digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Michael Bloomberg: "The U.S. is in trouble."

nysun.com — Mayor Bloomberg is decrying the state of the 2008 presidential race, faulting the major party candidates for offering shallow, simplistic prescriptions, and scolding the press for failing to demand more from those seeking the White House. "The tough questions are not what are you in favor of, but how are you going to get it through Congress?"

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • redrock34, on 10/11/2007, -18/+10Put your money where your mouth is. Either run for President or support who you think is the best to lead this country. I'm sure some of your fellow billionaire friends can help you out on this one.
    • vfrex, on 10/11/2007, -4/+35You seem to be saying that with contempt. What is the problem exactly? Its not like he inherited money. He built a corporation from the ground up. He's very intelligent and deserves what he has earned. His company isn't polluting the planet or profiting from war. Not only that, he is giving back through philanthropy and public service as the mayor of NYC.
    • 3tcp, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12I've read that he's planning on running for president. He doesn't need billionaire friends to help him because he's a billionaire himself. He has planned on running at some point and has set aside a billion dollars of his own money to spend on his campaign. He'll probably declare his candidacy once the major party candidates have been decided (so after the first 8 primary races) and run as a moderate independant.

      This looks like manuevering to me, getting some attention as a critic of all the bs candidates we have now. I would find it refreshing to have an independant presidential candidate who earned his campaign money himself rather than selling poltical favors to campaign donators (see the 3 major candidates from both parties).

      Bloomberg has hired people to study Perot's independent campaign in 1992 and has learned from his mistakes. He's more polished and moderate than Perot was and will be up against candidates from the other two parties that aren't nearly as strong as Bill Clinton and the incumbent President Bush were in '92. I'm looking forward to seeing how he can contribute to the political dialogue of the race since he won't be forced to focus on ignore issues based on what's best for his party.
    • redrock34, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2@vfrex

      I didn't say anything, I typed it. You just interpreted it that way. I don't know much about Bloomberg, but I do know he is a billionaire. That makes him able to throw so much money towards a campaign that he could practically buy the Presidency. All I'm saying is if he seems to care so much about the way the candidacy is going he should do something about it.
    • redrock34, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3On that note, I hope he does run for President. If he acknowledges that the two parties running this country is screwed up, that already made his stock go up in my book.
    • Ratteler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1The problem here is that being a Billionair even matter in a presidential race.
      Money should have no bearing on whether o not you can effectively run for public office. It should be all about the will of the people.
  • adr4, on 10/11/2007, -7/+49Anyone that doesn't acknowledge that our two party system is broken is blind. How much have the democrats really done since they took the senate? And republicans make little children cry. It's like a choice between the devil and darth vader.
    • uptown, on 10/11/2007, -7/+14They're all fighting hard to give citizenship rights to people that entered the country illegally! That's gotta count for something, right? /sarcasm
    • jayhawken, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5To quote P.J. O'Rourke, "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."
    • finbec, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5"...choice between the devil and darth vader."

      The power to veto a bill is insignificant next to the power of the force.
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23Bloomberg should run. To quote him,

    "I would suggest that before anyone runs for office, they should go out and become a billionaire. It makes it a lot easier."
    • Xeth, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15That quote says a lot about why the US is in trouble.
    • malloc, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Xeth

      Are you insane? That it can be done is the only thing keeping America great.

      Go make a billion in China and run for office.
    • Xeth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9If I had a billion in China, I don't need an office to have presidential powers.
    • Akronos, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Malloc

      So now we're comparing ourselves to China, instead of, say, the vision our founding fathers had of the great nation we could become?
    • tehpwnrate, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I thought what Xeth meant was that it's a bad thing when a politician has to have billions to be considered relatively free from the enticing bribes of lobbyists and special interest groups. But that's the state we're in now because of the people running the country.
    • adr4, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1lol city on a hill my ass
    • Xeth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6tehpwnrate

      Yeah exactly, thanks for clarifying.

      In China the political process goes Money -> Bribes -> Power.

      Here it goes Money -> Election Campaign -> Power (or becoming that way, depending on how cynical you are).

