Bloomberg: Let's retrain failed investment bankers... with $45m of YOUR money!

Dead of Knight

Dead of Knight

CAGiversary!
Feedback
15 (100%)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/nyregion/19bankers.html

Under a program Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg unveiled on Wednesday, the city wants to invest $45 million in government money to retrain investment bankers, traders and others who have lost jobs on Wall Street, as well as provide seed capital and office space for new businesses those laid-off bankers might create.

The plan is intended to stem the exodus of talent from the rapidly collapsing financial services industry, which has been the city’s economic engine for decades, and speed the industry’s recovery, which may take years, officials said.

City officials also plan to try to lure big banks and financial companies from Asia and other parts of the world to set up operations in New York, filling some of the void created by the implosion of large American firms like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. They hope to receive permission from the federal and state governments to use $30 million in federal money to attract those companies and other financial firms to Lower Manhattan.

Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement that he could not predict how the financial services sector would bounce back, but he said he was confident that it would.

“When it does, cities around the world will compete to capture the jobs it brings,” he said. “In New York City, we’re not waiting for that day to come. Instead, we are taking aggressive steps to put the city in the best position to capture growth, and we’re doing it by promoting one thing more than any other: innovation.”
Click to expand...

There's more to the article if you click the link.

I'm not from NY but this is ridiculous. Why should we give special treatment to some of the idiots who ruined our economy, but none of the other millions of people who have lost their jobs (I realize a lot of WS workers had nothing to do with it, but come on)? Again, Bloomberg shows himself as a fucking retard who needs to be kicked out of office. The extension of the mayor term limit without a general public vote was one thing, and this is yet another piece of bullshit coming from this guy.
 
California wants to raise taxes by $70,000,000,000 so it could be worse.

Living in a "progressive" state blows.
 
California wants to raise taxes by $70,000,000,000 so it could be worse.

Living in a "progressive" state blows.

You guys are the ones who keep voting in democrats, and then whining when your taxes are raised and used to pay for stupid projects. Not much sympathy here for ya.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']California wants to raise taxes by $70,000,000,000 so it could be worse.

Living in a "progressive" state blows.

You guys are the ones who keep voting in democrats, and then whining when your taxes are raised and used to pay for stupid projects. Not much sympathy here for ya.[/QUOTE]

Arnold is a Republican and he still does those same shenanigans.
 
Why does this surprise anyone? I mean it's Bloomberg. The guy's channel is a fucking joke to my knowledge. It was only famous because it was the first or first dedicated channel to posting up stock numbers all the time right? Or something of the sort.
All the guy did was fill a niche for it on TV which just puts him slightly above idiot but in no way makes him mayor material necessarily.
Bloomberg is basically a douchy Big Government Fascist, at least to a certain extent. I mean this is the guy who got the notorious smoking ban instituted in New York City for one. Probably the only reason anyone noticed this douche to begin with in running is the money he has and the tax money the city has got from him making so much as well as the state.
edit: Shit I bet Bloomberg is the type of Big Government Corporate Socialist the Republicans in Congress get wet or hard just thinking about. The same goes for Big Business. Oh and he's Progressive enough and loud on social issues the Lib's don't get bitchy about him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Arnold is a Republican and he still does those same shenanigans.[/QUOTE]

Arnold is about as much a Republican as Ron Paul. That is to say, in name only.
 
I've refused to vote Democratic in California. They are all a bunch of idiots. Not to mention I bet California most likely has the most elected officials under investigation by the FBI. I wish California would oust Feinstein and Boxer as well. Those two are just a giant headache; more so Feinstein.

Schwarzenegger is horrible because he will bend to every interest group that swings his way. 2010 can't come soon enough.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Arnold is a Republican and he still does those same shenanigans.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean "still"? You haven't been paying attention to what Republicans have been doing during the last eight years?

[quote name='Magehart']I've refused to vote Democratic in California. They are all a bunch of idiots. Not to mention I bet California most likely has the most elected officials under investigation by the FBI. [/QUOTE]

Illinois? Alaska?
 
