A Third Term for Mayor Mike Bloomberg?

Home Forums Politics A Third Term for Mayor Mike Bloomberg?

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 61 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #589788

    What do you think?

    1) Yes

    2) No

    3) Undecided

    4) Depends on…

    What issues is your decision based on?

    (so as not to affect any answer, I’m not listing my preference just yet)

    #672727
    chaverim
    Member

    Bloomberg for sure since he is the lesser of the evils, as any of the Dems would be far far worse than him. Not to say that Bloomberg has been too bad anyways.

    #672729
    Jax
    Member

    ICOT: 3) Undecided

    who’s else is in the running for mayor?!

    #672730
    mepal
    Member

    I’d really rather not vote Bloomberg but first ya gotta check out whom he’s running against.

    #672731
    areivimzehlazeh
    Participant

    was he that bad?

    #672732
    mepal
    Member

    Well, he’s a filthy rich bachler who has a hard time understanding me & you middle class kind of people. Check out what he plans on doing about the economic crisis and YOU determine whether he’ll be good for us or not. But like I said, I have to know who he’s running against to know whom to vote for.

    #672733
    squeak
    Participant

    People of NYC have short memories, or don’t you remember his first year in office? We called him Mike Taxberg then, because every tax that exists in NY was raised shortly after his election. From the 25% property tax increase, to the huge increases in parking fines (and meter maids to hand them out), to the increase in State sales tax that he was instrumental in bringing about.

    Well, he’s a smart guy and he did the nasty stuff pretty early on, so he was able to live down the nickname of Taxberg in time to get reelected. But now he wants the sales tax to go up again, and who knows what else he will pick on if you reelect him – because he will have nothing to lose.

    The only people whom he spared from taxes are the real estate developers. So the next time you see a 50 story high-rise building in Manhattan that is full of rich yuppies who paid $1-$2 Million+ for their loft/duplex/penthouse and who are straining the natural resources of NYC (think of your water bill now), realize that they and the guy who put up that building are living in a tax haven and the lost revenue is coming out of your pockets when he raises taxes. </rant>

    But what do I care, anymore? 😉

    #672734
    areivimzehlazeh
    Participant

    yeah squeak- you’re not in NY anymore, so why do you bother?

    #672735
    mepal
    Member

    So, who’s he running against? Anyone?

    #672736

    Mayor Bloomberg has been a decent if unspectacular mayor.

    I would say that his major accomplishments are:

    1) Mayoral control of schools. The public school system is clearly better than it was before he took over.

    What he did with term limits is the deal-breaker for me.

    Mayor Giuliani, who was an excellent mayor (remember the chaos he inherited from Mayor Dinkins and how he turned it around), and had a great reason to have his term extended (a continuation of the leadership he showed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks), and clearly would have won a landslide victory had he been able to run again was forced to leave office by the term limits law.

    Now that he is in office, he strong-armed, and in some cases bribed (not illegally) several council members who originally would have voted to retain term limits into extending the limits to include a third term.

    In summary I select options:

    2) No

    …and…

    4) Depends on…

    If anyone actually read this all the way thru, Thank you 🙂

    #672737

    Moderator-

    I omitted two key sentences from my earlier post.

    Please (assuming you approve the earlier post) insert the following two sentences right before “One of the worst perversions…”

    Thank you.

    #672738
    squeak
    Participant

    ICOT, it’s a good thing that you omitted those two sentences. Ideally you are correct, but in practice it is no longer so.

    #672739
    chaverim
    Member

    i can only try: None of Bloomy’s possible major opposition candidates are good, and in fact are all a lot worse than Bloomy. You already know the handful of candidates who have a real chance to be the democrat nominee. Do you think ANY of them are ANY good?? I think definitely not.

    #672740
    mepal
    Member

    chaverim, care to be more specific? Do you know who’s running?

    #672741
    moti107
    Member

    You all remember how he got in to office in the first place, it was “MONEY” and now the only reason he was able to push for a third term is also “MONEY” regarding his opponent, why should a normal human being run against a man who has resources to spend $15,000,000,000 with a “B” and flood you out via TV the last couple of weeks of the campaign, Remember Mark Green?