      At least we make the pretenses. But we can do a lot better and this is a far cry from the founding vision.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Actually, having a billionaire run would be a very good thing, as he wouldn't have to be tied down by commitments to campaign donors that are so often the causes of corruption.
  • vwvan, on 10/11/2007, -16/+3we need to transition from poster child politics to internet policy making in real time.

    you digg?
    • Xeth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19internet policy making in real time? like LOLBILLS? WE CAN HAS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE?
  • TrainingName, on 10/11/2007, -13/+1no, I bury.
  • TrainingName, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5The US is ALWAYS in trouble.
    This is nothing new.
  • newyawker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14I'd consider voting for Bloomberg. He's moderate, socially liberal, a competent manager, smart, and has run NYC well.
    • Morphinity, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Which is why his Republican party won't support him on the national level.
      I think he's a great man, and has done very well while mayor of NYC. He has found a way to balance the budget and give us a surplus of over $4 Billion! That's a lot of money for a city. He knows how to deal with money and with people. Now we just need to find someone to take him under his wing.
    • Gryffydd, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Not to mention the fact that he's one of the nation's biggest supporters of gun control. That alone will keep the Republicans (and some democrats) from voting for him.
    • timothybryce, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3"Which is why his Republican party won't support him on the national level. "

      Republicans won't support him on the national level because he is not a Republican. He switched parties simply to get the mayoral job - his positions have absolutely nothing to do with Republicans or conservatism.
    • timothybryce, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5And...right on schedule....

      Bloomberg Leaving GOP
      http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_170181024.html
    • Morphinity, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Wow, how's that for timing?
  • Jagdwulfe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Have to love it. More and more people hating the two party system.
  • johnhummel, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5So does this mean that true conservatives who believe in personal liberty and limited government are coming back in power in the Republican Party to drive out like a pack of snake these neo-cons that believe in huge government spying programs, corporate welfare, and that war is peace?

    Gosh I hope so.
    • malloc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Wouldn't that be wonderful?

      So, no, it won't happen. It's gonna take a splintering of the party, true conservatives one way, intolerant fundamentalist twit's the other way.
    • timothybryce, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3"So does this mean that true conservatives who believe in personal liberty and limited government are coming back in power in the Republican Party"

      I can't imagine you're referring to Bloomberg? He is not exactly the paragon of personal liberty and limited government - quite the contrary.
    • adr4, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2even a splintering of the party doesn't guarantee an end to two party systems. Teddy Roosevelt ran in the bull moose party and split the conservatives of that time, and we still came back to our old system
  • vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2It's funny to have someone who is reneging on his campaign promises criticizing candidates for making campaign promises they won't keep.
    • mattysan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I'm not saying Bloomberg didn't do as you say, but I'm sick and tired of this generic line of thinking. I would rather have a politican admit they were wrong and change their way of thinking or their platform to better meet the needs of the people, than to have them stick to bad ideas. I only ever read that politicians "reneg on their promises"...has there ever been a case where a politician received new information, changed their mind, and wasn't chastised for that?

      Not that we would love him for it, or that it could ever happen in a billion years, but if Bush or any other politician suddenly had an awakening and said "you know what, I've been acting like an idiot all this time...this is clearly not what the people want...it's time to turn things around"...you may still dislike the person for past transgressions, but at least you could have respect for someone who realizes they were wrong and has the balls to say so.

      That's what this country is missing. Politicians tell you just enough of what you want to hear to get your vote, and they backpedal when things backfire, instead of just owning up to things. And they never seem to support what the people want, which is their actual job, but instead support their own selfish agendas, and are always looking ahead to the next election instead of focusing on fixing things.
    • vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sorry to point out the obvious humor of the situation, but your arguement is that maybe, perhaps he has new information and has changed position. However, to your point, he's not saying "I was wrong and I'm changing and here's why".
      He's saying "Look at them doing the wrong thing."
  • mdshoreboy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I for one agree. I think with all the theatrics this administration has put us through the last 6 years, it would be quite refreshing to see the candidates with some candor, on BOTH sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, speaking the truth tends to alienate the fickle public and every vote counts. :-/
  • alex.will, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10I like this guy more and more everyday. I don't live in NYC, but he seems like a way better mayor than Giuliani.
    • adr4, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4i live in ny, and he is ten times better than giuliani. Up to this point he's been way less charismatic, but it's beginning to look like he's making ground on that too.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Just because he is better than Giuliani doesn't mean he's anything special.

