# Mayor Bloomberg, my kind of guy



## Ashermusic (Dec 12, 2010)

NYC Mayor Bloomberg was just on "Meet The Press" and what a breath of fresh air. Idealogues from either party will not agree with him and I don't agree with him on everything, but he has common sense, business experience, and compassion and he tells the truth about why Congress is so unworkable.

Unfortunately, he unambiguously closed the door on running for president now or in the future.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 12, 2010)

I didn't hear the interview, but your centrism is worse than your being a Celtics fan.


----------



## P.T. (Dec 12, 2010)

I think we should have a war and kill everyone on the losing side.

Then after some years when things factionalize again we can do it all over again.

This will also solve the global overpopulation problem and global warming.


----------



## snowleopard (Dec 14, 2010)

The best thing about him is that while he's wealthy, he's philanthropic, and seems lessò  Ñ   ÎEP  Ñ   ÎF   Ñ   ÎFy  Ñ   ÎFû  Ñ   ÎG7  Ñ   ÎKy  Ñ   ÎLž  Ñ   ÎMW  Ñ   ÎMŠ  Ñ   ÎMÌ  Ñ   ÎN)  Ñ   ÎOü  Ñ   ÎP—  Ñ   ÎQY  Ñ   ÎQ£  Ñ   ÎSº  Ñ   ÎSñ  Ñ   ÎU  Ñ   ÎU/  Ñ   ÎUt  Ñ   ÎU¢  Ñ   ÎYL  Ñ   ÎY‡  Ñ   ÎY»  Ñ   ÎYá  Ñ   Î]  Ñ   Î]J  Ñ   Î^¹  Ñ   Î^Â  Ñ   Î_å  Ñ   Î`w  Ñ   Îaž  Ñ   Îa×


----------



## rgames (Dec 14, 2010)

snowleopard @ Tue Dec 14 said:


> He's right that there needs to be compromise and politicians are so anchored to their base extreme that nothing gets done.


I'm not so sure about that - it's certainly true that the politicians who show up in the national media tend to be more extreme, but do they represent all of congress?

There are 600+ (whatever..) senators/reps - how many can the average person actually name? Probably only a handful. I think that handful happens to be at the extremes. They make the best press, so why not?

I've seen data that shows where senators/reps fall on a liberal/conservative scale and the names in the middle are basically unknown. It wasn't an exhaustive list, but it certainly gave enough info to make you think.

rgames


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 14, 2010)

Bloomberg knows that he's vulnerable on social issues and has too many skeletons in the closet to win. That he has decided firmly not to run for president shows that he hasn't lost touch with reality.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2010)

> I've seen data that shows where senators/reps fall on a liberal/conservative scale and the names in the middle are basically unknown



Halfway between Democrat and Republican is very conservative these days. People like Nancy Pelosi, who centrist Jay Asher thinks is a rabid liberal, is very moderate by any historical measure.

There's nothing good about being in the center today. It means you advocate crappy values less strongly than someone who's very conservative.

All the low-end manufacturing jobs that used to keep our middle class employed went overseas. Rather than subsidizing their wages and investing in education, infrastructure, and so on - thus keeping our economy going - we have a tax structure that let way too much of the income go to the top. Instead of being invested in our economy, that money goes wherever the returns are highest, creating bubbles all around the world. They popped.

Conservatives want the government to do nothing for our society (on than spend lots of money on the military, and in my opinion that's not for the god of our society), and they want more and more tax cuts and less spending on services. That is making our society worse, and yesterday the Senate voted to do that by a large majority.

A moderate conservative wants to do less damage to our world than a rabid one, but he or she is still on the wrong side.

To hell with being "moderate." Yes politics is the art of the possible rather than the ideal, but we need more politicians like Henry Waxman, Bernie Sanders, and Nancy Pelosi who fight for the American people!

Having said that, I know very little about what Bloomberg advocates.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 14, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Dec 14 said:


> > I've seen data that shows where senators/reps fall on a liberal/conservative scale and the names in the middle are basically unknown
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, Pelosi, while not a "rabid liberal" like Kucinich for instance, is not a moderate Democrat either. Diane Feinstein is a moderate Democrat. Harold Ford is a moderate Democrat.

