Mayor Bloomberg Opens Own Wallet To Erect Protective Wall Of Money Around His Beloved Stop And Frisk Program
from the this-stack-of-cash-says-your-rights-are-invalid dept
We wrote recently about New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s apoplectic response to the passage of two bills aimed at his beloved stop and frisk program. In addition to claiming the city would fall immediately and be beset on all sides by the tyranny of evil men swept up in an unprecedented crime wave (which would seem to imply stop and frisk isn’t catching that many criminals), he also promised to veto both bills despite both having landed on his desk with veto-proof votes.
The odds are stacked against him and the city council doesn’t currently seem to be stocked with a large number of Bloomberg supporters, but the Mayor’s apparently not going to let others not take “No” for an answer.
Aides and advisors said the billionaire lame-duck mayor intends to use some of his fortune to influence the outcome of a vote to override his coming veto of measures to install an NYPD inspector general and to modify the controversial stop-and-frisk program.
Now, if we didn’t participate in a democratic system that is rarely, if ever, abused [brief pause to reinsert still-rolling eyes back in sockets], one could easily mistake Bloomberg’s statement to mean he’s going to reach into his deep pockets and start handing out bribes. That, of course, would be illegal. Instead, he’s going to go the morally acceptable route [pause to tighten eyeroll-resistant goggles] and throw his money into various campaign war chests.
“The bottom line is I make no bones about it, I’m telling you I’m going to support those candidates,” said Bloomberg. “Some of these things are life and death issues, like these two horrendous bills in the City Council and they’re going to put our police officers at risk and they’re going to put the public at risk and I’ve got an obligation to tell people that.”
Once again, the criminal apocalypse is nigh and only Bloomberg’s constitutionally-unsound stop and frisk program can prevent it. Part of Bloomberg’s billions will now be flowing directly to those who share his views — specifically, that the NYPD is the mayor’s personal army, and that any attempt to provide it with oversight or steer it away from violating civil liberties en masse will weaken the force and damage the city.
Even if Bloomberg fails to secure the vetoes before he leaves office, he appears willing to spare no expense stacking the legislative deck in order to see these new laws repealed or gutted. He’ll no longer have the title and everything that comes with it, but if he spends his money wisely (or just spends enough of it), he’ll still be able to keep at least one hand on the reins.
Filed Under: mike bloomberg, money and politics, nyc, stop and frisk
Comments on “Mayor Bloomberg Opens Own Wallet To Erect Protective Wall Of Money Around His Beloved Stop And Frisk Program”
At one point...
I actually thought he was a decent, if slightly out of touch, mayor who listened to the concerns of people. At the very least he didn’t try to do what others did for the Occupy movement.
And yet he supports stuff like this.
*sigh*
here's the thing
putting money into a campaign warchest, would imply he has more than pride at stake. That implies he is making a profit off of stop and frisk currently. I wonder how, but nobody spends money on politics without expecting some gigantic benefit to themselves, right?
Re: here's the thing
I don’t know about that in this case. I think Bloomberg may be a ‘true believer’. I think he may actually believe the things he’s saying, and that scares me a bit.
The way I see it, he thinks that he truly knows what’s best for the people of New York City and he will do anything he can to protect them, even from themselves.
Re: Re: here's the thing
I doubt that it has anything to do with an overbearing conscious; you give him too much credit. No, this is about Bloomberg acting like a mini-dictator. He’s even referred to the NYPD as his “private army.” I wouldn’t be surprised if a certain political group is giving Bloomberg his marching orders…
Re: Re: here's the thing
I agree that he THINKS he knows what’s best for the people. So do the neo-cons in the federal government. They just don’t see (or care) how elitist that perspective is. They have no respect for the law or the people that grant them the power they have because they feel that they know better and the ends justify the means in their mind.
Re: Re: Re: here's the thing
Yeah, it’s just the ‘neo-cons’ that feel that way. Good one. Is Obama a ‘neo-con’ now? It’s cute that you think this is a difference between the parties though.
Re: Re: Re:2 here's the thing
NEgrO-CON artist is more like it.