      A TURD would be better than the criminal Giuliani (Don't forget, he's the s**mbag who quickly sold off the remains of the WTC as scrap metal, to China, disturbing the crime scene and averting a proper forensic investigation.)
    • tubagenius, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Less charismatic than Rudy, maybe. Better -- absolutely.

      New Yorkers tolerated Rudy because we like our people to be a little bit crazy. It's New York, after all. But Bloomberg showed that things are a whole lot better when you actually accomplish something.
  • TeamRocket, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Where is Ralph Nader??? We need you now!!!
  • kaiser44, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4***** MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, He has lived off of the work done by R.G.
    A retarded chimp could have done as well as he has done.
    I am not a fan of R.G but he did straighten up the city before and after 9/11.
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"I am not a fan of R.G"

      I'm pretty sure you are.
  • kmpr326, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5This guy is smart. None of the candidates have given solutions for the problems at hand. Even Ron Paul, who has been very clear about where he stands on issues, does not offer any ways to solve them.

    Although, being consistant with issues is great, it just won't solve them.

    None of them have shown how they will make this country better.

    All of them will be better than what we have now, sadly.
  • bolerobell, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This is obviously a well-planned beginning to his announcing his own Presidential Candidacy. It's the first step that an independent candidate must make: Decry the sorry state of the two political parties and feel compelled to run against them. A little droll, but not unexpected. The question is, who will be his running mate? Hagel or Schwartzennegger?
    • tubagenius, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Can't be Arnold. The US Constitution requires that both the Prez candidate and his Veep be eligible for the office of US President -- which means a non-native-born citizen cannot run for Veep.
    • Morphinity, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That really should be changed, I think.
  • baalzebub, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2What is wrong with the us government today is most all politicians are interested in two things, they want to make as much money as possible without any regard for ethics they look at obtaining prestige as if they were movie stars (not heads of state), and they have no sense of integrity for themselves or this nation...
  • soul1239, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2At least Bloomberg has the marbles to call out the shallow, 3rd grade Q&A sessions that were labeled "debates." We need media reform so badly in this country and it's encouraging to see major players call out the BS.

    A Bloomberg/Paul independant ticket would be pretty refreshing, we'll have to see how things unfold ...
  • YouandWhoseArmy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Run bloomy run! Bloomberg/Paul anyone? (Their differing views and respect for logic aka facts would make them great)
  • Jagdwulfe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I wonder how long before the Limpbaughsm Vanitys and O'reallys of the world start bitching about him being a spoiler. After all I love how Limpbaugh used to rail again the idea of any other parties getting involved in the political process. Of course unless it was the Green party.
    • timothybryce, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Actually, he would be a spoiler, and I'm sure conservatives would bitch about it, same way liberals bitched about Nader.
  • aleone31, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Who in their right mind would elect another egotistical megalomaniac again after 8 years of George Bush. Bloomberg, and Guilliani love things like the patriot act and would go even further.

    At least bush tried to hide his tyrannical nature under the guise of "compassionate conservative". Bloomberg and Guilliani are about the two most heavy handed would be dictators to ever been given serious attention as potential candidate for president. Very scary, very scary. Please vote for anyone but these two.
    • tubagenius, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You are seriously misguided, conflating Rudy and Mike. They are 100% different. I should know; I've lived in NYC under both of them.
    • aleone31, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I live in NY and I can't think of a difference? Maybe you could give some examples?
  • rabidjade, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2He kind of overshadowed what I thought for years. Politicians are full of lip until they get in the white house then they play favorites with their friends. It's happened with every presidency and will continue to happen unless a major reform is done.
  • gredd, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2It's about time someone called ***** in this. A candidate can promise the world (and most of them do), but unless you can get through congress it doesn't mean anything.
  • Kevin108, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Bloomberg is a flagrant violator of the Second Amendment and his task force has violated federal law by conducting straw purchases for firearms. He needs to shut up and disappear. The last thing we need is another elitist who think the rich and powerful are above the law.
  • unknownpoltroon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Mr. Bloomberg, I would like to introduce you to your associates, Mrs. Kettle, Mr Pot, and Mr. Black.
  • pace306, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2I love the people who write in and claim Bloomy is a great mayor ....... HOW EXACTLY?

