5 ms·

This guy cant stop winning, can we clone him and get one for each state?

by pandanube 2mo ago

slackfan 2mo ago
[flagged]
- jasonlotito 2mo ago
  The irony.
- runako 2mo ago
  Is that because he's filling potholes, or because rich NYC residents are paying slightly less in tax than they did in 1994?
- toomuchtodo 2mo ago
  If this is what Post imperial Russia looked like, sign me up comrade. We tried to hyper individualistic capitalism, and that failed unless your the very top of wealth pyramid. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. I’m supposed to be afraid of socialists but not authoritarian technofeudalism paperclip maximizers? If both scenarios are “you’ll own nothing an be happy,” I’ll take the system where someone actually tries to make their constituents happy. You can’t scare people who realize we’re already at rock bottom. People who are delusional and think they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires and billionaires are always a lost cause, they are in a cult or belief system similar to a religion.
  - slackfan 2mo ago
    Modern communists are such reactionaries that they can't even see the value in decimating the petite-bourgeoisie population. Sad.
    - toomuchtodo 2mo ago
      I cannot speak to communists, I currently align with democratic socialists and max out campaign contributions to those candidates. Some capitalism, but not too much, and a firm floor under everyone. I am wealthy because I was lucky. Existence is non consensual, no one asked to be here. One should not suffer through their existence because they were unlucky.
      - philipallstar 2mo ago
        > and max out campaign contributions to those candidates But why bother? Those candidates will only be successful if they're lucky.
        toomuchtodo 2mo ago
        Because you can’t attempt to win if you don’t buy the lottery ticket. Just like a founder who spends years of their life grinding for a startup that will most likely fail, I’m just throwing some money into the ring to attempt to encourage a successful outcome. Success is never assured. "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." You may ask: "Why are these lottery tickets and wins important at this point on the timeline?" That is a very important question. Democratic socialists top MAGA candidates among voters in CNBC’s All-America poll - https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/17/democratic-socialists-top-maga-candidates-all-america-poll.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/17/democratic-socialists-top-ma... - July 17, 2026 > The results indicate that even with a number of self-described democratic socialists on the ballot, Democrats will have the upper hand heading into November’s midterm election, which is widely viewed as a referendum on Trump. It also suggests voters are warming to the idea of a more muscular federal government that provides additional services in exchange for higher taxes. The poll found that 32% of registered voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate if they describe themselves as a democratic socialist, while 50% would be less likely to vote for such a candidate. Twenty-nine percent of voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate with Trump’s endorsement, while 52% would be less likely. A candidate who describes themself as a supporter of the MAGA movement does even worse, with only 27% of voters saying that would make them more likely to vote for them and 57% saying it would make their vote less likely. Capitalism remains more popular than socialism in the U.S., the poll found, but has declined in public sentiment in recent years as socialism has gained. Twenty-eight percent of registered voters polled viewed socialism positively, a leap up from 18% in 2024. Fifty percent of registered voters viewed capitalism positively, little changed from 51% in 2024. Forty-eight percent of voters viewed socialism negatively, while 27% viewed capitalism negatively in the poll released Friday. Voters aged 18-34 preferred socialism by a margin of 18% points, while older age demographics preferred capitalism. That could reshape the electorate in the future. Or today’s younger voters could evolve their preferences as they age. > “If these current attitudes were to persist over time, and the 18-49 year-olds of today were going to keep those types of attitudes, we’re going to have a seismic shift in terms of the national conversation and economic policy prescriptions that we see coming out of Congress and different places over time,” said Micah Roberts, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, the Republican pollster for the survey. “The attitudes of 18-34 year-olds today are the reality of our country in 20 years.” [My note: Draw your attention here, it is the most important fact when thinking in the context of this system.] > Voters polled did not believe some form of socialism would be a good idea for the country, but by an extremely narrow margin. Forty-four percent of voters polled said some form of socialism would be a bad thing, while 40% said it would be a good thing — winnowing the gap by half from the last time it was polled. In a 2019 Gallup poll, 43% of adults viewed socialism as a good thing and 51% viewed it as a bad thing. [My note: extremely narrow margins on ideas can potentially be changed rapidly with some effort] TLDR We are at a political tipping point due to demographics in the electorate, and if Democratic Socialists win and show they can deliver (as Mamdani is doing in NYC), it will lock in a positive uptake trajectory for them for at least 1-2 decades ahead. ~2M voters 55+ age out every year, and they are the ones with strong positive beliefs about capitalism (because they were lucky and had a positive experience within the golden age of US economics that will never repeat). 70+ age cohort owns 1/3rd of wealth. Progress occurs one funeral at a time (Max Planck). Young people may not be wealthy, and will likely never be wealthy, but they all get their vote. https://www.apolloacademy.com/31-percent-of-wealth-owned-by-people-over-70/ https://www.apolloacademy.com/31-percent-of-wealth-owned-by-...
