FU Bloomberg!!!

eggcream wrote: I'll give him education any day over Unions.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Though I am a union supporter I think there is a problem with getting rid of "dead wood"

eggcream wrote: Charter schools are successful for a reason, if not they close em down.

Charter schools, with some exceptions, have not proven themselves any more successful, with any statistical significance, than other schools. and yes, there are exceptions such as the Harlem Children’s Zone as reported by David Brooks http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/opinion/08brooks.html but look what they are doing to get those results, long days in a class room, and the amount of funding they are getting, I think close to $37 million. And charter schools have the luxury of getting rid of under performing students, something public schools can't do

eggcream wrote: Look how much each school kid in NYC gets and they still can't get more than a 57% HS graduation rate ( for 2007). Money is not the answer.

I don't think anyone said money was the answer. In fact try having a look at Norton Grubb's book "The Money Myth: School Resources, Outcomes and Equity"

eggcream wrote: I hate Bloomberg but would much rather have mayoral control of the school system.

I am not opposed to mayoral control I do think the current system, to quote Tom Hanks character in the film You've got Mail, "needs some tweaking"

Be Careful what you wish for. Bloomberg is needed during the tough economic times because he has the know how. Contrast his ability with that of our Governor who doesn't have a clue about budgets/economics. what a disaster , he will chase businesses out of New York. Bloomie isn't perfect , but he's smart.

eggcream wrote: I'll give him education any day over Unions.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Though I am a union supporter I think there is a problem with getting rid of "dead wood"

I mean control of Education should stay with the Mayor.

eggcream wrote: Charter schools are successful for a reason, if not they close em down.

Charter schools, with some exceptions, have not proven themselves any more successful, with any statistical significance, than other schools. and yes, there are exceptions such as the Harlem Children’s Zone as reported by David Brooks http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/opinion/08brooks.html but look what they are doing to get those results, long days in a class room, and the amount of funding they are getting, I think close to $37 million. And charter schools have the luxury of getting rid of under performing students, something public schools can't do

Not true. " The city's charter schools are outperforming their peers in traditional city public schools by a wide margin on reading tests, officials announced yesterday.

Third- through eighth-grade charter students bested their public-school peers by 8.6 percentage points.

And the charters have matched the 77.4 percent proficiency rate of students statewide, despite serving a more challenging population of kids.

"This year, our charter schools have matched -- literally to the decimal point -- the state of New York, and that is an enormous accomplishment," said Schools Chancellor Joel Klein.

Klein credited the feat to high-quality teachers, extended instructional days, and a rigorous focus on data -- "all the kinds of things that we're doing in the public schools system, and that's why I think you're seeing this rising tide in New York City."

Although traditional public schools outpaced the reading gains of charter schools since last year -- an 11.2 percent versus 10.3 percent jump -- Klein said a three-year snapshot showed charter school growth ahead by 3.7 percentage points. "

Underperforming students? How about underperforming teachers, especially those with tenure. They just sit in a rubber room with full pay since they can't be fired.

eggcream wrote: Look how much each school kid in NYC gets and they still can't get more than a 57% HS graduation rate ( for 2007). Money is not the answer.

I don't think anyone said money was the answer. In fact try having a look at Norton Grubb's book "The Money Myth: School Resources, Outcomes and Equity"

Tell that to the Unions. New York spends the most per pupil in America, 63% above the National Avg...20.7 billion in 2009. The Unions are always asking Albany for more money.

doldrums wrote: Be Careful what you wish for. Bloomberg is needed during the tough economic times because he has the know how. Contrast his ability with that of our Governor who doesn't have a clue about budgets/economics. what a disaster , he will chase businesses out of New York. Bloomie isn't perfect , but he's smart.

Then Bloomberg should run for governor.

Sure, the reporter is playing "Gotcha" a bit, but mayor-for-life looks like a real tool here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/05/28/2009-05-28_mayor_bloomberg_calls_reporter_a_disgrace_for_questioning_rationale_for_third_te.html

Guy needs to go, and fast.

Jimmy wrote: Sure, the reporter is playing "Gotcha" a bit, but mayor-for-life looks like a real tool here:

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/05/28/2009-05-28_mayor_bloomberg_calls_reporter_a_disgrace_for_questioning_rationale_for_third_te.html

Guy needs to go, and fast.

I was just reading this at lunch. Mayor Bloomberg calls reporter 'a disgrace' for questioning rationale for third term run
Pissy liitle cry baby.

