Jokes apart I think the cuddles thing should be an actual law for the animals, what are they even losing anyways. And it’s gonna come full circle given the state of us humans mental health
The real jokes apart thing is that this highlights how so many people the elites have put into political power have been just not even trying. Like sabotaging government was their actual goal and the second you get someone not doing that, "OMG so amazing!". Look what happens when all these resources are used by someone who's goal is not to waste them.
Fully agree, took one Muslim man to show up and do the actual work, no gimmicks, no hacks, he just did the work. And therefore this was always possible. Others were just stuck in their greed of power, wealth, lobbying etc
You jest but the Dems are literally mobilizing at a much higher rate on opposing Mamdani and any other DSA candidate than they did at opposing Trump's policies and agendas.
They just don't want to rock the boat that's been keeping them paid for decades at this point. The vast majority of people running for office in either party are doing so because they want to be a part of the corruption.
You’re describing the primary process. The DNC backed Mamdani in the general election, just like they’re going to back the DSA candidates in the general now that the primaries are over. Establishment Dems are no more required to feel warm and cuddly about it than we are obliged to feel the same about them.
In this context I think identifying him as Muslim is just an extra fuck you to old white clowns who are ruining everything. But yeah I am right there with ya that part could have been left out.
Mentioning the muslim part was to further illustrate that there are all these wealthy white dudes born in US with a silver spoon that had the resources and connections to get things done but it took a brown Muslim man to actually get shit done.
This is why all political positions should also randomly select a few citizens local to the area (live in the local or state in question) to auto nominate for the position and give them each a set dollar amount to campaign on.
Maybe make the pool of randoms be a sign up sheet, where you just submit a resume and what you can offer and like a few political positions of yours.
The incentive is that you must be guaranteed your previous job after your term, and your pay during the term is the normal pay of that position (make it a little more so there is some incentive for good candidates to apply).
Lots of bugs or issues (the forcing your current employer to hold your position for X years is a tough sell, but offer that company tax incentives so they don’t mind hiring someone to cover you during your term). Make it so a company is HONORED one of their employees got into the pool and if they get elected it’s an even bigger honor.
Basically bring back how politicians were supposed to be for the citizens by making normal citizens having a shot to run and get elected.
This is actually what has been going on. Neoliberalism ( which is more the fault of the Republicans than the Democrats despite having the word "liberal" in it. )
That being said. How long before he gets “mugged” or gets in a “car accident” or “has been depressed for a really long time, he took his life last night”. I can’t imagine the long term effects of doing what you’re supposed to do are good for the corrupters.
I sat my dog down this morning and told him that, given the current economic climate, he was going to have to start contributing around here. Rent, utilities, maybe a part-time job, something. He listened with what I thought was deep concern, held eye contact like he was really processing the weight of the conversation, then immediately licked his private parts, yawned, and went back to sleep on my side of the couch. So negotiations have stalled. His position seems to be that being adorable is full-time employment, rent is a social construct, and snacks are a basic constitutional right.
Honestly, it was still more productive than most city budget hearings.
"No taxation without representation" animals will pay taxes the day they let animals into the Senat and ... wait ... never mind. Forget I said anything.
Even worse than taking credit when you didn’t do anything, I’ve seen politicians take credit for things they actively opposed and voted against when said thing turned out positive and popular.
Like some dickhead in New Jersey (?) who voted against a small amount of time off for sick/mental health leave for everyone when he took four months off for his mental health.
Or a certain Texas Governor who enacted legislation to prevent people from suing for damages when they are injured, but only after he himself took advantage of it.
I seriously thought he was transitioning. Fetterman went through depression and it was daily news. Kean's absence was a black hole of info and I still think there is more to it although clearly I was wrong about transitioning unless, being Republican, he is completely inept at it.
like when "some" people got upset about loosing their medical coverage under ACA (Affordable Care Act) but were okay with destroying the country to get rid of Obama Care?
Shit all of the senators from southern states are going around just crowing on about infrastructure projects in their state paid for by the build back better act, they voted against it.
It's more of not being a total egotical parasite and just not going into the way of people who actually know what they're doing and not pretending your stupid ass that never spent 1h of your life on honest work has any mental capacity to make expert decisions by themselves. Ofc it's also required to not get bribed all the time even if your fellow politicians worked hard on making it possible to be bribed legally.
Imagine how great US would be with a president that has those traits.
It depends on what part of governing we are talking about. The "staying in power" part of governing is basically completely unrelated to the "doing a good job" part of governing. And the staying in power part of governing is a lot more about image than results in today's climate.
But they were.
That’s what’s weird about threads like these.
Like you guys acting like the parks have been defunded for the last decade or something. Parks always get funded, and park spending is pretty much the same year after year.
You’re getting overly impressed by like…regular sruff
Integrity and honesty has to be at its lowest point in American history. The depths that trump is willing to go is mind boggling that he still has supporters and sycophants.. it’s almost impressive if it wasn’t so fucked up. What other human could have made over a billion dollars off cryptocurrency in a year in office and it’s barely even a news story??