And I do not argue for the center just because it is possible. I argue for it because it is right.

As for Bloomberg:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... he-vehicle


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2010)

> Harold Ford is a moderate Democrat



No, he's basically a moderate Republican, and as such he's very wrong about a lot of things (although not everything). He says stuff about reigning in the size of government, reducing deficits, and so on. And he wanted to castrate health insurance reform even more than it already was.

The center is wrong. Bad toilet.

And by the way, Kucinich is not the least bit rabid, he's an idealist. That's a compliment. I can't say I've heard him say anything I disagree with, just things we all know aren't going to happen.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2010)

> If the center is so wrong, then why does everybody campaign to the center, then once elected take sharp turns to the left or right...?



I wouldn't say that's what happens. They turn to the right, first of all, never to the left. But they tend to do whatever their advisors tell them will win the next election.

Meanwhile there are plenty of candidates who don't campaign as centrists, and most of them are conservative.

Centrist = mediocre at best. Moderate = the same thing. Conservative = less than mediocre at best, usually much worse than mediocre. Democrat = sometimes better than mediocre. Liberal = endangered species in our government.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 14, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Dec 14 said:


> > Harold Ford is a moderate Democrat
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While his views may be your "ideals" but many of them sure are not mine.

And wanting the deficit reduced and "reducing the size of government" are not exclusively "Republican" ideas. A guy named Clinton actually did it after declaring "The era of big government is over."

I guess when you are so far over to the left the center appears far over on the right


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 14, 2010)

The Liberal wing needs thier own Tea Party now.
Instead of Tea bags they can carry copies of the Keynesian Economic Theory book and thier mantra can be " Just Another Few Trillion. "

Then some pictures of wealthy Liberals posing in their wineries with shovels to show that those shovel ready jobs will come thiò  Ñ   äø+  Ñ   äøG  Ñ   äù,  Ñ   äùU  Ñ   äù§  Ñ   äùÒ  Ñ   äú/  Ñ   äûÛ  Ñ   äûÿ  Ñ   äü*  Ñ   äü\  Ñ   äüõ  Ñ   äýO  Ñ   äýd  Ñ   äÿÎ  Ñ   äÿç  Ñ   å á  Ñ   å  Ñ   åæ  Ñ   åL  Ñ   å;  Ñ   åi  Ñ   åø  Ñ   å  Ñ   å	  Ñ   å
K  Ñ   å¹  Ñ   åí  Ñ   åâ  Ñ   åõ  Ñ   å ‚  Ñ   å ý  Ñ   å.  Ñ   åh  Ñ   åÔ  Ñ   åü  Ñ   å\  Ñ   å„  Ñ   åN  Ñ   åa  Ñ   å~  Ñ   åœ  Ñ   åõ  Ñ   å  Ñ   å  Ñ   åÒ  Ñ   åv  Ñ   åä  Ñ   å!¶  Ñ   å!Ë  Ñ   å"Æ  Ñ   å"ý  Ñ   å#6  Ñ   å#©  Ñ   å$c  Ñ   å$°  Ñ   å'°  Ñ   å(%  Ñ   å*9  Ñ   å*]  Ñ   å+g  Ñ   å+|  Ñ   å1±  Ñ   å1ê  Ñ   å3u  Ñ   å3¬  Ñ   å4×  Ñ   å5  Ñ   å6   Ñ   å6  Ñ   å7F  Ñ   å7i  Ñ   å:È  Ñ   å;  Ñ   å>p  Ñ   å>É


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 15, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Dec 15 said:


> Wanting the deficit reduced in the middle of an economic crisis is exclusively Republican, Jay, and their whole [email protected]#t ideology is based on reducing the size of government - meaning cutting out social spending.
> 
> Kucinich's ideals are for things like world peace. If that makes me far to the left then I'm proud of it. There's nothing particularly good about being a eunuch.
> 
> And I like Clinton overall but don't like how he cow-towed to the right. The legacy of that - the economic crash - isn't so great.



They wrote a song that would some slight alteration could be about you "I've Been Left So Long It Looks Like Center to Me."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 15, 2010)

There's another one: "I've been noncommittal so long my balls have withered."