- noir_lord 2mo ago
  Well you have the Tsar surrounded by his court and a rich elite completely out of touch with what is happening to the average person in the US so you have similar conditions (not really though, panem et circenses will apply until it doesn't and there is a lot more bread yet plus some more UFC matches can be arranged in what was a rose garden so the circus is covered as well).
- christkv 2mo ago
  Distractions from running the city I guess. The massive economic black hole they are facing is not something to put the focus on.
dylan604 2mo ago
As someone from another state, it's amusing how the mayor of a city has more clout than governor of the state.
- manphone 2mo ago
  Look at the mayor of London. Same shit, different city.
- bena 2mo ago
  New York City has a greater population than 38 states. Why should the governor of South Dakota (pop 935,094) have more clout than the mayor of New York City (pop 8,804,190)?
  - dylan604 2mo ago
    I said the governor of the state, not a state. Why you jumped to some inane example that has nothing to do with the conversation is beyond me. By definition, the governor of NY is responsible for more people than the mayor of NYC, yet more people are familiar with the mayor and might not even be able to name the governor.
    - bena 2mo ago
      Fair enough, I missed the exact article used. However, in that case, it's just a matter of delegation. When one city dominates the state, it will dominate everything about that state. So unless the governor of New York wants to spend most of their time handling New York City problems, it's best for them to let the mayor sort that.
gruez 2mo ago
Progressives love to point out how popular their candidates are but fail to realize they're in a filter bubble that doesn't reflect the wider electorate. They were jubilant when al-Sayed won, but betting market odds for democrats winning dropped as a result.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- malfist 2mo ago
  And we all know that gamblers and betting odds always are correct.
  - gruez 2mo ago
    They might not be prefect but they have a better track record than social media commentators. If you were going by the sentiment on HN or reddit, you'd thought Kamala would have won by a landslide.
  - Obscurity4340 2mo ago
    It would be great if it becane profitable to elect Democratic socialist candidates
richwater 2mo ago
Anyone can balance a budget by just delaying pension contributions. It's not impressive. What happens next year?
- DangitBobby 2mo ago
  You'd think so but it turns out doing the bare minimum is actually impressive.
  - richwater 2mo ago
    Why are we applauding under-funding the public pension system for temporary TikTok points? If that's folks' definition of bare minimum the city is in for a lot of pain.
    - DangitBobby 2mo ago
      I'm sure this is the one criticism among the millions that actually lands at his feet. Edit: Surprise surprise, it wasn't. See other comment.
    - DangitBobby 2mo ago
      Sounds like he's restructuring a payment plan that was already designed to push the pain into the future. Who knows if it will have been better to stave off the near term pain or let the financial time bomb set decades ago tie his hands. > Delaying payments of the city’s full pension obligation until 2037 from 2032 would save the city nearly $2.3 billion in the next two years, Mamdani said, without affecting retiree benefits. The reamortization schedule alters the original amortization plan constructed in 2010 that had the city pay higher amounts of its pension debt each year until the Fiscal Year 2032 cliff, at which point the entire obligation would be erased from the city’s books. > Under Mamdani’s new plan, which will need approval from state lawmakers by June 30, the city would pay a similar amount each year until FY32 when it would decrease year over year for the final half-decade of payments. > “If you look at the payment schedule that was initially agreed upon from 2010 to 2032, it's a payment that increases every single year, increasing upwards of $6 billion by the final year before then dropping like a cliff down to $0,” Mamdani said on May 12. “What we are proposing is extending that cycle by five years, and that is an extension that would ensure that we would pay the same amount every single year as opposed to what is currently a variable amount increasing year after year.” > Pension experts have previously warned the city against executing a reamoritzation plan, arguing that it was a short-term fix that would saddle the city with big costs in the 2030’s. But Andrew Perry, director of fiscal research at the Fiscal Policy Institute, a finance think tank, argued in a blog post that the current amortization schedule is “poorly designed” — due to the escalating payments and dropoff in 2032 — and said Mamdani’s new plan is an “act of prudent fiscal management.” > Ken Giardin, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan institute, argued the opposite, saying that the payment plan relies on the city’s five pension systems that “are hardly models of fiscal health," continuing to pump out positive returns. > “The entire reason we're talking about the unfunded accrued liability is because the systems made excessively optimistic assumptions in the past—that's why NYC will already be paying off decades-old debt in the 2030s,” he said. "Mark your calendar for 2032, when city [politicians] will be wishing they hadn't done this.” https://thechiefleader.com/stories/through-state-funding-new-tax-pension-payment-restructuring-mamdani-balances-budget,56625?hl=en-US https://thechiefleader.com/stories/through-state-funding-new...