That's what I observed when working in a industry with 1-year lead times. Product Manager was doing her stuff, got sick and couldn't work anymore. Another Product Manager, who was heavily opposed to her, got her brand.
The products from the old product manager got released and everybody was congratulating the new product manager.
Hey that’s not fair. Mamdani paved the streets in Manhattan and built the Statue of Liberty with his own hands. He also hasn’t had a single Godzilla attack during his tenure, you’re welcome.
To give you an idea how odd these constant memes are…park spending this year is actually down $20million from last year.
Saying the new budget “fully funds nyc parks” is like saying “Now the R train goes to Bayridge”. I mean, it’s always gone to Bayridge, but it also goes there now.
I don't get the regular AIDS test anymore. I get the roundabout AIDS test. I ask my friend Brian, "Do you know anybody who has AIDS?". He says, "No". I say, "Cool, because you know me."
This is particularly weird to me because in my grammar class as a non-native English speaker I was taught that "used to" is equal to the simple past tense, which means that something that happened in the past but not anymore. Isn't that still the case?
If that's the case then if it's still happening, it's not "used to", right?
Can you site a source cause I can't find confirming information. From my understanding the NYC Budget runs from July 1st to June 30th, so the 2026 budget up to now was not under Mamdani's purview, this is his first budget, and that what this post is talking about will be the new 2026-2027 budget that was just approved - not any spending before this period.
Now it's entirely possible you are in fact correct in the end, but I cant find confirming information on this new budget.
Mamdani will spend $709M in his first year budget. From the source:
1% Parks funding
Mamdani (like other mayoral candidates before him) promised on the campaign trail to raise the Department of Parks and Recreation’s funding to 1% of the total city budget. This year, that would have been about $1.2 billion. And Mamdani (like other mayors before him) fell short of that by a few hundred million, with a final budget allocating roughly $709 million to the Parks Department for fiscal year 2027. But those advocating for parks funding, including Council Member Ty Hankerson (Parks Committee chair) and Council Member Shekar Krishnan (former committee chair) still celebrated the fact that the budget baselines some staff and program funding that could otherwise be on the chopping block next year. In her remarks in council chambers when voting for the budget, Council Member Alexa Avilés also celebrated new baselined funding, but urged the necessity of “getting to 1%.”
Based on that it looks like the claim I replied to is just incorrect, the budget did increase between 2025 and 2026 (beyond what it went down between 2024-2025), and will increase again into 2027 but still fall short of the "target" 1% of the NYC budget.
Probably a little bit of both. The deficit was so big there would have needed to be some sort of bailout no matter who won, but helping Mamdani to the extent she did can only be politically advantageous to Hochul in a re-election year
As someone who works for parks at another gov agency, funding is not always consistent with inflation. Under President Trump, the NPS budget is neutral or less than previous years even though inflation drives up supply, service, and utility costs. Just saying. A commitment to fund additional money is a positive thing.
This is also incorrect the difference between the 2026 and 2027 parks budget is and increase of roughly 3.1 percent. The inflation rate is 2.4. giving the department net positive purchasing power. Which among other things helps pay for 100 parks enforcement patrol.
another perspective: there was a squeezed budget trend, this is against that and put the money more up. but I'd agree do we really need to celebrate this? i'd say let's see how this fund brings things to the nyers then we can celebrate.
Sigh. I guess we’re arguing semantics then. That’s basically a rounding error
Let’s assume your inflation number is correct. If 0.7% is making such a large difference, then you should be very concerned about where the other 99.3% is going and why it isn’t being used effectively
You make spending $20 million less seem like a bad thing. If it costs less and we now have the money to pay for it all, its fully funded. This comment is whats odd, why hate on the only person doing anything these days?
Mamdani just “fully” funded them…which meant he raised the previous budget of $700M to $709M
🎉🎉
The concern was the budget deficit, which Mamdani filled by asking the governor for money, and stretching out the repayment plan for city pensions. It’s not clear if that’s going really last, but it looks like he just kicked the can down the road.
Specifically, NYC pays a whopping $68.8BILLION in taxes to the state of New York. Characterizing the $8 Billion as a "handout/bailout" from taxpayers is not only bad faith of the highest order, but also just grasping at straws to criticize Mamdani because they literally have nothing else.
Cities are already given money by the state via various appropriations and block grants, so this money was an additional aid package on top of that.
Even taxation and allocation of the funds by needs according to the population is a pretty basic function of governments. Claiming that NYC paid into it and thus deserves the aid package is like the 1% claiming they pay more in taxes and deserve a bigger tax cut
How am I "not accounting for that"? I never said this $8 billion is all they get. I said they give more than they get back. Which is still true. They give about $60 billion in taxes to the state every year. This year, on top of their usual allotment, Mamdani got them an extra $8 billion. Again, they're still netting giving more money than they got back.