----------



## snowleopard (Dec 15, 2010)

Nancy Pelosi. The woman who promised to "drain the swamp."

The scary thing is, she actually thinks she did it, and made meaningful progress in cleaned up politics. She even said so...on the day Charles Rangel reached a deal on his ethics charges (which should be called criminal charges).


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 16, 2010)

I am a liberal semi-centrist, regardless of whether N.B. believes that to be a viable, moral or even possible position.

On the other hand, I voted for Obama because I believed in his idealism. Good gravy-I been screwed again. I would have much rather seen him go down in 4 years worth of flames and defiantly accomplish the things he spoke of than see him try to stir this stew of 'centrism' he's cooking up.

Bloomberg is the only Republican I've ever voted for. Did it twice.

I voted for Bill twice too, but I hold him personally responsible for about 500,000 of the 800,000 Rwandans hacked to death in an 'ethnic cleansing' (read 'genocide') he was too 'centrist' to deal with.


----------



## P.T. (Dec 16, 2010)

Many people believed in Obama's idealism, whatever that was.

I know it will annoy people, but it seems like they voted for an empty box with slogans printed all over it and filled that box with their own hopes and dreams and assumptions.

Of course, people often do that with politicians.
Of course, the other option was pretty bad.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 16, 2010)

What's really even more confusing is when you ask most Africans what President they liked the most, they loved G.Bush as he actually saved hundreds of 1,000's of lives by funding AID's relief programs, which caused other wealthy private donors from around the globe to participate.
Their second favorite is Obama as he is yet another reminder of the possibilities for anyone of any race to succeed in the USA. And Ali restored more pride in Africans than any of their elected Kings/Leaders.

The left wants your money to help the little people, after they get their cut of the revenues, and the right wants to expand the pockets of their wealthiest supporters.
I guess that leaves me without help from either of these false parties, and right in the middle.
But they seem to think this Tax extension will help or hurt the middle class...?
It won't have any major effect on me and I dont consider it even necessary.
But all I hear is how we are protecting the middle class........?
Really........Where the F**k were they when my equity was being transferred to Shanghai...........?
If anyone in the world needs an excuse to riot in the streets the American Middle Class sure has one. 
Yet we sit back and see the poor and rich get all of the attention.
Nobody represents me, and to be more to the point, after the results I have seen, I dont need them to tell me how to raise my kids, what to eat.

If any of these clowns had to use their own money to prove they care so much, where do you think they would invest it.....? Another Jail maybe...?
Cant blame them really, there's a huge profit in picking up the pieces of failed social programs.
Bob Barker makes the orange jumpsuits all inmates wear, and yes they are made in China. That evil capitalist.............but wait, doesn't he also privately fund Green Peace.........Saving the whales and keeping the brothas' clothed is so noble.
Senator Danforth and his Ralston Purina doggy food corporation owns several Prisons. So even the celebrities and politicians are well aware of the failed social programs we keep funding, and the large profits for the priveledged investors.
Boy I wish I knew the name of the stock to buy, but it seems these are private groups set up for the retiring politicians and movie stars to help them during their Golden years...........

God Bless The USA..........Land Of THe Free And THe HOme Of THe Slave...PLAY BALL>>>>>

Bloomberg / Michele Bachman 2012........


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 16, 2010)

chimuelo @ Thu Dec 16 said:


> What's really even more confusing is when you ask most Africans what President they liked the most, they loved G.Bush as he actually saved hundreds of 1,000's of lives by funding AID's relief programs, which caused other wealthy private donors from around the globe to participate.
> Their second favorite is Obama as he is yet another reminder of the possibilities for anyone of any race to succeed in the USA. And Ali restored more pride in Africans than any of their elected Kings/Leaders.
> 
> The left wants your money to help the little people, after they get their cut of the revenues, and the right wants to expand the pockets of their wealthiest supporters.
> ...



I pretty much agree with the assessment of Bush's Africa policy. It was one of his few shining moments, though he and his bunch were still preaching and funding abstinence as a solution, which is like saying not eating is a good solution to starvation.