[quote name='rickonker']They should be glad the financial services sector got fucked up. Instead they want to bring it back?[/quote]


How else do you think the government programs in NYC get funded? 40k people pay 50% of nyc's taxes. They NEED the financial sector to make insane amounts of cash.
 
I guess it's time to get into the financial services industry. Don't bitch about the money. Figure out how to get some for yourself.
 
[quote name='camoor']I hope they do. Keep those assholes from ruining the rest of America.[/quote]

I dont know if you noticed but america has been ruining itself for the past decade.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']How else do you think the government programs in NYC get funded? 40k people pay 50% of nyc's taxes. They NEED the financial sector to make insane amounts of cash.[/QUOTE]

Oh I know, just another example of representative democracy. ;)
 
[quote name='FloodsAreUponUS']I dont know if you noticed but america has been ruining itself for the past decade.[/QUOTE]

That's overly broad. Certain segments of America have been hard at work ruining the parts us logical people appreciate. These segments include: the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, religious nutjobs, extreme environmentalist wackos, and people who care more about what skimpy outfit Lindsey Lohan wore to the Oscars than why our president is signing bills while saying he'll interpret them however the hell he pleases.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']California wants to raise taxes by $70,000,000,000 so it could be worse.

Living in a "progressive" state blows.

You guys are the ones who keep voting in democrats, and then whining when your taxes are raised and used to pay for stupid projects. Not much sympathy here for ya.[/quote]

I wonder where California would really be if they actually got back the amount of money they send to the federal government instead of nearly 20 cents out of every dollar supporting "welfare" states like North Dakota, DC, and Mississippi.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']I wonder where California would really be if they actually got back the amount of money they send to the federal government instead of nearly 20 cents out of every dollar supporting "welfare" states like North Dakota, DC, and Mississippi.[/QUOTE]

Since Californians like to be smug about the fact that they've outsourced the pollution and aesthetic sacrifices (i.e. dams and the like) associated with generating the power that allows the state to exist in the modern world, I'd say right back at ya! :)

Seriously, though, what you bring up is an important point about the problems that have inevitably resulted from the way we divvy up tax revenues in our modern governmental system, with more and more power (and revenues) going to the federal government - even as they use the money to coerce states to do what the feds want. It's really time that the balance between federal and state government was restored, and the feds were kicked out of arenas they have no business attempting to control (such as education). Unfortunately, it seems as if we're headed in the opposite direction once again.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']I wonder where California would really be if they actually got back the amount of money they send to the federal government instead of nearly 20 cents out of every dollar supporting "welfare" states like North Dakota, DC, and Mississippi.[/quote]

I wonder where DC would really be if they actually got federal representation to go along with their taxation.

You do realize that the federal govt owns the choicest parts of DC and they pay absolutely zero city taxes, right? Where do you think your city would be if the biggest businesses downtown were suddenly exempted from real estate taxes? There's a reason the city went destitute, anyone with money or brains fled to NW and the suburbs, and we got a crackhead mayor for life (or at least until the FBI took him down in a sting). It's true things are getting better, but honestly for a while there I was starting to wonder if they could get any worse.
 
That the fed pays no city tax is irrelavent. I lived in DC for a few years (and have now fled to the relative sanity of NoVA). The taxes that DC collects is not governed by them. Instead, DC taxes get funneled directly in the federal coffers and DC is given an appropriation from Congress. Typically, that allocation is larger than the city taxes it collects. That's Congress' "reasoning" behind not directly paying the property taxes. They figure that any gap is covered by the appropriation.

And let's not forget that DC benefits greatly from the federal govenment being there. DC is a tourist town and feeds heavily off the sales and sales taxes generated by vistors.

That being said, to address the 'representation' angle, I believe there should be an explict constitutional amendment that gives DC a House member and 2 Senators, the minimum of any of the other states or DC should become the 51st state. It is arguably *more* important for DC to have full representation as even the local laws that DC passes are under Congressional review (see the gun amendment tacked on to the Senate's DC Voting rights act).