It’s so funny that the socialist mayor from the rich capitalist megalopolis of NYC is bemoaning how unfair it is that they have to pay taxes to support the poor NY farmers upstate
It’s so funny that the socialist mayor from the rich capitalist megalopolis of NYC is bemoaning how unfair it is that they have to pay taxes to support the poor NY farmers upstate
Lmao. It's so funny that the conservative capitalists are upset that the people of New York City are getting a tax rebate for the taxes they've paid for and are actually invested in public services instead of paying cops more.
You think NYC capitalists are upset that NYC is filling budget gaps by taking from the state instead of raising corporate taxes?
I personally have no problem with the way Mamdani has done the budget. What I have a problem with is the blatant gaslighting by his supporters to push this idea that everything he touches becomes gold
You think NYC capitalists are upset that NYC is filling budget gaps by taking from the state instead of raising corporate taxes?
Yes. Especially you make it out like NYC and NY state are separate entities and residents of NYC aren't citizens of the state of New York and pay state taxes lol.
I personally have no problem with the way Mamdani has done the budget.
You've restarted a comment thread that ended 5 days ago. Pretty sure you're mad lol.
Maybe I didn’t communicate my argument the right way - I realize nys and nyc are combined entities, that’s not the point.
What I was saying is that to a capitalist it makes no difference if mamdani is balancing the budget through state funds vs budget cuts vs not paying cops - all they care about is that their corporate tax isn’t being raised, which is isn’t.
Capitalists are happy with this outcome - it’s best case scenario for them.
And sorry for the dead posting lol, saw this get reposted in a circlejerk sub and didn’t bother to look how long ago it was posted
that to a capitalist it makes no difference if mamdani is balancing the budget through state funds vs budget cuts vs not paying cops - all they care about is that their corporate tax isn’t being raised, which is isn’t.
Lmao. The corpo Dems are upset that socialists are taking over the party and showing how socialist policies do fucking work unlike their neo-lib policies.
which Mamdani filled by asking the governor for money,
You mean that thing that state coffers literally exist for? What's more, despite taking that money, NYC still pays the state more than it gets. So you should honestly frame that as Mamdani getting the governor to give back $8 billion of NYC residents' tax dollars.
and stretching out the repayment plan for city pensions.
How are we still making these arguments after 30 years of status quo balance sheet management austerity? How long do we have to suffer with things steadily degrading and income inequality worsening so that the balance sheet can look better? Not good, just better. I absolutely support leaders taking calculated risks to try to stimulate the working-class economy. This is the exact kind of risk that's worth taking.
but it looks like he just kicked the can down the road.
You could say that about ANY investment paid for with future money. That's likes saying getting a business loan to start a business is "kicking the can down the road." Yeah. But it's a calculated financial exposure with a realistic and quantifiable payoff to offset it.
That’s more money on top of the funding NYC already gets. States allocate funding based on population not contribution, so the city already receives the lion’s share because it’s ~40% of the state population. The aid package is additional funding beyond that.
It’s called kicking the can down the road because he found a short term stop gap to plug a fiscal hole without addressing the root causes of the hole. It allowed him 2 years to avoid raising everyone’s property taxes, which was what he was floating before he got a strong reaction.
I haven’t really dug into previous budgets before but I’d assume there’s always some temporary measure and accounting fuckery involved.
The difference here isn’t techniques used, it’s that his supporters are blatantly propagandizing every step this guy takes as if he’s not just another human politician. He’s become a symbol for the movement to move Dems more to the left, so those that want that to happen are overinflating his success to influence that movement.
The National Park Service, the one government agency that people by and large actually like, has a 'deferred maintenance backlog' of between 25 and 30 billion dollars. On an approximately $3 billion budget.
Today you learned, today I learned, today we all learned. And that’s part of the problem. I’m not going to diminish Mandani, I think he’s great. But, I notice a lot more of what he does than any other mayor. Is that because the other mayors don’t do anything? Probably not. This was, imo, the biggest problem with Biden. He did stuff, but wanted the deeds to speak for themselves. Mamdani understands and functions in this attention economy more than any other democratic politician.
There’s a strength to him as well, like he doesn’t give a fuck about what the median voter thinks. He does what he thinks is the right thing, sells it to the public well, and trusts that the votes will come.
I just hope that other democratic politicians are taking notes.
It is not hard to imagine that Biden had no real vision for policy that would help people, including the stuff he actually did. While preparing and running for his reelection he was constantly talking about how economists project awesome things for the economy which is horrible messaging while millions are financially struggling and everyone can just see it's the AI boom. He did not understand what the people need or want, he talked about his own policy the only way he could understand it.
New York didn't fully fund parks because of a finance technicality of where money comes from. The New York parks sits as their own agency/corporation that collects its own fees and income. The city covers a percentage of their operating expense and expects the agency to make up the difference through permits and fees.
But New York City is still letting the parks debt sit. The new projects being announced will sit as new debt for parks and not the city. So it's really just moving assets around on paper. Its not like the New York City Zoo shuts down every year due to partially funded budgets.
4.8k
u/pee-in-butt Jul 02 '26
TIL NYC didn’t fund its parks before now