As to the rest, well, I'm politically liberal because I want to live in a compassionate and humanistic society, which in my opinion is defined by how a society cares for its poor, its elderly and its children. The fact that money gets wasted in this process, that there are many corrupt schemes that drain money from the public trough, well, this is inarguable and inevitable.It's going to happen under any political philosophy or ideology, whether you call it capitalism or Socialism or Fascism or anything else.

What's also clear is that unless people are compelled in some fashion to do the right thing, i.e.feeding the poor, providing benefits to our returning military, providing a safety net for the elderly-they won't. People are all up in arms about the Federal government's intrusion into their lives. In retrospect, and in a nightmare scenario, it would have been instructive to watch free market capitalism in its purest form . We would have seen that if we had let GM and AIG (among many others) fail and let the capital markets freeze. Almost immediately, there would have been 20% unemployment, runs on the banks and rioting and looting. Martial law would have swiftly followed. THEN we'd see how intrusive government can be.

My, how I do go on.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 16, 2010)

Larry, we agree on everything you posted (except that Bloomberg has never been on a ballot I voted on). What I have a problem with is Jay giving ridiculous points of view credence and supporting half-stupid politicians just so he can claim to be nicer than other people. You don't see me ranting at anyone else about their centrism!

Meanwhile Jay and I actually agree about the majority of issues. Nothing I believe is especially extreme either!

What isn't possible is people who say they're liberal but fiscally conservative. You can be libertarian, but you either believe in a government that provides social services or you don't.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 16, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Dec 16 said:


> Larry, we agree on everything you posted (except that Bloomberg has never been on a ballot I voted on). What I have a problem with is Jay giving ridiculous points of view credence and supporting half-stupid politicians just so he can claim to be nicer than other people. You don't see me ranting at anyone else about their centrism!
> 
> Meanwhile Jay and I actually agree about the majority of issues. Nothing I believe is especially extreme either!
> 
> What isn't possible is people who say they're liberal but fiscally conservative. You can be libertarian, but you either believe in a government that provides social services or you don't.



Nick, there are ways to provide safety nets and still cut a helluva lot of waste. There are things Ron Paul raves about that i actually agree with, though his philosophy taken as a whole is crackpot libertarianism.

Jay has NO interest in being nice-you haven't gotten that yet?? :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 16, 2010)

There are things Ron Paul raves about that I agree with too. And who's opposed to cutting waste? That's not an ideological position.

As to Jay...well, he's a Celtics fan. Need one say more?


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 16, 2010)

Any true liberal abhors waste. We only have so much money and we want it used effectively. We also don't want programs for the sake of programs. We want stuff that works, not stuff that keeps people in prison/poverty/nursing-homes.

That said, there are those who profit from waste. No-bid contracts can be lucrative whether the contractor is providing military security or social functions. People naturally protect their own bureaucracies. And there are programs that exist to launder funds elsewhere. You don't think that George Bush ever gave a crap about going to Mars, do you? (I wonder where the money really went?)

Battling waste is a never-ending fight.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 16, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Dec 16 said:


> There are things Ron Paul raves about that I agree with too. And who's opposed to cutting waste? That's not an ideological position.
> 
> As to Jay...well, he's a Celtics fan. Need one say more?



No, it's not an ideological position, but really, neither is 'fiscal conservatism' based on the words alone. I don't call myself a fiscal conservative for the reason you state-it seems to come with a package of ideology that I don't buy into, but really, I AM fiscally conservative in my personal life and believe that government should be much better managed. 

For example, analyzing Johnson's Great Society, there were good things to come out of the initiative- but we really didn't get the bang for the buck that we would have liked, and the waste?? Oy. As a country, we need better accounting and more intelligently targeted funding. The Dems may be more on the side of the angels, but they make crappy managers. Repubs seem to love boondoggle wasteful wars and tax breaks for fat cats. It's a clusterfck of epic proportions.

I know this is simplistic, but what makes the most sense to me is the apportioning of available resources in the most effective ways, with a bent towards humanitarian issues. It's not easy to accomplish or even approach, and in my opinion fierce ideology clouds the picture.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 16, 2010)

I wonder how effective the Great Society program really was? If you didn't live in and around poverty at the time (I didn't), you wouldn't have seen the effects first hand. And there is always the risk that it causes additional problems due to dependency.