    #672742
    chaverim
    Member

    mepal, icot mentioned some of the names – like weiner (who would like to be schumer), and thompson, both highly unqualified to be mayor. One of those 2 will almost definitely be the democrat candidate.

    #672743

    squeak-

    Nonetheless, the law itself is not different for them than it is for the average person.

    chaverim-

    mepal-

    moti107-

    Mark Green would have been the Mayor if not for the 9/11 attacks.

    Why did he change his mind?

    Lauder has agreed to stay out of the expected legal battle over term limits in exchange for a guaranteed spot on an influential city board that would put the matter to the voters in 2010, officials said. (NY Daily News)

    In other words, Lauder would make an exception for Bloomberg only.

    In return, Lauder would have power to revert the law to what it was.

    Illegal? No.

    Realistically, Mayor Bloomberg is a shoo-in for a third term.

    The way he has manipulated the system into getting it is what makes it so wrong.

    To “borrow” “squeak”s concluding line:

    </rant><rant></rant></rant></rant>

    #672744
    mepal
    Member

    Thanks for explaining, ICOT.

    #672745
    chaverim
    Member

    icot, gotta disagree w/one point you made. Clinton would never have one a 3rd term — in face even Gore blamed HIS loss due to his association with Clinton (as Clinton’s Veep) due to all the horrible personal things Clinton did.

    I also think that it was good to allow bloomy to run again since otherwise the Democrat whoever it would’ve been would’ve been a shoo-in. And we all now what problems the city always has under democrat mayors.

    #672746
    proud tatty
    Member

    Bloomberg has a LOT of chutzpa going for a 3rd term. He was only elected since Guiliani turned down a 3rd term out of respect for the law. Guiliani would have run away with the post 9/11 election. Yet he said law was law, vote Bloomberg, now the law that got Bloomberg elected gets shredded since it is now in his way.

    Shame

    #672747

    chaverim-

    Those who voted for Gore largely did so on an intellectual level, while they would have voted for Clinton on the emotional gut-level.

    #672748

    mepal-

    My pleasure.

    chaverim-

    (all grades subjective, of course)

    #672749

    Regardless of my feelings re: the term-limits issue, voting an unknown whose competency is questionable into office would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

    This may be unfair to Bill Thompson, but the last time New Yorkers were fed up with an incumbent mayor and voted an unknown into office we ended up with David Dinkins.

    #672750
    Joseph
    Participant

    ICOT: How do you believe we can constitutionally remove the unfair advantage the rich have?

    #672751

    Joseph-

    By allowing unlimited campaign contributions from individuals.

    The reason this is not allowed is due to the fear of unsavory characters or companies making large contributions and having undue influence.

    This can be addressed by mandating that all contributions must be publicly declared before the money is used. For instance, imagine the political hay that can be made by someone who can say “my opponent took $1,000,000 from Phillip Morris”.

    I question the constitutionality of many campaign finance laws currently in place, including McCain – Feingold.

    #672752
    Joseph
    Participant

    I don’t see how “campaign contributions” differ from bribery. The “donors”, especially corporations or unions, have ulterior not altruistic motives when donating. IOW, I think ALL so-called contributions to campaigns should be outlawed as bribery.

    #672753
    NY Mom
    Member

    Joseph: Outlawing campaign contributions would, by that very fact, give rich candidates the upper hand. There would be no way for poorer candidates to compete in the publicity dept., which is a major factor in winning elections.

    Also, regarding the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold, there is a strong argument to be made that it is curtailing our freedom of speech.

    From Wikipedia on Campaign Finance Reform: Most opponents claim that CFR infringes on free speech and violates First Amendment rights. The argument is that the purpose of the free speech clause of the First Amendment is the guarantee that people have the right to publish their political views. Under this view, when the laws prohibit people from advocating for or against political candidates by restricting the content or the amount of political advertising, the laws are in conflict with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of political speech.

