taboo topic

There is no way to win this arguement- the City is in SERIOUS trouble.. I for one cannot afford to pay any more taxes-- my budget is already stretched as I'm under employed and don't have enough money to pay for me and DH on the salaries we make that are between 20 and 25% less than we used to. So I understand Bloomberg's problem.

I think the mayor needs to run the city like a business just like I run my finances like a business-- you only have so much money to go around. And I don't think cutting the administrators is going to do so much.. except cause more public outrage by laying off even more people. It's like stealing from Peter to pay Paul- no matter what, we are going to be uncomfortable for the next few years.

In terms of the economics of the situation, I can understand what Bush is doing- and I can see both Republican & Democratic sides of the coins... the Republicans think if you push money into the corporations, they'll hire more people and the unemployement rate will go down as more jobs will be generated. The Democrats think if they pump money into the hands of the regular 'Joes' they will create a demand that the market needs to supply and therefore the economy will get better. I have honestly NEVER seen ANY of these theories work... I believe that the economy is cyclical and just has to come around like it always does... nothing can go up, up, up and nothing can go down, down, down... it's just the way it is, and I think we have to put aside the politics, **** it up for the city, and realize that pointing fingers at both of the political parties is never going to change our crap situation..

Just for the record- I'm an Idependent- I hate BOTH the parties because in the end, they are all out for themselves...

I'm an independent too. The problem is, if you push money into the corporations they either invest it into technology that eliminates jobs or create more jobs. The problem... the technology and the jobs are often not in this country. The big corporations have there manufacturing operations overseas where they can pay people almost nothing and not provide basics like healthcare. So, the money gets watered down. If the money is pushed into services, those are government jobs....and of course those jobs are here in the US.

Of course, it is also Republicans that think by giving money to regular joes you create more money in the economy to create jobs-that's why they push tax cuts. Again, that money goes to companies (when people buy things-they tend not to save) that move their operations overseas.

Democrats seem to think that if you put money into government jobs, educators and services, provide people with good healthcare, roads, schools, etc. that that is a good thing. Well, it seems to work. I'm not a Democrat for other reasons, but their economic policies make more sense for a global economy.

All I can say is don't get me started on this

I think when you raise the taxes and not the salaries it makes things harder for people.

For example look at someone who is unemployed and you raise taxes on things it really makes it harder for that person. With the job market the way it is, things just dont seem easy to that indiviual. Taxes go up, cost of living goes up, but that person's unemployement check doest go up.

For people that smoke I think almost 7 dollars a pack is ridiculous. I dont smoke, but 7 dollars a pack is costly. People will go where its cheaper so why the need for the increase. The price could stay the same and people continue to buy within NY, or it increses and they go out of NY to buy them?? Just doesnt make sense.

The subway fare increase, yea its only 50 cents but its a lot. Was their service increases, did all the train lines get new trains, nothing came out of this. All that was said is that it is better in the long run for the commuter. Track works can be done, service will be better, etc....but I havent seen that yet. I still see the same service as their was before the increase.

For people that are on a budget, 4 dollars a day, times 5 days a week is 20 dollars (that is 5 dollars more then the original fare) it looks like its about 20 dollars a month extra. 20 dollars may not seem like a lot but when you are on a tight budget that 20 dollars is the min payment for a high interest credit card. so it turns out the fare increase for one person a year is 240 dollars. 240 dollars a year increase to ride the subway or bus. I think that is silly.

I know for me what makes me uncomfortable is my unemployement is the same, FI's salary is the same and everything else around us is getting increased and that is what hurts us. Then we see all these cuts and their is nothing we can do or anyone else can really do. We all just have to roll with the punches and accept what gets thrown at us. Its disturbing and its unfair.

I understand the city is trying to save money and pay off a huge debt, but putting a person's life in danger, making cost of living harder, and raising things I just dont see how its really helping.

When talking about raising taxes, I was talking about income taxes, dividend taxes etc. For people who are unemployed this does not apply. That's the problem. People keep saying cut taxes. Well, that's all fine and good, except cutting taxes means losing jobs. People without jobs don't benefit from cut taxes. Oh, and those $300 Bush sent us a few years ago-that cut about 1mill. in jobs in a conservative estimate.

The city is not just trying to 'save money'. It is trying to stop from sinking into a desperate state. These aren't choices anymore, we have to pay off our debt and stop spending. Otherwise, we won't have anything anymore.

I realize that this is primarily about NYC, but I am going to put my two cents anyway. I grew up in a very political family (my stepfather was a politician) and I usually do not enter into political discussions because of the heat that opposing opinions generate. However I am going to break my own rules and comment here.