Ideally, the government would have a continuous goal of reducing poverty and hunger and would perform ongoing studies to see what works, what is efficient, and what is counterproductive.

But instead of science, we have pontification, ideology, and misperceptions. Remember the "Welfare Queen" oxymoron of the 1980s? The great majority of single mothers who received welfare at the time were white and few were motivated to get pregnant for marginally larger welfare checks, but the manufactured perception was that the federal government was paying black women to be baby factories. 

The country would be better off if we could do and make policy based on scientific studies. Political careers don't need science. They're built on public relations campaigns.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 16, 2010)

Larry: again, the national debate you're describing is the one we used to have. Today it moves only between moderately right and insanely far right.

Sure ideology gets in the way. But left-wing ideology isn't even part of the discussion anymore; it's 100% radical right-wing ideology we've been victim to the past 30 years that has left us in the current predicament.

Paul Krugman talks about how Orwellian the right has become, and I have to agree.


----------



## snowleopard (Dec 16, 2010)

I would agree that there are very few "far left wing" ideologues out there. Of course, this all depends on how one defines that. One area I think you're completely right on Nick is that a loud group of people in this country think our country is bordering on socialism with the way the government does some things. But we're no where near close to true socialism. If people step back and look at their day to day lives, just much infiltration does the government really have in it? Compare that to truly socialist countries, then get back to me. 

The same can of course apply to the rarely defined "right".

Regarding the "Welfare Queens" it was journalist David Cay Johnston who wrote the story in about 1980 about the ONE woman who was driving a Cadillac and defrauded welfare to get the money. This story was mentioned by Reagan, and repeated thousands of times by others since, to imply an army of welfare cheats driving Cadillacs. Johnston likes to point out that no one really mentions this one woman was actually caught and sent to jail.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 16, 2010)

America can easily help all of its citizens by social programs working alongside of programs that reward those who play by the rules and pay their way.

Our problem is that such programs require amending and full time attention.
Temporary ladder climbers in DC dont even realize that some of these programs are seriously flawed.
Case in point....Extended Unemployment Benefits.
Times are different now so the extensions are necessary. But the unflexible application of the benefits has Americans sitting around waiting for the checks to stop before they take a job.
This isn't from being lazy, it's because once you go past the original 6 months, you are now on the Federal programs which are poorly written.

I have freinds who took a job after 8-13 months of unemployment, the job didn't work out, so because they made more than 1200 dollars during the Tier 2 extensions, they are disqualified until the last employers contibutions have been in the system for a year..........??? WTF is that.......???
Now these guys are screwed and have to get food stamps and apply for welfare and these guys are working men who carried 100lb. concrete Forms around and flew them off of the 60 story towers to the ground, signaled the crane, etc.etc.
So at the Union meetings this has become so bad that any member who has been out of work longer than 1 year can draw his annuity.

Yet leaders in DC are clueless because they are too busy scurrrying around trying to find a lobbyist to help as they have never held office before.
So if folks are looking to the newly elected GOP guys to save them, they better not get their hopes up. These guys are taking advice, working on deals, thinking about positions to stand for since they now want to be re elected.........You get the picture.

Most Americans are generous and kind, we all want everyone to have a chance to succeed, and those who can't stand up straight should have programs to help level the field out.
But just like the appointees at the Federal Reserve can last for decades, anyone who is in charge of these massively funded programs should be held accountable, and also be there for years.
Temporary politicians cannot be trusted, nor should they be allowed to dip into these funds for private wars or political slush funds.
Privatizing them these days is like asking Colonel Sanders to watch your chickens.
But if full time, experienced executive pay type of folks can be held accountable and run these programs they would succeed.
Politicinas are too afriad of public backlash and political correctness to make the tough decisions.
This is a change I would like to see.
Especially before these Jackwagons take over Health Care.
I cant imagine the disastrous results we could incur from an embittered loser.
Look at how these clowns that got the boot are trying to still take home Bacon after they had their Hats handed to them in November................
Both parties.


----------

