New York City

[Immanuel Can]

I have no idea what that means. And I'm sure that I'm not the only one.

"Stealing" means "taking money that doesn't belong to them, without permission." I would have thought that was pretty simple.

You don't state how "stealing" for roads is somehow different from "stealing" for healthcare.

I didn't have to. One can "steal" for either, or for nothing at all...which is more often the case.

And you don't state how you "make sure that the government doesn't get to steal".

Yeah, I did. But not to you, at this particular moment.

Keep the government small, so it can only justify taking the minimum for what it is allowed to do. And, of course, keep it accountable to the people.

[Immanuel Can]

Look, I live in a small New England town (township) where we still govern ourselves.

That's great. But most people in Western polities are not you. And the Federal government that presides over your state and local governments has been caught red-handed sending billions out for stupid projects that have nothing whatsoever to do with your good or the good of your countrymen, such as trans-surgeries for Guatemalans and free lunches for Hamas.

Wouldn't you rather they did something with your money that benefitted the world?

[Walker]

Question for AI:
Can a city tax its way to prosperity?

AI answer:
A city cannot simply tax its way to prosperity, as high taxes can discourage economic activity if not balanced with investments in public services. While taxes are essential for funding crucial services like infrastructure, education, and public safety, a city's prosperity depends on strategically using tax revenue to support and grow its economic base, not just increasing taxes without a corresponding plan.

Tax base growth: To achieve prosperity, a city needs to broaden its tax base through economic development, which includes attracting new businesses, supporting existing ones, and encouraging investment.

*

- Zohran’s corresponding plan for prosperity is taxation.
- His economic development plan only makes some high-fallutin mentions about bodegas.

He doesn’t say much
About attracting the bucks,
His talk is about how
To spend the bucks.
Free-money folks daydream about the lottery
Not about altruism.
If it ain't attracting its repulsing.
They're saying that most young women voted for Zohran.

Common sense indicates that if a city plans to increase its corporate tax rate by seventy or eighty percent, the city better have some fantastic things to offer other than higher expenses to be passed along to the denizens. Starting from the ground up, that city has some nasty Potholes. Get some folks on the dole out there with buckets and shovels to patch things up.

[phyllo]

"Stealing" means "taking money that doesn't belong to them, without permission." I would have thought that was pretty simple.

You don't state how "stealing" for roads is somehow different from "stealing" for healthcare.

I didn't have to. One can "steal" for either, or for nothing at all...which is more often the case.

And you don't state how you "make sure that the government doesn't get to steal".

Yeah, I did. But not to you, at this particular moment.

Keep the government small, so it can only justify taking the minimum for what it is allowed to do. And, of course, keep it accountable to the people.

Ah, some hand waving generalities.

[accelafine]

Not at all. I'm an advocate for the poor, who are being robbed by the rich and privileged. And I'm in favour of charity and community efforts of all kinds. I just realize that government is an inept vehicle. And I marvel that you're content to let your money be drained off by government, and thus to do no worldly good for anybody.

If you think it helps people when you let them be robbed, or if you think government is a marvel of good use of funds, I don't know what to say to you.

Where's all this 'stealing'?

Blah blah blah... It's only 'stealing' when it's for something 'I' don't approve of.

[Walker]

This link lays out some powers and constraints of an NYC mayor, which is interesting to compare with Zohran Mamdani’s campaign promises.
https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/articles/z ... onstraints

Get ready for second half of the ol' bait and switch.

The mayor of NYC looks like a job for an actual negotiator to appease all the entrenched and influential fiefdoms so there isn't another garbage strike in the city.

It doesn't seem to be a job suited for a young, rather ham-handed trainee who has no job experience, let alone any major CEO experience.

Could be, he is just a figurehead for behind the scenes. Another Democrat spokesman for the cameras.

Oh yes, the Democrats have to own this one. He won their primary, which was the ticket.

The mob may have voted for him but Albany and Washington have a say, that is, a say short of an opposing revolution led by Zohran, the Superman of Bizarro World.

[Immanuel Can]

You don't state how "stealing" for roads is somehow different from "stealing" for healthcare.

I didn't have to. One can "steal" for either, or for nothing at all...which is more often the case.

And you don't state how you "make sure that the government doesn't get to steal".

Yeah, I did. But not to you, at this particular moment.

Keep the government small, so it can only justify taking the minimum for what it is allowed to do. And, of course, keep it accountable to the people.

Ah, some hand waving generalities.

No, that's specific, actually. You can make constitutional laws to limit the scope of government. And you can install DOGE-like consumer-advocates to make sure the money goes where it's supposed to go. That much is very doable.