This guy cant stop winning, can we clone him and get one for each state?

slackfan 2mo ago

[flagged]

jasonlotito 2mo ago
The irony.
runako 2mo ago
Is that because he's filling potholes, or because rich NYC residents are paying slightly less in tax than they did in 1994?
toomuchtodo 2mo ago
If this is what Post imperial Russia looked like, sign me up comrade. We tried to hyper individualistic capitalism, and that failed unless your the very top of wealth pyramid. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. I’m supposed to be afraid of socialists but not authoritarian technofeudalism paperclip maximizers? If both scenarios are “you’ll own nothing an be happy,” I’ll take the system where someone actually tries to make their constituents happy. You can’t scare people who realize we’re already at rock bottom. People who are delusional and think they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires and billionaires are always a lost cause, they are in a cult or belief system similar to a religion.
- slackfan 2mo ago
  Modern communists are such reactionaries that they can't even see the value in decimating the petite-bourgeoisie population. Sad.
  - toomuchtodo 2mo ago
    I cannot speak to communists, I currently align with democratic socialists and max out campaign contributions to those candidates. Some capitalism, but not too much, and a firm floor under everyone. I am wealthy because I was lucky. Existence is non consensual, no one asked to be here. One should not suffer through their existence because they were unlucky.
    - philipallstar 2mo ago
      > and max out campaign contributions to those candidates But why bother? Those candidates will only be successful if they're lucky.
      - toomuchtodo 2mo ago
        Because you can’t attempt to win if you don’t buy the lottery ticket. Just like a founder who spends years of their life grinding for a startup that will most likely fail, I’m just throwing some money into the ring to attempt to encourage a successful outcome. Success is never assured. "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." You may ask: "Why are these lottery tickets and wins important at this point on the timeline?" That is a very important question. Democratic socialists top MAGA candidates among voters in CNBC’s All-America poll - https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/17/democratic-socialists-top-maga-candidates-all-america-poll.html https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/17/democratic-socialists-top-ma... - July 17, 2026 > The results indicate that even with a number of self-described democratic socialists on the ballot, Democrats will have the upper hand heading into November’s midterm election, which is widely viewed as a referendum on Trump. It also suggests voters are warming to the idea of a more muscular federal government that provides additional services in exchange for higher taxes. The poll found that 32% of registered voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate if they describe themselves as a democratic socialist, while 50% would be less likely to vote for such a candidate. Twenty-nine percent of voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate with Trump’s endorsement, while 52% would be less likely. A candidate who describes themself as a supporter of the MAGA movement does even worse, with only 27% of voters saying that would make them more likely to vote for them and 57% saying it would make their vote less likely. Capitalism remains more popular than socialism in the U.S., the poll found, but has declined in public sentiment in recent years as socialism has gained. Twenty-eight percent of registered voters polled viewed socialism positively, a leap up from 18% in 2024. Fifty percent of registered voters viewed capitalism positively, little changed from 51% in 2024. Forty-eight percent of voters viewed socialism negatively, while 27% viewed capitalism negatively in the poll released Friday. Voters aged 18-34 preferred socialism by a margin of 18% points, while older age demographics preferred capitalism. That could reshape the electorate in the future. Or today’s younger voters could evolve their preferences as they age. > “If these current attitudes were to persist over time, and the 18-49 year-olds of today were going to keep those types of attitudes, we’re going to have a seismic shift in terms of the national conversation and economic policy prescriptions that we see coming out of Congress and different places over time,” said Micah Roberts, a partner at Public Opinion Strategies, the Republican pollster for the survey. “The attitudes of 18-34 year-olds today are the reality of our country in 20 years.” [My note: Draw your attention here, it is the most important fact when thinking in the context of this system.] > Voters polled did not believe some form of socialism would be a good idea for the country, but by an extremely narrow margin. Forty-four percent of voters polled said some form of socialism would be a bad thing, while 40% said it would be a good thing — winnowing the gap by half from the last time it was polled. In a 2019 Gallup poll, 43% of adults viewed socialism as a good thing and 51% viewed it as a bad thing. [My note: extremely narrow margins on ideas can potentially be changed rapidly with some effort] TLDR We are at a political tipping point due to demographics in the electorate, and if Democratic Socialists win and show they can deliver (as Mamdani is doing in NYC), it will lock in a positive uptake trajectory for them for at least 1-2 decades ahead. ~2M voters 55+ age out every year, and they are the ones with strong positive beliefs about capitalism (because they were lucky and had a positive experience within the golden age of US economics that will never repeat). 70+ age cohort owns 1/3rd of wealth. Progress occurs one funeral at a time (Max Planck). Young people may not be wealthy, and will likely never be wealthy, but they all get their vote. https://www.apolloacademy.com/31-percent-of-wealth-owned-by-people-over-70/ https://www.apolloacademy.com/31-percent-of-wealth-owned-by-...
noir_lord 2mo ago
Well you have the Tsar surrounded by his court and a rich elite completely out of touch with what is happening to the average person in the US so you have similar conditions (not really though, panem et circenses will apply until it doesn't and there is a lot more bread yet plus some more UFC matches can be arranged in what was a rose garden so the circus is covered as well).
christkv 2mo ago
Distractions from running the city I guess. The massive economic black hole they are facing is not something to put the focus on.