    There also other criticism of CFR in McCain-Feingold: In addition, many opponents point out that campaign finance regulations are excessively complicated. This, they say, prevents ordinary citizens from participating in the election process (especially from running for office) and limits participation to a wealthy elite who can afford the legal apparatus necessary to run. In modern campaigns, legal and accounting expenses are significant percentage of the overall budget. Opponents also claim that excessively complicated rules discourage participation more generally by dissuading people from even attempting political work or activism.

    Personally, I think John McCain’s own law limited his chances to win the 2008 election, unintentionally of course.

    #672754
    Joseph
    Participant

    I agree that by itself outlawing campaign contributions would help rich candidates. Nevertheless the evil of campaign contributions, IMHO, is far greater than any other “legal” campaign issue.

    I would in addition to outlawing campaign contributions, provide each candidate free broadcast time. The Federal government “owns” the airwaves, and can require than say 2% of all airtime belongs to the government for its own use, as part of the broadcasting license to all broadcasters – who BTW do not pay for their license – neither at the outset nor ongoing fees. Then the gov’t could give its airtime to political candidates.

    #672755
    NY Mom
    Member

    Joseph: As stated above, In modern campaigns, legal and accounting expenses are a significant percentage of the overall budget.

    But then what about the other expenses in the campaign? The rich still have the advantage.

    #672756
    Joseph
    Participant

    Bribery is a greater evil. Campaign “contributions” determine legislation. It is bribery plain and simple.

    #672757

    Joseph-

    I don’t see how “campaign contributions” differ from bribery. The “donors”, especially corporations or unions, have ulterior not altruistic motives when donating.

    There are several reasons to contribute:

    3) You want to influence your candidate.

    IOW, I think ALL so-called contributions to campaigns should be outlawed as bribery.

    This would abolish all political parties, as well as excluding all candidates except those rich enough to self-finance.

    The existing campaign finance laws have already caused all sorts of shenanigans, such as 527 groups, families all maxing out donations to a particular group, left-wing filmmakers with an agenda, and soft dollar contributions as well as allowing super-rich candidates to overwhelm their opponents.

    Although those laws were well-meaning, I think they cause more problems than they solve.

    #672758

    Joseph-

    Bribery is a greater evil.

    Can’t argue with that. But…

    Campaign “contributions” determine legislation. It is bribery plain and simple.

    No more than than a community leader pledging a “bloc vote” for a candidate. This is not cash going into the candidate’s pocket, but towards his campaign to help him get elected.

    #672759
    NY Mom
    Member

    ICOT: That is very well said.

    #672760

    NY Mom-

    Thank you.

    The opposing view clearly has valid points as well, but after factoring the pros and cons of the differing positions this is my conclusion.

    #672761
    NY Mom
    Member

    ICOT: There are valid points on both sides, but I feel that the risk of not having a political voice in the greater society is the greater evil. Politics is a dirty business, but there are many issues that affect the frum community which call for political influence.

    What would be, if we didn’t have this influence to defend ourselves from our adversaries and to advocate for our concerns?

    #672762
    Joseph
    Participant

    Reason 4 is bribery. This is the most powerful reason of campaign contributions. It should not be allowed, whether open or closed? Should we allow bribery so long as it is open?

    This would abolish all political parties

    Not too bad an idea. Sounds like something George Washington would have liked.

    Better the rich than the bribed. I think Yisro’s idea IS applicable here.

    #672763
    NY Mom
    Member

    Joseph: And yet there are countless stories of when our Rabbonim utilized bribery to influence govt. officials in the past, whether in Europe of the Middle East. Were they incorrect to do so?

    This political system isn’t perfect, but it is better than any of the other goyishe models out there, IMO.

    #672764
    Joseph
    Participant

    NY Mom: Are you suggesting therefore it is okay to allow bribery? If that isn’t what you are suggesting, what was your point about that?

    I entirely agree this system is better than any other goyishe model out there. But that isn’t saying much. And shouldn’t we improve the model?