Trust me, I've spent a large part of the last 10 years studying and advocating for DC voting rights (actually, I'm in favor of outright statehood). I lived in DC, was married in DC. I'm no stranger to their unique political situation.

Still, they and their residents *do* derive a great amount of income/funding from the goverment trough, far greater in comparison to what California gets in relation to what is paid in.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']That the fed pays no city tax is irrelavent. I lived in DC for a few years (and have now fled to the relative sanity of NoVA). The taxes that DC collects is not governed by them. Instead, DC taxes get funneled directly in the federal coffers and DC is given an appropriation from Congress. Typically, that allocation is larger than the city taxes it collects. That's Congress' "reasoning" behind not directly paying the property taxes. They figure that any gap is covered by the appropriation.

And let's not forget that DC benefits greatly from the federal govenment being there. DC is a tourist town and feeds heavily off the sales and sales taxes generated by vistors.

That being said, to address the 'representation' angle, I believe there should be an explict constitutional amendment that gives DC a House member and 2 Senators, the minimum of any of the other states or DC should become the 51st state. It is arguably *more* important for DC to have full representation as even the local laws that DC passes are under Congressional review (see the gun amendment tacked on to the Senate's DC Voting rights act).

Trust me, I've spent a large part of the last 10 years studying and advocating for DC voting rights (actually, I'm in favor of outright statehood). I lived in DC, was married in DC. I'm no stranger to their unique political situation.

Still, they and their residents *do* derive a great amount of income/funding from the goverment trough, far greater in comparison to what California gets in relation to what is paid in.[/QUOTE]

All right, a fellow Northern Virginian! Welcome to the VS forum. You've made a good start with several posts where you include more than one sentence. That already puts you ahead of a fair number of people here. Not trying to be mean, just honest.

Anyway, I do disagree with you on D.C. statehood and a constitutional amendment. Don't get me wrong: I think it's a travesty that D.C. has no voting representation in Congress. I know plenty of District residents and it's just not a fair situation at all. However, I don't believe making D.C. a state or amending the Constitution to allow it representation as if it were a state is the answer. I think a much better solution is retrocession: returning the inhabited areas of D.C. to Maryland, thereby to be represented by two Maryland senators and a Maryland representative.

In any case, the D.C. voting rights bill that recently passed the Senate is clearly unconstitutional in my view. Even were it allowed to stand by the Supreme Court (which I doubt), it is not a permanent solution; surely the Republicans, when they return to power at some point in the future (TBD when that will be), will just repeal the law. Retrocession or a constitutional amendment are the only permanent ways to deal with the indignity of the D.C. representation issue. I prefer retrocession, and I also think it is a feasible proposition as opposed to a constitutional amendment - something that would require 2/3 majorities in both houses of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Do you feel retrocession is a bad idea? If so, why?
 
Retrocession is indeed a "functional" solution to the issue, but I dont feel it's the best answer possible.

1) The impact on Marylanders: Adding the District as a 'county' into Maryland dilutes the influence Maryland has on Federal policy. This disadvantages Maryland as they are the only state that would have to absorb this dilution.

2) The impact on Washingtonians: The District would dilute their current only real power on Federal policy, the election of President. Since the District has been aggrived (IMO), I dont think the best solution would require them to give up rights/privilleges.

3) The logistical complexity: Adding DC as a county of MD adds a layer of complexity to DC government. Currently, DC handles pretty much all the functions of a state level government, including licensing, tax collections, and educational funding. The infrastructure is already in place, but would have to be revised/replaced to conform to MD practices. Not to mention that adding DC to MD would likely cause some conflict with the DC and MD constitutions (I'm not familar with either). If DC is absorbed into MD without full representation in the MD Legislature then the basic injustice remains.