Cry baby... yes, but it's really because he's a capitalist.

He figures he already bought the mayoralty (mayorship?), so now he owns it, and no one else should ever be allowed to take it away from him!

i don't think that's "gotcha", either. seemed like a fair question to me, albeit not one that makes bloomie look good.

Personally, I'm against term limits anyway, but I think it's total bullshit that he should be the only one exempt.

Carnivore wrote: Personally, I'm against term limits anyway, but I think it's total bullshit that he should be the only one exempt.

I so agree, I was against term limits, but I accepted them. It is crazy to make exceptions.

I got 2 postcards and a letter from Bloomberg today. Maybe he did not buy the election, I think he bought the Post Office.

and this:

Carnivore wrote: Personally, I'm against term limits anyway, but I think it's total bullshit that he should be the only one exempt.

this.

sheesh, if he'd gotten them to get rid of term limits entirely, there would have been a chance i'd have voted for him. at this rate, the democrats would have to run rush limbaugh for me to even think about it.

ringrunner wrote: [quote=Carnivore]Personally, I'm against term limits anyway, but I think it's total bullshit that he should be the only one exempt.

I so agree, I was against term limits, but I accepted them. It is crazy to make exceptions.

I got 2 postcards and a letter from Bloomberg today. Maybe he did not buy the election, I think he bought the Post Office.

and this:





This was nasty, but doesn't even come close to the fun we had with Giuliani.

True that, Giuliani really showed his ass at the Republican Convention

Carni, what's your issue with term limits? I think they're a terrific idea... should reduce the financial incentive to hold office, and the resulting corruption throughout city government.

I think the vast majority of professional politicians inevitably succumb to hack-ness; I like the idea of "ordinary" citizens (i.e. non-professional politicians) entering government for limited periods of time, and then being forced to leave before they become entrenched in corruption. I like it even if it limits governance to super-wealthy types like Bloomberg (who have no need to use their positions to feather their nests).

booklaw wrote: Carni, what's your issue with term limits? I think they're a terrific idea... should reduce the financial incentive to hold office, and the resulting corruption throughout city government.

I think the vast majority of professional politicians inevitably succumb to hack-ness; I like the idea of "ordinary" citizens (i.e. non-professional politicians) entering government for limited periods of time, and then being forced to leave before they become entrenched in corruption. I like it even if it limits governance to super-wealthy types like Bloomberg (who have no need to use their positions to feather their nests).

One of the problems I see is that just as someone is getting good at the job, they get term limited out.

I think part of the corruption issues are from campaign contributions, change the way campaigns are funded and you get rid of some of hack-ness.

I am OK with term limits in the executive branch but I am not for them in the legislative branch

But I could be convinced otherwise.

Why not select council members the way we do jurors?

In addition to having term limits I'm all for a mandatory age retirement.

term limits frustrate the will of the electorate. yes, there are other things that do that, too, but term limits don't help.

i'm fine with them for president, since i'm not sure the same guy should be in charge of the army forever.

also, the money issue -- extra incentive for rich candidates only -- does matter to me, a great deal.

eggcream wrote: In addition to having term limits I'm all for a mandatory age retirement.

*********************************************************

charles rangel is a good example for mandatory retirement, but i guess he hasn't stolen enough, to maintain his opulent life style.

for the election, it doesnt matter what you think of bloomberg, just how you value democracy. term limits are a fundamental tenet of any legit democracy. please dont vote for him.

putz wrote: for the election, it doesnt matter what you think of bloomberg, just how you value democracy. term limits are a fundamental tenet of any legit democracy. please dont vote for him.

Term limits are actually anti-democratic, since they prevent people from returning a candidate that they like to office. There is an opportunity to democratically remove a candidate from office every 4 years. It is called an election. Term limits thwart the will of the people.

That said, I think they should be removed entirely, not just for him.

Carnivore wrote: Term limits are actually anti-democratic.

Oh brother. Have you actually thought about this? Can you tell us about somewhere that doesn’t have term limits for the chief executive that functions better? Chavez has gotten rid of them, Putin gotten around them – do you think the Venezuelan and Russian people have actually been able to express informed choices?

Are you oblivious to the enormous electoral power of incumbency and how this can discourage potential challengers from ever seeking to participate in elections? Unfortunately, leaders are not just a representation of public opinion, but have great power to influence and form it, and that is one reason why enforced change of power is good.

putz wrote: [quote=Carnivore]Term limits are actually anti-democratic.