Unfortunately we are living in a bad economy. Do I think that NYC should lose police and firefighters or firehouses? No... absolutely not. Should we rid ourselves of the layers and layers of unnecessary administrators? Yes, yes, yes. But it will never happen. Those positions are generally appointments and are given to people who have worked hard to get someone elected. Trust me when I tell you those positions will be the last to go.

Are our senators working for us? Yes they are. As a matter of, fact New York State was just given $2.2 billion as part of the state aid tax cut program that the Senate just sent to President Bush. From the information I have read that is 11% of the total state aid package. Fairly substanital I think, since New York is one state out of fifty. Now it is up to Pataki to determine where the money will go. Unfortunately Pataki has, in the past, kept this money at a state level rather than passing it on to cities and localities throughout the state.

This is where each and every one of us comes in. Do you vote? In every election? Do you contact your local and state representatives when you aren't happy with the way things are going? Do you even know who they are? I am sure everyone knows the governor and US senators names, but do you know your state representative? How about your assemblyperson? How about your state senator? If you don't then you should. You have a voice but you must make it heard. The right to vote is a privilege that everyone should take advantage of. If you don't then how do you feel you have a right to complain?

The above comments are not directed at anyone in particular, they are just meant to be thought provoking and for me to express my opinion.

I am now stepping off my soapbox!

I've seen some calls for getting more money from the federal government to save NYC but don't forget, the founding fathers never intended for federal government to collect taxes to pay for so many things at a state level to begin with. The states are supposed to govern themselves, with the federal government handling things that affect the nation as a whole, like interstate highways and defending our borders, not grants for individual artists, state welfare, education, food programs, etc. Those were intended to be handled by the local governments. So cutting taxes on a federal level allows states to tax and govern the citizens on their states based on their needs - New Yorker's tax money shouldn't be going to pay for a research grant on whether or not pigs in Kansas get bored or some other nonsense.

Bottom line is that the government (state or federal) does not generate income on it's own, it only collects taxes, so if it decides it needs to dole out money for social programs, then in addition to the money it requires for the grant, it needs more tax money to pay for the administrators to process the grants - additional payroll - more taxes to pay those people. The more social progams we add, the higher our taxes grow, and the federal government was never intended to run social programs - that belongs to the local level. We need to cut the size of the federal government by moving back towards it's original intent so the states can manage themselves.

Please don't take offense, but I hate when the founding fathers partial intentions are used as a basis for argument about what the government should be doing today. The founding fathers also believed, particularly Jefferson, that the government would have to be changed every fifty to one hundred years. He felt that 'blood would have to be shed' in order to keep the union together.

They especially believed that when the government was not working for the people, it was the people's responisibility to both criticize and to change it. That it is the responsibility of citizens in a republic (we are a democratic republic, not a pure democracy as some would imply) to keep the representative in check.

The founding fathers could never have fathomed the kind of country or globalized world that we live in today. They didn't believe in such things as tracking individuals (social security numbers, etc.) either, but we have to do it because of the size of our population. They didn't believe in a large standing army because it was a danger to the government, that's why the draft was invoked, so that we didn't have too many permanent solders. Some of them didn't believe in a navy at all, that it too was a threat. So, if we are to reduce the size of government, the first thing we should do is disband the army and navy-should we do that? I don't think so.

The jingoism used when invoking certain strains of thought (keeping in mind each of the founding fathers had their own ideas) of the founding fathers to support any one thing today is a fractured distortion of their ideals.

I think that they would role over in their graves if they knew that hundreds of years later they were being used to support things like tax cuts and to support the stagnation of our country. If each one of them was here today, they would have their own take on the issues based on the current socio-economic situation, not based on antiquated jingoism. They were all progressive thinkers and would support what is best for the country NOW, not partisan ideals.

Also, a small note on the topic. Yes, for the government to have services, it has to hire people to administrate them. That means jobs for people in this country, rather than for exploited girls in Taiwan putting together computers-which is where the money goes when we give it to companies.


Now, I'll get off my soapbox too.

I think we can translate the founding father ideas...into a modern day version....perhaps something like the EU...where they are united in many areas...but each country (or in the US's case - state) deals with most issues individually


as for NYC...I do know where Bloomberg can cut...the autrocious bureaucracy that was created since the days of LaGuardia...(I know this is cutting workers = unemployed...but I would rather these workers be cut than the people who provide public services...

the Board of Education was a mess...and although I did not like Guiliani...I did agree with his plan to 'blow up the Board of Ed'...where he messed up, was kowtowing to the few people who were offended by this...instead of standing up for his opinion...like he usually did...


cut bureaucracy!!

Its really a tough time and I wish there was just more we could do about it