    #672765
    NY Mom
    Member

    Joseph: One of the richest guys in the world is far-left radical, George Soros. Do you think it would be better to have him in a political position over us, rather than someone who accepted campaign contributions from different groups, and which were disclosed to the public?

    And what about Pres. Obama, who is beholden to the unions, who helped to get him elected. The outcome of the bankruptcy judgments of the car companies is an example of the “political payback” awarded to the unions. And yet the unions’ influence was achieved legally under campaign finance reform, which limits campaign contributions.

    #672766
    NY Mom
    Member

    Joseph: Are you suggesting therefore it is okay to allow bribery? If that isn’t what you are suggesting, what was your point about that?

    Of course, it is not OK to allow bribery. I was just trying to point out that even something as bad as bribery had its place. The Rabbonim were not against using it for the frum community’s benefit to influence government officials, when govt was corrupt.

    Bribery in government is nothing new, and while it is wrong and distasteful, I don’t think that banning campaign contributions will accomplish what you think it will. That’s all.

    Are you saying that the Torah’s system of judges will work in a goyishe society? Review the Torah requirements for judges, and tell me if this could ever happen in golus without moshiach.

    And shouldn’t we improve the model?

    Yes, but it is debatable whether banning campaign contributions would be a better scenario, due to the reasons I and ICOT have outlined above.

    #672767
    Jax
    Member

    If Rudy Giuliani was in the running, would you choose Mike or Rudy?!

    #672768
    Joseph
    Participant

    I’d write in a vote for Jax.

    #672769
    mepal
    Member

    Yeah. Jax would do a good job as mayor.

    #672770

    Joseph-

    Reason 4 is bribery. This is the most powerful reason of campaign contributions. It should not be allowed, whether open or closed? Should we allow bribery so long as it is open?

    I disagree with that definition, as does the law.

    The contribution is going to campaign effort, which makes it no different than:

    a) A newspaper editorial, supporting a candidate.

    b) A community leader endorsing a candidate.

    d) Campaign volunteers who expect consideration if their candidate wins.

    Bribery would mean:

    a) Benefits going directly to the candidate, whether cash, property, vacations, special consideration in the commodities market.

    b) Any of the above benefits going to friends or relatives of the candidate.

    c) Any secret agreement made to benefit the candidate in return for special consideration e.g. kickbacks.

    a) Men of truth.

    b) Men of means (for the reason mentioned earlier).

    c) G-dly men.

    d) Who despise money (as Rashi explains, who will surrender the money rather than go to din and have it taken away).

    In addition, these men were to have been selected by Moshe.

    [not a nice story]), and Bloomberg.

    It would be a terrible idea to have a de facto restriction of public office to just that circle.

    Not too bad an idea. Sounds like something George Washington would have liked.

    I have no idea what GW whould have thought of such an idea but:

    a) GW is listed as a Federalist in my childhood history book.

    Jax-

    Rudy, in a nanosecond.

    #672771
    Joseph
    Participant

    Jax 2017!

    (2017, so its after he becomes old enough to vote.)

    #672772
    Jax
    Member

    ICOT: same here Rudy over Mike!

    Joseph: will you help me campaign at least?!

    #672773
    mepal
    Member

    You’ll win all the yw-cr posters votes for sure.

    #672774
    Joseph
    Participant

    ICOT:

    That is why I suggest the law be changed. And contributions outlawed as bribery.

    The most corrupt form of bribery is money.

    George Washington was not a Federalist (although his positions were reflected by the Federalists.)

    #672775

    Joseph-

    It would be a terrible idea to have a de facto restriction of public office to just that circle.

    That was a strongly worded statement because I feel strongly about this issue. No offense is intended.

    Jax-

    I didn’t see your candidacy as an option when I voted for Rudy. Is it too late to change my ballot?

    #672776
    Jax
    Member

    mepel: your on campaign duty as well!

    ICOT: neither did i, but have no fear, it’s not too late to change your ballot!

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 61 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.