[Immanuel Can]

Where's all this 'stealing'?

Blah blah blah... It's only 'stealing' when it's for something 'I' don't approve of.

That's a misquote, of course.

I always know I've won an argument when the other person goes from attempts to argue to attempts to punish, such as ad homs, insults, censoring, misrepresenting, or gratuitious dismissals. It really means, "I know you're right, but I'll be darned if I'll ever admit it."

[accelafine]

You can always tell when someone's 'won' an argument because they tell you they did

[MikeNovack]

Look, I live in a small New England town (township) where we still govern ourselves.

That's great. But most people in Western polities are not you. And the Federal government that presides over your state and local governments has been caught red-handed sending billions out for stupid projects that have nothing whatsoever to do with your good or the good of your countrymen, such as trans-surgeries for Guatemalans and free lunches for Hamas.

Wouldn't you rather they did something with your money that benefitted the world?

IC, ----- these people in Washington, the members of the House of Representatives, the Senators, even the President.
Did YOU not get to vote for your choice for the ones that represent you. If you don't like what they are doing, vote for others next time.

But remember. OTHER PEOPLE also get to cast their votes. Maybe those other people have different ideas about where their tax money should be spent. Surely you can see that many of us here have very different ideas about "what would benefit the world?.

[Age]

Blah blah blah... It's only 'stealing' when it's for something 'I' don't approve of.

That's a misquote, of course.

I always know I've won an argument when the other person goes from attempts to argue to attempts to punish, such as ad homs, insults, censoring, misrepresenting, or gratuitious dismissals.

Does this include your superiority complex and very common condescending replies of yours?

It really means, "I know you're right, but I'll be darned if I'll ever admit it."

[Immanuel Can]

Look, I live in a small New England town (township) where we still govern ourselves.

That's great. But most people in Western polities are not you. And the Federal government that presides over your state and local governments has been caught red-handed sending billions out for stupid projects that have nothing whatsoever to do with your good or the good of your countrymen, such as trans-surgeries for Guatemalans and free lunches for Hamas.

Wouldn't you rather they did something with your money that benefitted the world?

IC, ----- these people in Washington, the members of the House of Representatives, the Senators, even the President.
Did YOU not get to vote for your choice for the ones that represent you.

I'm not American. I can't help you with that.

Maybe those other people have different ideas about where their tax money should be spent.

You're missing the point.

I don't have any opinion about where they spend their money. If they want to donate it to bureaucrats and ideologues, they can. I think they'd be stupid to do it, but it's not my job to tell them how to waste their hard earned funds. I simply expect the same courtesy...not to have them, or the government, stick their hands in my pocket and tell me what they're going to do with my money.

That could not be fairer. Surprisingly, that's not what Socialists want to do. They don't want to spend their own money on these inefficient projects; they want the power to demand that everybody else ("the community") should be forced to do so. And that's tyranny.

Surely you can see that many of us here have very different ideas about "what would benefit the world?.

Benefit the world any way you see fit, with the funds you have. Absolutely. I'll go to the wall for your right to do so. But you can't stick your hand in others' pockets. That's not fair. That's tyranny.

[Age]

Government doesn't do anything well. They NEVER spend money efficiently, and it's the money they take from ordinary folks. Consequently, the less of it they have, the better for everybody. And everybody struggles when the government takes huge chunks of their money and burns up. Always remember that government is not spending their own money, but other people's.

If somebody gave you custody of other people's money, and said, "Spend it to get yourself re-elected, and we'll pay you lavishly and give you privileges most people only dream of," most people would do just that, whatever it took. So they have no incentive to be efficient with it, use it responsibly, or give any of it back to you. When it's gone, it's gone. It isn't really theirs, so what do they care if they burn it up?

So I'd suggest we confine government interference to the absolute minimum -- essential services like roads, sewers, civil defense and international relations. The private sector, local entrepreneurship or voluntary associations are the best way to take care of most other needs.

Who are you to say what is 'important' or not?

One of the people whose money government is wasting. Since I'm paying the bills, and since I live in a democratic polity, I feel quite justified in asking where my money is going. Don't you?

you first asked, 'Who's going to pay for it? Will you?' in regards to free public transport, a roof over people's heads, and decent health care that is accessible to everyone?

you get informed of who. But, now you want to 'try to' deflect, again.

How about you ask where the money you give governments goes to when that money is not being spent on actual things that help human beings and instead goes to those relatively few who steal the money or when the money is wasted on things like military, transport and pensions for government workers, and/or support for the already monetary rich companies and individuals.

I notice you left out 'unimportant' things like education and health.

Government isn't competent in either. What goes into your brain, and what goes into your body, are your affairs. When government manages them, they just become a bottomless pit of graft.