4) DC isnt MD: There is just a difference culturally b/w the two regions (and VA as well). Annapolis would not be able to fully appreciate the specific issues that face the District such as the incredible burden on security and the lack of property taxes from downtown to fund education. It's bad enough that DC has to rely on the feds for their 'handout', but at least the feds recognize that they themselves have caused a great deal of the problem. My guess is, voters in Frostburg wont be so kind to their reps when the District starts getting a dis-proportionate part of the MD tax pie.

So for at least those reasons, I'd prefer the District to remain as a city-state with full congressional representation. The 23rd amendment was passed to give DC electors in the presidential races. I think with more visibility across the nation, Americans as a whole would support such an amendment. I must confess, that while I knew that there were 100 members of the Senate, until I moved to the area 10 years ago, it didnt dawn on mee that DC had no representation. I think the vast majority of "fly-over" country is in the same boat. But once they become aware of it, they will see this as a simple issue of fairness.

Thus, I think a constitutional amendment has a good chance for success. Quite frankly, I think this whole DC rights bill is intended to force that route. I agree with Sen McCain that the bill is likely unconstitutional. However, I think it's necessary to elevate this issue to the national prominence it deserves.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Retrocession is indeed a "functional" solution to the issue, but I dont feel it's the best answer possible.

1) The impact on Marylanders: Adding the District as a 'county' into Maryland dilutes the influence Maryland has on Federal policy. This disadvantages Maryland as they are the only state that would have to absorb this dilution.

2) The impact on Washingtonians: The District would dilute their current only real power on Federal policy, the election of President. Since the District has been aggrived (IMO), I dont think the best solution would require them to give up rights/privilleges.

3) The logistical complexity: Adding DC as a county of MD adds a layer of complexity to DC government. Currently, DC handles pretty much all the functions of a state level government, including licensing, tax collections, and educational funding. The infrastructure is already in place, but would have to be revised/replaced to conform to MD practices. Not to mention that adding DC to MD would likely cause some conflict with the DC and MD constitutions (I'm not familar with either). If DC is absorbed into MD without full representation in the MD Legislature then the basic injustice remains.

4) DC isnt MD: There is just a difference culturally b/w the two regions (and VA as well). Annapolis would not be able to fully appreciate the specific issues that face the District such as the incredible burden on security and the lack of property taxes from downtown to fund education. It's bad enough that DC has to rely on the feds for their 'handout', but at least the feds recognize that they themselves have caused a great deal of the problem. My guess is, voters in Frostburg wont be so kind to their reps when the District starts getting a dis-proportionate part of the MD tax pie.

So for at least those reasons, I'd prefer the District to remain as a city-state with full congressional representation. The 23rd amendment was passed to give DC electors in the presidential races. I think with more visibility across the nation, Americans as a whole would support such an amendment. I must confess, that while I knew that there were 100 members of the Senate, until I moved to the area 10 years ago, it didnt dawn on mee that DC had no representation. I think the vast majority of "fly-over" country is in the same boat. But once they become aware of it, they will see this as a simple issue of fairness.

Thus, I think a constitutional amendment has a good chance for success. Quite frankly, I think this whole DC rights bill is intended to force that route. I agree with Sen McCain that the bill is likely unconstitutional. However, I think it's necessary to elevate this issue to the national prominence it deserves.[/QUOTE]

A well-thought-out and intelligent response. I thank you for that. I do somewhat disagree on several points, however.

I don't feel that the District will "give up" rights and privileges when becoming a part of Maryland. In fact, by doing so they gain the right of having full representation in Congress, and the right to have a state government and representatives to that government. In fact, since the federal government can overrule the D.C. City Council at any time for whatever reason they feel like, I feel it is a much better deal for District residents in that regard (they won't have to put up with the meddling of some congressman from whatever state far away telling them what to do).

On the issue of taxes, in my retrocession scenario I would have the feds picking up the tab for infrastructure in the federal area remaining, like the Mall and the Capitol campus among other areas, so perhaps that could help the D.C. government's finances. There are plenty of lobbying firms on K Street that can be taxed by Maryland and the city, though!

It will be interesting to see the reaction of the country to this debate. I don't know that it will be really noticeable on the radar with the economic crisis, however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top