    1) transit system - rider costs will "just happen" to explode after he leaves office - hes done zero about it except complain that its NY State's problem

    2) insane tolls/fees - $125 for talking on a cell phone while driving, insane parking violation fees and more.

    3) Police - moral is the lowest its been in ages - starting salary is $25k (to risk ur life as a cop) and refuses to even discuss it!

    4) did nothing about the education system here - it gets more money then any almost any other state and still only has marginal gains (thanks randy).

    5) takes the tax dollars from legal citizens and supports illegal aliens - as a NYC tax payer I get to pay for their food/housing/clothing/education/health care ... thanks mike

    6) refuses to turn in or help the feds capture illegal aliens.

    7) super high water taxes

    8) super high city taxes

    9) in response to 9/11 - he wants to build an "Arabic public school" separation of church and state anyone?

    There's more of course, but as a city resident it sux. The middle class just keeps on leaving and if i could, id leave too.. you want him for pres - good luck (I'm still trying to duck his 8$ NYC entrance tax)
    • YouandWhoseArmy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2"1) transit system - rider costs will "just happen" to explode after he leaves office - hes done zero about it except complain that its NY State's problem

      (I'm still trying to duck his 8$ NYC entrance tax)"

      You sir, are a moron. What you call his $8 NYC entrance tax is in fact, an 8 dollar entrance to manhattan (only 1 of the 5 boroughs) fee during rush hour and is going to be used to subsidize mass transit. So he really hasnt done nothing as you claim.

      "2) insane tolls/fees - $125 for talking on a cell phone while driving, insane parking violation fees and more."

      Complaining about high fees for violating the law is a moot point. You don't want the fees, don't park too long or talk on your cellphone while driving.

      "The middle class just keeps on leaving"
      AHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH Are you joking? Have you seen the ridiculous amounts of construction going on to keep up with housing demand, not to mention ridiculous property values.

      With comments like those you are either from Bensonhurst or are one of the few idiots in NYC that voted for Bush in 2004. In either case, please move to the suburbs.
    • smoaky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1In Response to -

      "9) in response to 9/11 - he wants to build an "Arabic public school" separation of church and state anyone?"

      Arabic is a language not a religion.

      Not everyone that speaks arabic is a muslim, but regardless, that doesn't make a difference in this case.

      I love bloomberg, and ive lived in nyc all my life.
  • e68895f, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This just in.

    NYC Mayor Bloomberg switches party affiliation from GOP to 'unaffiliated'
  • tony4moroney, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1you do realize that bloomberg has improved new york living standards significantly during his time in office.
    dont forget he took over the reigns from guiliani which practically saw the city crumble and over spent ny's budget.

    bloomberg had to raise taxes to address guiliani's incompetence during office and he STILL commands 70%+ public approval.

    and if you think hes doing it for the money then youre wrong. Bloomberg has already made billions. He spent some of his fortune going for office. hes only a republican because the democratic field was too strong hes a lifelong democrat. He publicly denounces Washington's incompetence and questions Bush's and Congress' shortcomings. Bloomberg is a good mayor, don't assume hes evil and greedy because hes a billionaire, a republican or owns media companies. Although a mixture of the three doesn't sound too good does it lol.
    • Ratteler, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1All the billionaires in NYC just love Bloomberg. The only problem is that their servants are SOOOO tired from their 3 hour commute from some place they can actually afford to live. Luckily the buyers market for labor he's forced on the working class means you can hire 3 of them for the price you used to have to pay one.

      Bloomberg is a ***** Plutocratic Socialist.
    • AbsurdParadox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@Ratteler

      I'm asking this out of true ignorance -- just how did Bloomberg supposedly create a buyers market for labor, killing the value of labor?
  • zamees, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0With Romney leaving the race there is no experienced businessperson left seeking the presidency. In this time of economic/educational/environmental trouble, I damn sure think it would be beneficial to have a proven executive that has made intelligent business decisions throughout his life.

    Get Mike Bloomberg into the race at http://draftbloomberg.com
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.