A Republican and a Democrat

[Dari]

On your Right: President George W Bush

Bad economy? Cut taxes. Give money back to the individuals.

On your left: Mayor Michael Bloomberg
(Mayor Bloomberg, who is worth about $4 billion dollars, was a life-long democrat until he saw an opportunity he couldn't pass up. In 2000, one year before the mayorial race of New York City, he flipped the switch and became a republican to avoid competing against the throngs of democrats vying to be the party's candidate. Even as an unchallenged republican, it was widely assumed that he would've have lost the race had it not been the support given to him by Rudolph Giuliani after the 9/11 tragedy. However, after the narrow defeat of his opponent, Bloomberg put down his nominal republican cloak and showed his true democratic colors.)

Bad economy? Raise taxes; cut social spending; close down fire departments; fire thousands of city workers. All in the name of balancing the budget.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am not sure what you are getting at. NYC and the US government are two entirely different situations. I could be critical of either, but I could not compare them anymore than I could critique a fish for not being a bird.

 

[BDawg]

The Republicans used to be all about balancing the budget until they learned they could win votes by spending *and* giving tax cuts.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I am not sure what you are getting at. NYC and the US government are two entirely different situations. I could be critical of either, but I could not compare them anymore than I could critique a fish for not being a bird.

in both cases the law says that they must balance the budget. But the philosophies of the two parties are at play here. In the case of the mayor, what happens once the budget is balanced? You have thousands of people out of work; you have tens of thousands of tax-paying businesses and individuals leaving the city of jersey or somewhere else; you have a pissed of populace that's paying more taxes but getting less in return. WHere is the logic in balancing the budget when politicians can't be prudent with budget surpluses during boom times? Instead of increasing social spending (via laws or directives), perhaps they should link the budget gyrations to some fund that can be dipped into when times are bad.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I am not sure what you are getting at. NYC and the US government are two entirely different situations. I could be critical of either, but I could not compare them anymore than I could critique a fish for not being a bird.

in both cases the law says that they must balance the budget. But the philosophies of the two parties are at play here. In the case of the mayor, what happens once the budget is balanced? You have thousands of people out of work; you have tens of thousands of tax-paying businesses and individuals leaving the city of jersey or somewhere else; you have a pissed of populace that's paying more taxes but getting less in return.

You also have a balanced budget in a economic downturn.

WHere is the logic in balancing the budget when politicians can't be prudent with budget surpluses during boom times? Instead of increasing social spending (via laws or directives), perhaps they should link the budget gyrations to some fund that can be dipped into when times are bad.

Do you mean Guiliani? I don't see the point of blaming Bloomberg. He certainly didn't have any surplus. He inherited a city hit hard by 9/11, in the middle of a reccession and was forced to do what you said. It doesn't matter if his a Democrat or a Republican, Liberal or Conservative, he has to balance the budget. He doesn't have the same liberty of going into mounds of debt like the Federal goverment.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I am not sure what you are getting at. NYC and the US government are two entirely different situations. I could be critical of either, but I could not compare them anymore than I could critique a fish for not being a bird.

in both cases the law says that they must balance the budget. But the philosophies of the two parties are at play here. In the case of the mayor, what happens once the budget is balanced? You have thousands of people out of work; you have tens of thousands of tax-paying businesses and individuals leaving the city of jersey or somewhere else; you have a pissed of populace that's paying more taxes but getting less in return.

You also have a balanced budget in a economic downturn.

WHere is the logic in balancing the budget when politicians can't be prudent with budget surpluses during boom times? Instead of increasing social spending (via laws or directives), perhaps they should link the budget gyrations to some fund that can be dipped into when times are bad.

Do you mean Guiliani? I don't see the point of blaming Bloomberg. He certainly didn't have any surplus. He inherited a city hit hard by 9/11, in the middle of a reccession and was forced to do what you said. It doesn't matter if his a Democrat or a Republican, Liberal or Conservative, he has to balance the budget. He doesn't have the same liberty of going into mounds of debt like the Federal goverment.

the city has its own bonds that they can sell. offer a premium on the bonds and he'll have buyers. as for the surplus giuliani squandered during his second time, if he'd deposited it in a special fund, then we wouldn't be having all these problems. I think there should be a law for fiscal responsibility during bad
AND good times.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I am not sure what you are getting at. NYC and the US government are two entirely different situations. I could be critical of either, but I could not compare them anymore than I could critique a fish for not being a bird.

in both cases the law says that they must balance the budget. But the philosophies of the two parties are at play here. In the case of the mayor, what happens once the budget is balanced? You have thousands of people out of work; you have tens of thousands of tax-paying businesses and individuals leaving the city of jersey or somewhere else; you have a pissed of populace that's paying more taxes but getting less in return.

You also have a balanced budget in a economic downturn.

WHere is the logic in balancing the budget when politicians can't be prudent with budget surpluses during boom times? Instead of increasing social spending (via laws or directives), perhaps they should link the budget gyrations to some fund that can be dipped into when times are bad.

