he’s annoying them about their cigarette and soft drink consumption.
His response to Sandy was abysmal, he pretty much declared “mission accomplished” once lower Manhattan and his precious stock exchange had power while thousands and thousands of elderly residents were stuck in high rise housing complexes without power for weeks, and no help except that given by neighborhood and community volunteers.
And his response to the Christmas blizzard of 2010 was equally tone-deaf, he was sitting on a beach in the Caribbean while all the streets outside of Manhattan remained unplowed and his response to his constituents who couldn’t get to chemotherapy and dialysis was “relax, it’s the holidays, go take in a Broadway show”.
Just another example of his complete tone-deafness and his total disregard for any New Yorker that lives outside of Manhattan and doesn’t have a extra 300 bucks or so to drop on “snow day” entertainment.
Yeah, MBLOOM, the only reason that blue-collar workers that labor on construction sites and roadways all day don’t have a little piece of salmon with some steamed vegetables for dinner is “lack of access to healthy foods”:rolleyes:
You can talk all you want about how “most people don’t need more than 2000 calories a day” but a lot of YOUR CONSTITUENTS that lift things heavier than your wallet for a living need a LOT more than that, sometimes twice as much so stop treating them like some sort of demon pigs.
I hope he gets run over by some idiot on a CitiBike wobbling their way down a bike lane in the wrong direction while trying to pedal while juggling a Big Mac and a Big Gulp.
About the only good thing I can say about him is every moral compass has a butt-end and if he’s in favor or something it must be wrong.
I actually support the soda thing and the bike program, and for that matter his increase in pedestrian spaces. That’s forward-thinking stuff. But yeah, there are other issues that count.
So, how does all of that reflect on Quinn, and, if she is perceived as a Bloomberg lackey, how does that affect her electoral prospects?
Those interests are the expensive ones. Big business doesn’t need taxpayer money and the amount they get when they do get it doesn’t break the bank. It’s not corporations that broke the bank in many cities, it was pension obligations.
It’s a simple question. When the unions come calling on the next mayor, will he or she say “no”?
Of course not. They want tax breaks and loose regulations, and those don’t cost anything. They have zero effect on the city’s finances or tax revenue.
I should hope not. Let us have no more Scott Walkers, in any state at any level.
A) Not nearly as much as pension promises or overhiring in the public sector.
B) Tax breaks and loose regulations can’t cause bankruptcy. Tax breaks are easily revoked in times of fiscal crisis and regulations have costs, but not significant budgetary costs except in rare cases. Pensions and payrolls tend to make up the bulk of city budgets these days.
I understand where you all are coming from, Bloomberg was supposedly the rich folks’ mayor and now you want someone for all the people. So we’re now going to find out if that means fiscal profligacy and high crime.
Well, of course it does, if “all the people” are New Yorkers. 
It needn’t be that way. Can even the poorest New Yorkers say they are worse off than they used to be? Their neighborhoods are safer, jobs are more plentiful, city services work better. They only need look at Detroit to see how things could have been had Democrats run things the last 20 years.
Of course not. The problem always involves people with lower incomes. No matter what your tax rates and tax base look like, it’s always the payments that are too high.
Of course not. What happens is that taxes get cut over and over, there’s a budget shortfall, and then someone magically realizes the problem is that there are too many pensions promised to people with lower and middle incomes. What a weird series of coincidences that always is.
I did need a laugh today!
Eliminate rent control and I guess that won’t be a problem anymore. All those poor people and local businesses won’t be stuck with their apartments and stores and they can go someplace else or be broke on the street. Do you realize there are some city blocks that don’t even have four banks on them?
No, they would not. This is getting more and more absurd. We know Democrats are bad and unions are eeeevil, but some facts would be useful. Here are some.
Detroit’s problems go back much farther than 20 years and they have little or nothing to do with anything that was going on in New York at any time. New York City was never tied as closely to one industry as Detroit was to the auto industry and it never suffered a prolonged population drain like the one Detroit has had going on for 50 or 60 years. The population of New York stagnated in the middle of the century and it did go down in the 1970s, but it went up even during the 1980s. And everybody agrees things were bad during the '80s. Even when New York City was at its worst, the violent crime rates in Detroit were always much, much higher. There is nothing that can happen here that will make New York into Detroit, or even into the New York City of the '70s and '80s. If you would grasp any of this your opinions would be better grounded in reality.
:dubious: Have you understood any of the several posts in this thread about the irrelevance of party labels to municipal elections?
BTW, this is what happened to Detroit. Blame rests with the Governor, not the Mayor, and the Governor is a Republican.
In the places that went bankrupt or are on the fast path to bankruptcy, they’ve raised taxes as much as they can.
That’s never what happens. What actually happens is that yes, taxes go up, taxes go down, but the longterm trend in these types of places is up, until they can’t squeeze anymore blood from the stone and can’t pay their bills.
That’s the excuse. The reality is that New York was Detroit in 1975. Democrats ran it into the ground fiscally.
You’re blaming the court proceeding, and not the fact that Detroit can’t pay it’s bills?
Fine. I have an idea. No bankruptcy, Detroit just pays what it can and decides what it can and lives in an insolvent position.
Ok. Is anybody proposing raising taxes as fast as they can?
That’s certainly false on the federal level, but I haven’t found an explanation of what taxes are doing on the citywide level.
This was bull a couple of hours ago and it doesn’t smell any better now. New York City in 1975 had a stable population of maybe 7.5 million and a diversified base of industries supporting its economy, and Detroit had the struggling auto industry and a population of maybe 1.3 million and falling due to white flight (its population has been declining for 60 years). New York had high crime, but it was not on Detroit’s level at any time. It was never close. When the murder rate in NYC was at its highest, Detroit was three times worse. The city had also elected a Republican mayor as recently as 1965 (and he changed parties but stayed in office until 1973). So apparently your verdict is that everything was great until Abe Beam/Koch/Dinkins, and then everything was great again after that. That’s a fascinating version of history but it’s not one that is likely to recur.
He’s saying the problem in Detroit isn’t just “Democrats broke it!”
:rolleyes: How will that reflect on Quinn, I do wonder?
New York already has high taxes. If you want to spend more, you need even more taxes. That’s a path to insolvency.
The federal government isn’t on a path to insolvency in the short term, so much as on a path to being forced to double or triple taxes on the middle class. Like I said, there is no bankruptcy if taxes can be raised when the crisis comes. You only get bankruptcy when there is no conceivable way to raise the money.
There are always excuses. If Bloomberg had been a typical big city mayor, New York would have had a fiscal crisis during his term and he would have blamed circumstances. The reason NYC didn’t have a fiscal crisis is because he made sure to run surpluses in the good times and resist the demands of interest groups to hand out the windfall.