dylan604 2mo ago

As someone from another state, it's amusing how the mayor of a city has more clout than governor of the state.

manphone 2mo ago
Look at the mayor of London. Same shit, different city.
bena 2mo ago
New York City has a greater population than 38 states. Why should the governor of South Dakota (pop 935,094) have more clout than the mayor of New York City (pop 8,804,190)?
- dylan604 2mo ago
  I said the governor of the state, not a state. Why you jumped to some inane example that has nothing to do with the conversation is beyond me. By definition, the governor of NY is responsible for more people than the mayor of NYC, yet more people are familiar with the mayor and might not even be able to name the governor.
  - bena 2mo ago
    Fair enough, I missed the exact article used. However, in that case, it's just a matter of delegation. When one city dominates the state, it will dominate everything about that state. So unless the governor of New York wants to spend most of their time handling New York City problems, it's best for them to let the mayor sort that.

gruez 2mo ago

Progressives love to point out how popular their candidates are but fail to realize they're in a filter bubble that doesn't reflect the wider electorate. They were jubilant when al-Sayed won, but betting market odds for democrats winning dropped as a result.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
malfist 2mo ago
And we all know that gamblers and betting odds always are correct.
- gruez 2mo ago
  They might not be prefect but they have a better track record than social media commentators. If you were going by the sentiment on HN or reddit, you'd thought Kamala would have won by a landslide.
- Obscurity4340 2mo ago
  It would be great if it becane profitable to elect Democratic socialist candidates

richwater 2mo ago

Anyone can balance a budget by just delaying pension contributions. It's not impressive. What happens next year?

DangitBobby 2mo ago
You'd think so but it turns out doing the bare minimum is actually impressive.
- richwater 2mo ago
  Why are we applauding under-funding the public pension system for temporary TikTok points? If that's folks' definition of bare minimum the city is in for a lot of pain.
  - DangitBobby 2mo ago
    I'm sure this is the one criticism among the millions that actually lands at his feet. Edit: Surprise surprise, it wasn't. See other comment.
  - DangitBobby 2mo ago
    Sounds like he's restructuring a payment plan that was already designed to push the pain into the future. Who knows if it will have been better to stave off the near term pain or let the financial time bomb set decades ago tie his hands. > Delaying payments of the city’s full pension obligation until 2037 from 2032 would save the city nearly $2.3 billion in the next two years, Mamdani said, without affecting retiree benefits. The reamortization schedule alters the original amortization plan constructed in 2010 that had the city pay higher amounts of its pension debt each year until the Fiscal Year 2032 cliff, at which point the entire obligation would be erased from the city’s books. > Under Mamdani’s new plan, which will need approval from state lawmakers by June 30, the city would pay a similar amount each year until FY32 when it would decrease year over year for the final half-decade of payments. > “If you look at the payment schedule that was initially agreed upon from 2010 to 2032, it's a payment that increases every single year, increasing upwards of $6 billion by the final year before then dropping like a cliff down to $0,” Mamdani said on May 12. “What we are proposing is extending that cycle by five years, and that is an extension that would ensure that we would pay the same amount every single year as opposed to what is currently a variable amount increasing year after year.” > Pension experts have previously warned the city against executing a reamoritzation plan, arguing that it was a short-term fix that would saddle the city with big costs in the 2030’s. But Andrew Perry, director of fiscal research at the Fiscal Policy Institute, a finance think tank, argued in a blog post that the current amortization schedule is “poorly designed” — due to the escalating payments and dropoff in 2032 — and said Mamdani’s new plan is an “act of prudent fiscal management.” > Ken Giardin, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan institute, argued the opposite, saying that the payment plan relies on the city’s five pension systems that “are hardly models of fiscal health," continuing to pump out positive returns. > “The entire reason we're talking about the unfunded accrued liability is because the systems made excessively optimistic assumptions in the past—that's why NYC will already be paying off decades-old debt in the 2030s,” he said. "Mark your calendar for 2032, when city [politicians] will be wishing they hadn't done this.” https://thechiefleader.com/stories/through-state-funding-new-tax-pension-payment-restructuring-mamdani-balances-budget,56625?hl=en-US https://thechiefleader.com/stories/through-state-funding-new...