Do you mean Guiliani? I don't see the point of blaming Bloomberg. He certainly didn't have any surplus. He inherited a city hit hard by 9/11, in the middle of a reccession and was forced to do what you said. It doesn't matter if his a Democrat or a Republican, Liberal or Conservative, he has to balance the budget. He doesn't have the same liberty of going into mounds of debt like the Federal goverment.

the city has its own bonds that they can sell. offer a premium on the bonds and he'll have buyers. as for the surplus giuliani squandered during his second time, if he'd deposited it in a special fund, then we wouldn't be having all these problems.

Yes but Guiliani a Republican, didn't deposit in a special fund, a lock box if you will. Bloomberg is only playing with the cards he's been dealt. I think anyone would be hard pressed to do a better job after inheriting a city devastated by 9/11 and an econimic downturn.

I think there should be a law for fiscal responsibility during bad AND good times.

If that's the point of the thread, then why is the title A Republican and a Democrat? Why turn it into a vs. thread?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I am not sure what you are getting at. NYC and the US government are two entirely different situations. I could be critical of either, but I could not compare them anymore than I could critique a fish for not being a bird.

in both cases the law says that they must balance the budget. But the philosophies of the two parties are at play here. In the case of the mayor, what happens once the budget is balanced? You have thousands of people out of work; you have tens of thousands of tax-paying businesses and individuals leaving the city of jersey or somewhere else; you have a pissed of populace that's paying more taxes but getting less in return.

You also have a balanced budget in a economic downturn.

WHere is the logic in balancing the budget when politicians can't be prudent with budget surpluses during boom times? Instead of increasing social spending (via laws or directives), perhaps they should link the budget gyrations to some fund that can be dipped into when times are bad.

Do you mean Guiliani? I don't see the point of blaming Bloomberg. He certainly didn't have any surplus. He inherited a city hit hard by 9/11, in the middle of a reccession and was forced to do what you said. It doesn't matter if his a Democrat or a Republican, Liberal or Conservative, he has to balance the budget. He doesn't have the same liberty of going into mounds of debt like the Federal goverment.

the city has its own bonds that they can sell. offer a premium on the bonds and he'll have buyers. as for the surplus giuliani squandered during his second time, if he'd deposited it in a special fund, then we wouldn't be having all these problems.

Yes but Guiliani a Republican, didn't deposit in a special fund, a lock box if you will. Bloomberg is only playing with the cards he's been dealt. I think anyone would be hard pressed to do a better job after inheriting a city devastated by 9/11 and an econimic downturn.

I think there should be a law for fiscal responsibility during bad AND good times.

If that's the point of the thread, then why is the title A Republican and a Democrat? Why turn it into a vs. thread?

like I said earlier, but will say again, their philosophies are different. Democrats will raise taxes to balance the budget, even in a downed economy. Republicans response is to give people more of their money to rebound the economy. The special fund idea is original, something I'd suggest for any responsible politician.

 

[sandorski]

Some say that a politician can't affect the economy, yet they tout tax cuts to improve the economy. Depending on the rate of the tax hike, I doubt tax increases automatically result in damage to the economy. At least Mayor Bloomberg has the foresight to cut spending in combination with raising revenues, Bush has increased spending and lowered revenues at the same time. I suspect that NY city will acheive a sound fiscal situation much sooner than the Federal Government.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Some say that a politician can't affect the economy, yet they tout tax cuts to improve the economy. Depending on the rate of the tax hike, I doubt tax increases automatically result in damage to the economy. At least Mayor Bloomberg has the foresight to cut spending in combination with raising revenues, Bush has increased spending and lowered revenues at the same time. I suspect that NY city will acheive a sound fiscal situation much sooner than the Federal Government.

to what end? so nyc can look good to the bond holders, the same people you despise? balancing the budget in such a harsh and short order will cost tens of thousands of their jobs and tens of thousands to leave the city. the mayor is going too hard and too fast.

 

[Zrom999]

Originally posted by: Dari
On your Right: President George W Bush

Bad economy? Cut taxes. Give money back to the individuals.

On your left: Mayor Michael Bloomberg
(Mayor Bloomberg, who is worth about $4 billion dollars, was a life-long democrat until he saw an opportunity he couldn't pass up. In 2000, one year before the mayorial race of New York City, he flipped the switch and became a republican to avoid competing against the throngs of democrats vying to be the party's candidate. Even as an unchallenged republican, it was widely assumed that he would've have lost the race had it not been the support given to him by Rudolph Giuliani after the 9/11 tragedy. However, after the narrow defeat of his opponent, Bloomberg put down his nominal republican cloak and showed his true democratic colors.)

Bad economy? Raise taxes; cut social spending; close down fire departments; fire thousands of city workers. All in the name of balancing the budget.