Re: Re: Re:2 here's the thing
I didn’t say this had anything whatsoever to do with neo-conservative ideology. I said that he THINKS he is doing what is best for the people in the same way that the neo-conservatives THINK they are doing what is best for the people. Do you even know what neo-conservative ideology is and where it came from?
Re: Re: here's the thing
That’s what makes him such a terrifying politician.
He needs to look in the damn mirror. El Presidente’s in banana republics use these kind of tactics over their subjects all the time. I am sick and tired of our politicians trying to emulate petty dictators!!
Re: here's the thing
No price is too high to keep those minorities in check.
Re: here's the thing
At the risk of seeming pedantic:
* Boss A puts finger on someone he needs out of the picture “for a while” — gives names, pictures, normal schedule.
* Cops stop and frisk
* Sprinkle a little crack
* Profit!
Re: here's the thing
I’d be willing to bet that Bloomberg is in some way part owner of at least 1 of the PRIVATE, RUN FOR PROFIT prisons in his State…. In this case “stop and frisk” is a convenient way to provide more “customers” for your prison racket…
Then again… he is already worth Billions, and we know he’s a Jewish control freak with “Small Man” syndrome… so MAYBE he’s just spending all this money (peanuts to him) so he can retain his POWER AND CONTROL over the citizens…. Think about it… You’re already a billionaire, everything that money can buy (including your “own private army” the NYPD) what’s left for a man like that?…. POWER.
One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
They ALWAYS use the power of accumulated money to oppress the rest. It’s iron law. The Rich go crazy with power.
The Rich get far beyond fair rewards for their small efforts. They’re parasites, not creators: their privileged position allows them to direct the labors of many others and then to scrape off the profits. To be Rich is better than “money for nothin'”, it’s simply feudal entitlement in which the slaves get just enough to feed themselves and must hand over the rest to the high born. — Worst aspect is that “money” can be passed on forever. — But the notion of money requires action, of trading value for value. Money is not property: it’s the ability to command laborers. Property requires efforts to get any gain from it. The Rich don’t produce or trade values: they use money sheerly for power over other people. Therefore society needs to tax away “money” to stop accumulations of power.
No society has ever prospered by allowing The Rich to do whatever they wish; the only path to general prosperity is to pull down The Rich, to break their rigid controls.
Taxing the few down from truly obscene levels to merely filthy rich is justified by public need to put some limits on bad actors, to maintain some equality, to allow some social mobility. High taxes are not penalizing success: and it’s not even punishing the bad acts that got the money (robbing laborers of fair rewards), as they’ll still be plenty Rich enough.
Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
Well whaddya know, another good post by OOTB.
Re: Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
I expected a decent post from ootb on this one. He’s basically an anti-corporate government conspiracy theorist with a misguided traditionalist view of copyright. This is story is a legitimate perfect storm for him however, give him a chance and he’ll figure out some way to blame Google for it.
Re: Re: Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
but the weird thing is, okay, he/she/it is a raging lefty in the regard of state/corporate power, but THEN goes off on copyright violations AGAINST these self-same masters of the universe as if he/she/it is on their side !
i don’t get it: 99% of the benefits of copymaximalists accrue to korporations, etc, NOT the po’ l’il artiste; YET, he/she/it is foaming-at-the-mouth rabid about insisting that enforcing these UNFAIR laws against us 99% for the benefit of the 1% is somehow the right and moral thing to do…
funny guy/gal/hermaphrodite
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Re: Re: Re:2 One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
It’s simple really. He drank the Kool-Aid of the traditional view of copyright/patents, that says that a protected monopoly creates incentive for creation of works, and thus is a good thing for the public. He just doesn’t get that so very often it doesn’t work out that way. He bought the propaganda fairy tale of the little guy that invents something and patents it or creates a copyrighted work and then is able to leverage that protection to become rich through a big deal with a corporation or at least keep the corporation from abusing him. More often than not the reality is the corporation takes what it wants and sets the terms of any deals it offers. The little guy has far to few resources to keep this from happening even if the law is technically on his side. However, in the hands of the corporation, copyrights and patents are just another of the weapons in their arsenal to stomp on the little guys. I don’t think ootb is a bad guy. I think he honestly believes he is an advocate for what is right and what is best for the public. Unfortunately he doesn’t live in reality and no amount of logic or evidence is going to convince him otherwise.
Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
I actually agree with the sentiment of your rant.
Re: Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
I actually agree with Out_of_the_blue too! What’s happening to me?
Re: Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
I actually agree with the sentiment of your rant.
I don’t. Sure, it makes a great song lyrics: “Tax the rich, feed the poor. Till there are no rich no more.”
But in reality there are problems. One would be figuring out who is “too rich” and another is the fact that Blue’s notion is nothing more than a “success tax” that would curtail the normal motivation factors that drive a capitalistic economy.
Re: Re: Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
Of course there’s also the problem of the abject lack of respect for basic property rights but who gives a fuck about that when you’re dealing with ‘teh rich.’
Re: Re: Re:2 One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
You could argue that excessive property is theft in itself, and if the poor are fed then who cares if the rich aren’t (so) rich anymore. Success doesn’t have to be on the billionaire scale; nor does it have to be only measured by money.
Oh wait, you’re the United Corporate Stasi of Murica…
Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
Enjoy your “Insightful” vote, Blue. You’ve earned it with this rational post, with one caveat; being rich isn’t in and of itself a bad thing. It’s being an authoritarian control freak who owns the bulk of our resources that causes the problem. Unfortunately the majority of people who think and act this way are very wealthy and those who wish they were very wealthy. A small percentage of idiots enable these people by hoping to become very rich by following behind their heroes.
In other words, you don’t have to be rich to be a pain in the ass to the general population, but it helps, both in being a pain in the ass yourself and in influencing others to be a pain in the ass as well.
Would returning income taxation to the old 98% level work? I don’t think so. You can try, but since the ruling elite currently hold the reins of government (and therefore taxation), good luck with that.
What we need to do is quit letting our representatives act on our behalves without our keeping an eye on them to make sure they do their jobs. What we usually do is vote for the ones who least offend our sensibilities and hope they make some kind of effort to represent us. Let’s be more in their faces, letting them know we are watching them ? and woe betide them in the next election if they fail to serve us properly.
Re: Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
actually, there are a number of studies (and personal experience) that prove that if/when you get ‘rich’ (its all relative), that you DO -in fact- become a nasty piece of work: you ‘justify’ / rationalize your OWN -obviously deserved snicker– ‘good luck’ by thinking what a swell, smart, and saavy person you are (EVEN IF IT IS TOTALLY INHERITED WEALTH); and determine that, well, of course all those other shlubs are stupid, and lazy, and -well- they probably smell bad, too… (ie they don’t ‘deserve’ to be rich)
further, psych research has shown that ‘rich’ people are LESS likely to give to charity/others, AND give a smaller percentage of income than ‘poor’ people, AND they are far more likely to cheat their fellow nekkid apes (who they don'[t regard as ‘fellow nekkid apes’, but peons)…
EVERYONE exhibits some level of that behavior when they get relative power/wealth over other nekkid apes…
just nekkid apes justifying their oppression of other nekkid apes… hence the validity of the quote:
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
Re: Re: Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
If you redefine ‘nasty piece of work’ to mean ‘thinks they earned what they have’ then sure. Of course you’d have to do some pretty fantastical mental backflips to get there but anything to demonize ‘teh rich’ right? The kicker in all this is, of course, that even if you’re 100% right and that we’ve proved too much money inevitably makes someone an asshole transferring their wealth to another equally small group wouldn’t make any more sense. In fact using your own logic it wouldn’t change a damn thing.
Re: Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
True. But the accumulation of great wealth in the hands of a few is very much a bad thing in and of itself.
Re: Re: Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
So your solution is to transfer that wealth to the hands of another small group of people? Fucking brilliant.
Re: Re: Re:2 One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
You’re just making up stuff I never said so you can can slip in a snarky retort. Fucking brilliant.
Re: Re: Re:3 One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
The line being sold in this thread is ‘we need to tax the hell out of the rich’ which is just ‘transfer the wealth of the rich into the hands of another small group of people.’ You do make a fair point though, you personally never said that was the solution to concentration of wealth.