Once again, your love of people like you, that is, those with superiority complexes, and your hate for those who you believe are less than you or who are not worthy, certainly do not deserve supported health and/nor supported education services. Which just goes to show and prove the type of person you really are "immanuel can".

What about the military? People like you always make that a major priority.

Civil defense is sufficient, except in the cases of extreme external aggression, as in WW 2. Then, you legitimately find you do need a government to manage your military.

Once again, when it comes to protecting "itself' from 'others', then this is perfectly fine and okay to 'spend' [waste] money, but it is totally wrong and unacceptable to just help others, who "immanuel can" believes are 'lower' than "itself".

But a police force is a reasonable expenditure; criminality is better handled by a justice system.

So, instead of just doing what would create a continually decrease in criminality 'this one' believes throwing [wasting] money in 'enforcing' laws is perfectly fine and acceptable.

[Age]

One of the people whose money government is wasting. Since I'm paying the bills, and since I live in a democratic polity, I feel quite justified in asking where my money is going. Don't you?

I don't actually think of it as MY money.

And yet, it is. They didn't earn it...you did.

When you are forced to give so-called 'your' money to others, then how, exactly, is 'that money' 'your money'?

It's money that goes towards making life better for everyone. It's not pleasant to see homeless, starving people on the streets.

Are you finding that government is actually helping with that?

Which 'government' are you referring to, exactly?

Or are you finding that they're actually a very inefficient bureaucracy that sucks up most of the money they get and only squirts out a pittance to "everyone"? If "everyone" is having their lives "made better," as you suggest, by government action, how come there's so many sad, miserable, poor people...and more of them in big-government places?

Maybe it's time to ask: how much more help could there be if the spending of that same money were efficient? How does government manage to spend so lavishly, and still there are people on the streets?

You and I seem to agree that things like mental-health services are badly needed. If government's doing such a great job, how come that's happening?

you also agree that health and education should never be given to those with less money.

you believe those people need to 'earn', in order to get better mental and physical health and better education.

Not everyone has the same priorities as you either.

That's the beauty of not robbing them of their hard-earned money. They can set their own priorities, and direct their funds accordingly. It's very democratic.

It appears very 'classed', as well.

Imagine the logistics of asking every individual exactly what they want THEIR tax money to be spent.

Very simple. Don't take it from them in the first place, except for in regard to those essential services I mentioned.

LOL Like what? Military, police and court enforcement, and maybe mental health, right?

you certainly have not mentioned the other far more and actual essential services.

The less of people's money that the government gets to touch, the more of it will go to the things we value.

LOL What you value is certainly not what 'we' value.

When, and if, you ever come to understand 'this', then you will not be as blind and "one-sided" as you obviously are, here.

You don't care about the taxes.

No, I really don't. I care about the people they're robbing, and the many, many people who could be helped, but are not, because government is so corrupt and inefficient in delivering services.

LOL Well 'you' vote 'them' in.

[Age]

And yet, it is. They didn't earn it...you did.

Are you finding that government is actually helping with that? Or are you finding that they're actually a very inefficient bureaucracy that sucks up most of the money they get and only squirts out a pittance to "everyone"? If "everyone" is having their lives "made better," as you suggest, by government action, how come there's so many sad, miserable, poor people...and more of them in big-government places?

Maybe it's time to ask: how much more help could there be if the spending of that same money were efficient? How does government manage to spend so lavishly, and still there are people on the streets?

You and I seem to agree that things like mental-health services are badly needed. If government's doing such a great job, how come that's happening?

That's the beauty of not robbing them of their hard-earned money. They can set their own priorities, and direct their funds accordingly. It's very democratic.

Very simple. Don't take it from them in the first place, except for in regard to those essential services I mentioned. The less of people's money that the government gets to touch, the more of it will go to the things we value.

No, I really don't. I care about the people they're robbing, and the many, many people who could be helped, but are not, because government is so corrupt and inefficient in delivering services.

Ugh. What a selfish ****. Nothing will change that.

Not at all. I'm an advocate for the poor, who are being robbed by the rich and privileged.

Really?

Do you advocate free education and free health for every one?

And I'm in favour of charity and community efforts of all kinds. I just realize that government is an inept vehicle. And I marvel that you're content to let your money be drained off by government, and thus to do no worldly good for anybody.

Once again 'this one' shows and proves how consistently often it attempts to detract and/or deflect, and thus to deceive you readers, here.

If you think it helps people when you let them be robbed, or if you think government is a marvel of good use of funds, I don't know what to say to you.

Again, 'this one' is nearly an 'expert' at distraction and manipulation.