So the money you then save from the Fed tax cut you would lose to the local taxes?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: sandorski
Some say that a politician can't affect the economy, yet they tout tax cuts to improve the economy. Depending on the rate of the tax hike, I doubt tax increases automatically result in damage to the economy. At least Mayor Bloomberg has the foresight to cut spending in combination with raising revenues, Bush has increased spending and lowered revenues at the same time. I suspect that NY city will acheive a sound fiscal situation much sooner than the Federal Government.

to what end? so nyc can look good to the bond holders, the same people you despise? balancing the budget in such a harsh and short order will cost tens of thousands of their jobs and tens of thousands to leave the city. the mayor is going too hard and too fast.

I don't despise bondholders.

New York City is not going down from raising taxes or laying off city workers. When the economy improves it will have less debt to deal with and as revenues grow many jobs will be re-instated(most likely, certainly will be affordable).

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Some say that a politician can't affect the economy, yet they tout tax cuts to improve the economy. Depending on the rate of the tax hike, I doubt tax increases automatically result in damage to the economy. At least Mayor Bloomberg has the foresight to cut spending in combination with raising revenues, Bush has increased spending and lowered revenues at the same time. I suspect that NY city will acheive a sound fiscal situation much sooner than the Federal Government.

well if the tax cut boosts the economy as planed then tax receipts should increase, no?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I am not sure what you are getting at. NYC and the US government are two entirely different situations. I could be critical of either, but I could not compare them anymore than I could critique a fish for not being a bird.

in both cases the law says that they must balance the budget. But the philosophies of the two parties are at play here. In the case of the mayor, what happens once the budget is balanced? You have thousands of people out of work; you have tens of thousands of tax-paying businesses and individuals leaving the city of jersey or somewhere else; you have a pissed of populace that's paying more taxes but getting less in return. WHere is the logic in balancing the budget when politicians can't be prudent with budget surpluses during boom times? Instead of increasing social spending (via laws or directives), perhaps they should link the budget gyrations to some fund that can be dipped into when times are bad.

theres no federal law that says the federal budget must be balanced.

 

[KenGr]

I think this thread started on a false assumption. Namely, that Bloomberg had done anything meaningful to cut the expenditures in NYC. I am in agreement that it is disappointing to not see cuts in Federal spending to go along with the tax cuts. However, I think Bloombergs tax increases have been driven way up by an unwillingness to cut costs.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I am not sure what you are getting at. NYC and the US government are two entirely different situations. I could be critical of either, but I could not compare them anymore than I could critique a fish for not being a bird.

in both cases the law says that they must balance the budget. But the philosophies of the two parties are at play here. In the case of the mayor, what happens once the budget is balanced? You have thousands of people out of work; you have tens of thousands of tax-paying businesses and individuals leaving the city of jersey or somewhere else; you have a pissed of populace that's paying more taxes but getting less in return. WHere is the logic in balancing the budget when politicians can't be prudent with budget surpluses during boom times? Instead of increasing social spending (via laws or directives), perhaps they should link the budget gyrations to some fund that can be dipped into when times are bad.

theres no federal law that says the federal budget must be balanced.

I stand corrected.

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: KenGr
I think this thread started on a false assumption. Namely, that Bloomberg had done anything meaningful to cut the expenditures in NYC. I am in agreement that it is disappointing to not see cuts in Federal spending to go along with the tax cuts. However, I think Bloombergs tax increases have been driven way up by an unwillingness to cut costs.

I'll call bullshit on this one. I'm not sure if you remember last weekend but there were a whole bunch of firehouses shut down. Not to mention all the other cuts (recycling, Bronx Zoo, etc etc.) If you live here you must be blind.

Much unlike our lovely Bush who can't seem to grasp the concept of curtailing government spending.

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: KenGr
I think this thread started on a false assumption. Namely, that Bloomberg had done anything meaningful to cut the expenditures in NYC. I am in agreement that it is disappointing to not see cuts in Federal spending to go along with the tax cuts. However, I think Bloombergs tax increases have been driven way up by an unwillingness to cut costs.

I'll call bullshit on this one. I'm not sure if you remember last weekend but there were a whole bunch of firehouses shut down. Not to mention all the other cuts (recycling, Bronx Zoo, etc etc.) If you live here you must be blind.

Much unlike our lovely Bush who can't seem to grasp the concept of curtailing government spending.

No, I don't have any current knowledge of what's happening in New York. However, I have been reading a variety of reports leading up to this and it seems to me like "deja vu all over again". New York has a per capita municipal budget that is two to three times that of other large cities. Isn't it strange that, when crunch time comes, the cuts are fire houses, zoos and police departments - things that people directly see and get outraged about. It's never all the politically connected back office departments that suck up the funds. Based on my experience in a number of large cities, I think this is just a play to get public backing for more taxes and for more subsidies. Just my opinion, but I've seen it happen many times. Watch how it plays out.

 

[LunarRay]

You'd think with so many people all jammed together that there would always be a surplus given the out of sight property tax. So why do NYkers pay so much... I guess you need to look at the budget breakdown. Lots of social drag I'd say.
Bring back the 69th ferry and charge 25$ a trip and that should do it.