Re: Re: Re:3 One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
Oh, and you’re completely wrong on the point you did explicitly state. Accumulation of great wealth in the hands of a few is not a bad thing a priori. It can be a bad thing. It can be especially bad under cronyism like the US enjoys, but that is a symptom of another disease entirely.
Re: Re: Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
True, dat. Which I’ve already pointed out. Resource-hogging and centralization are causing the problems we’re experiencing at the moment. The trouble is, people on the right are determined to keep things that way, despite the fact that it’s hurting them to do so for reasons I can barely fathom. It seems to have something to do with a defunct political ideology called “Communism” which has been conflated with “Socialism,” both of which are to be feared because sharing out wealth is bad, or something.
Try to get people to understand why they believe this and you’ll be called a commie yourself. They do it to me.
I can understand a rich person looking down on the Great Unwashed and calling us smelly and lazy, etc., but why do our fellow Great Unwashed seem to think that hitching their wagons to the Super Rich makes them any better than the rest of us? Maintaining the status quo won’t benefit poor right-wingers any more than it would benefit us, so what gives?
Just a rhetorical answer because they seem to be afraid to think for themselves. I’ve actually seen this. It’d be funny if it wasn’t contributing to the mess we’re in by keeping those bozos in power.
Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
Taxing the rich will just move them outside of the country and won’t stop the current laws and regulations that allow them to shove smaller competition in the dirt. Remove those and the playing field will be leveled. Taxes will do nothing productive.
Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
Sad to see this inane classist drivel getting ‘insightful’ votes.
Re: Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
So it’s A-OK for the rich to lobby for laws and gamble with our jobs on Wall Street, but somehow it’s not fair to tax them? Why should we allow them to hold our economy hostage? Class warfare has been going on since the inception of money and property.
Re: One more reason to tax the HELL out of The Rich.
insightful. Unfortunately the USA (And much of the rest of the world) is run by BANKERS who simply utilize the specter of government as a tool to legitimize their world wide oppression.
So where do you start?
Remember before 911
When we had a fourth amendment, those were good times.
this seems to be a clear example of someone with wealth and power using those things to get what he wants when all usual and legal methods fail. now i cant think of this applying to any other situation or area of wealth and power, apart from California, that is!
If you can’t beat them, use your vast wealth to circumvent the rules.
At least he's leaving office.
Good thing this year is Bloomberg’s last term. Granted, he’s done some good things (like improving the streetlights from walk/don’t-walk to man/hand, updating the MTA by including LED displays for when the next train would come in Subway stations), but for all of that, he seems to have this fetish for banning Soft Drinks of a certain size and smoking in public places and removing the OWS from the city. He also is trying to replace public schools with corporate-run charter schools. I think the Stop and Frisk he’d introduced would be among the worst things he’s done.
I’m so grateful he’s going to leave.
I'm a little...
I’m a little despot… short and stout…
I’ll use my money, I’ll use my clout…
I’m a little despot… short and stout…
We’ll stop and frisk you… you better not pout!
Hats off to the City Council for passing something with enough backing to essentially say “f-you” to Bloomberg.
Now let’s see how many have the cojones to not be bought off their ideaology…
Soda control, gun control, ‘random’ stop-and-frisk… I’m pretty sure the entire reason for his political career is to satisfy some sort of deep-seated control fetish. I’m just hoping they disinfect his office when he moves out.
So many doucheasses in America
“Aides and advisors said the billionaire lame-duck mayor intends to use some of his fortune to influence the outcome of a vote”
Did they phrase it like that? I’d like to know the exact words they used. Quid pro quo is illegal, and the mayor is walking a very fine line by declaring this before the final vote.
Re: Re:
Yeah, he better be careful or the Justice Department will … oh, um, never mind.
Saying dumb things in public
First he makes the stupid “my private army” quote then readily admits that he is going to buy the votes that he needs to oppose it? He really needs a good advisor that will convince him to STFU.
Just wanted to say to Tim that this is one of the most perfect headlines ever crafted.
You said erect…huh-huh-huh…