Oh brother. Have you actually thought about this? Can you tell us about somewhere that doesn’t have term limits for the chief executive that functions better? Chavez has gotten rid of them, Putin gotten around them – do you think the Venezuelan and Russian people have actually been able to express informed choices?
How about the U.S. until after FDR? Or how about just about every municipality in the U.S. until about 10-15 years ago?

putz wrote: Are you oblivious to the enormous electoral power of incumbency and how this can discourage potential challengers from ever seeking to participate in elections? Unfortunately, leaders are not just a representation of public opinion, but have great power to influence and form it, and that is one reason why enforced change of power is good.

So you think the people can't be trusted to make the right choice on their own...

Very democratic.

Carnivore wrote: So you think the people can't be trusted to make the right choice on their own... Very democratic.

I take it you haven't thought about this. You are missing the point. It is not about trusting people to make the right choice, it is about structuring a system which actually presents people with choices.

Are you suggesting that the reason this is a feature of most democracies is because the framers actually wanted to constrain the will of the people??

BrooklynJack wrote: One of the problems I see is that just as someone is getting good at the job, they get term limited out.

I think this is sort of the point. For so many politicians, "getting good at the job" means they've figured out the easiest way to game the system, to consolidate their power and to squeeze more and more money out of their constituents. If everyone has term limits, that would hopefully leave them much less open to getting into bed with special interests or becoming beholden to anyone.

And it's not like there's nothing else to run for. If someone is a legitimately good at their job they can always move on up. But term limits would prevent someone like Charlie Rangel becoming entrenched in his cushy, do-nothing position, sucking the life out of Harlem. I mean, the guy's been there almost 40 years now! All he's done is get rich off the folks up there, and yet they keep sending him back.

putz wrote: [quote=Carnivore]So you think the people can't be trusted to make the right choice on their own... Very democratic.

I take it you haven't thought about this. You are missing the point. It is not about trusting people to make the right choice, it is about structuring a system which actually presents people with choices.

Are you suggesting that the reason this is a feature of most democracies is because the framers actually wanted to constrain the will of the people??
It was not a feature of our democracy as designed by our framers. We were able to change mayors quite successfully before term limits. I'm not missing the point; the point is fallacious.

Our framers were not omniscient... look at the electoral college.

The framers could not possibly have imagined the size of our population, the power of our media, and the ability of political organizations to deliver votes to incompetent and/or dishonest candidates.

Term limits are a good thing (although admittedly not a cure-all unto themselves).

booklaw wrote: Our framers were not omniscient... look at the electoral college.

The framers could not possibly have imagined the size of our population, the power of our media, and the ability of political organizations to deliver votes to incompetent and/or dishonest candidates.

Term limits are a good thing (although admittedly not a cure-all unto themselves).

Term limits are not unequivocally a good thing. They are a bad solution for a problem that is primarily rooted in campaign finance, and they reduce the choices of the people. If someone is doing a good job after two terms and the people would like to see him or her continue in office, it is not a good thing to prevent the people from making that choice.

putz wrote: for the election, it doesnt matter what you think of bloomberg, just how you value democracy. term limits are a fundamental tenet of any legit democracy. please dont vote for him.

I agree. It's all about maintaining democracy.

If Bloomberry is so talented, let him get a job in Washington.

Imagine if George W .Bush won a third term?

Carnivore wrote: [quote=booklaw]Our framers were not omniscient... look at the electoral college.

The framers could not possibly have imagined the size of our population, the power of our media, and the ability of political organizations to deliver votes to incompetent and/or dishonest candidates.

Term limits are a good thing (although admittedly not a cure-all unto themselves).

Term limits are not unequivocally a good thing. They are a bad solution for a problem that is primarily rooted in campaign finance, and they reduce the choices of the people. If someone is doing a good job after two terms and the people would like to see him or her continue in office, it is not a good thing to prevent the people from making that choice.

I would agree with this in general. My problem is the term limits were made law by popular vote but rescinded by political vote.

Carnivore wrote: Term limits are not unequivocally a good thing. They are a bad solution for a problem that is primarily rooted in campaign finance,

Here Here!

And how is it freedom of speech to talk longer and louder than anyone else? I remember when Mark Green ran fro Mayor he had money to by advertising time but couldn't because Bloomy had bought it all.

Any campaigning more than 2 months before an election should be illegal and maybe have financing from a common pool