no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
51 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
[–] 39 points 6 months ago (1 child)

when I'm Governor, the stealing stops. I'll cut your taxes, slash your utility bills in half, and put your hard-earned money back where it belongs -- in your pocket, not Mamdani's."

Exactly what Trump said. Exactly what every MAGA/Republican has said for 50 years. And yet, here we are, and none of those promises have EVER happened for anyone but the very wealthy.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 6 months ago

    Those are big numbers to balance. Wishing the best they come true in 6-12 months.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 6 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    I'm not in favor of taxing the rich give them free baskets instead

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    It doesn't solve the underlying problem of wealth disparity. You can keep chopping day after day, year after year, but the inevitable solution is going to be: take the wealth and redistribute it. AKA Taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    If you give them all free baskets for their heads long enough you will be fine taxes require a government those don't seem to be doing good at this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (5 children)
    1. Not having a government leads directly into a violent government

    2. Many countries do this task quite well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Plenty of places have little or no government and no billionaires even with States actively trying to fight the idea. Government is only one way of organizing and not a very good or egalitarian one

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    If you "organize" a nation full of people to decide on the "rules", then that is "government" writing the "laws".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    So the IEEE and web consortium unicode and Wikipedia foundation are governments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    If Wikipedia were the sole organization operating within a territory and they decided what people were allowed to do in that territory, then yes they'd abso-fucking-lutely be the government.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

    So what if there isn't that and everyone kind of gets a say

    You know that's not even how government worked for most of history right that's super recent and like newer than steam engine real politics is complicated

    That's not even how modern us government works

    Edit: so my ex gf was Canadian. She lived in Los Angeles in winter. A sanctuary city. Matters because she was an immigrant and didn't do any paperwork about it. Feds would arrest her city cops were forbidden from arresting her for that and we both smoked a ton of weed which feds say is illegal but the state/province if California said is legal and fine and needs to be taxed but the feds would fuck your shit up for if you were known for it.

    There is not one authority deciding what is and isn't okay even here and now and it used to be way more fractious complicated. Imagine if I was catholic or wahabbist.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 69 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    “If 1% of your population is paying 45% of your tax revenue…” then they should be turned into paste. What world does this guy billionaire live in?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 6 months ago

    Seems to me like he's doing a great job managing a lot of hats. Glad to see him succeeding.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    A controversial part of that is reducing pension interests.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    Why didn't he cut any of NYPD's draining (and harmful) budget. Wtf?

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    Police have a lot of leverage power.

    Almost all police are part of some form of union, and they have the ability to say "fuck you, we're not going to respond to emergency calls if you don't give us what we want"

    ...

    aaaaaaand they'll use that tactic to force cities not to implement alternatives to police, like qualified, unarmed, de-escalation trained mental health experts that handle certain situations better than cops, so police retain a total monopoly over state violence and decisions about if someone should be arrested or not... which then lets them keep their bargaining power to do it all over again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Wasn't Mamdani saying the whole campaign that he promised to keep the NYPD budget in return for the NYPD refocusing on violent crime and the NYPD leadership staying? If he pissed off the entire NYPD things would probably be more expensive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    It doesn't matter what he said, he's kind of at the mercy of (shitty) police unions.

    Just look at how they responded when de Blasio dared to level even the most tepid criticism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (4 children)

    Cut their funding in half and see how much power they have.

    They are superfluous. That's kinda the point. We don't need them to respond to calls. Give half their funding to other people without guns to respond to calls.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    We don't need them to respond to calls

    Exactly, the last time the NYPD went on strike, crime went down lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    Crime didn't go up last strike

    In contrast to the Boston Police Strike of 1919, and the Montreal strike of 1969, there was no surge of crime or unrest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    Almost all police are part of some form of union, and they have the ability to say “fuck you, we’re not going to respond to emergency calls if you don’t give us what we want”

    So fun fact, when the police did that in NYC for a few weeks during De Blasio's term everyone was better off for it. Then instead of taking that leverage and cutting the NYPD budget in half, they went ahead and gave them everything they asked for anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Katie Hochul gave him billions?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)
    [+] -83 points 6 months ago (15 children)

    "we balanced the budget without needing to raise municipal taxes... by raising your state taxes"

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 115 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children)

    You do realize he is the mayor and not the governor. Thus he cannot raise state taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Yes I'm aware, it was literally a sarcastic comment, not a brain-dead take.

    When the state tax coffers are covering a 4 billion dollar municipal deficit, and the state coffers are disproportionately funded by NYC residents, it's just a case of the left hand stealing from the right pocket. There is still a 4 billion dollar deficit, it's just being paid for by either a different tax revenue stream, or budget cuts to a different set of services

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 6 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 54 points 6 months ago* (7 children)

    Every time I see comments like the one you replied to, this comes to mind:

    The reality of some people’s situation is so far removed from their understanding they’re basically cheering or jeering for the sake of mob mentality and not much else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Someone in another thread recommended the book "dying of whiteness" and it's absolutely horrifying. We all know conservatives vote against their self interests. Well, they know too. Many of them know. They're happy to die for their beliefs if it means no {slur} gets anything nice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago* (3 children)

    This. I grew up in a MAGA incubator (aka private Christian school). These people literally believe that the world is going to end. The ONLY skin they have in the game of life is their own salvation. Many of them are in fact NOT Christians, and worship a god that forgives only them while judging everyone else.

    We give these people power and responsibility at our own peril.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    If the world is going to end, why do they give a flying fuck about taxes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago*

    Because collectively they are christo-fascists. There is a cultural emphasis on voting conservative as a form of spiritual warfare. Conservative politicians have taken advantage of this for decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    Yes that is indeed generally the state of things. It used to be the general american delusion was temporarily embarrassed millionaire; now it seems so much worse, and diversified. How do you break a population of that? Guh what a fuckin mess.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)