Wasn't the socialist mayor or NYC bailed out by the state of NewYork? Or did they just comtribute less??

Started by linate

Replies
5
Posts
6
Page
1 / 1
Sign in to follow

Conversation

#1 •••
🔗 Link

The socialist govenor of NYC balanced a budget with a deficit of 12 billion. Republicans were saying the only fix was to use austerity measures in NYC


the word “bailout” can be misleading in this context.

There are two different questions here:

  1. Did New York State transfer money/resources to NYC to help close the budget gap?
  2. Yes. By that definition, critics call it a bailout. The state helped NYC avoid deeper cuts or tax hikes. (New York Post)
  3. Is NYC already a net fiscal contributor to New York State overall?
  4. Also yes, according to multiple fiscal analyses. NYC taxpayers contribute more in taxes to Albany than the city receives back in state spending and services. (islg.cuny.edu)

So your intuition is basically:

“If NYC already subsidizes the rest of the state overall, then getting extra state support isn’t necessarily an outside rescue — it may partly be NYC recapturing some of the value it already generates.”

That’s a legitimate argument and one many NYC officials make. Even critics of Mamdani often acknowledge NYC is the economic engine of the state. (NYC Comptroller's Office)

At the same time, critics would reply:

  1. Even if NYC is a net contributor overall, the city government budget itself still had a structural gap.
  2. State aid still shifts fiscal pressure upward to Albany.
  3. If the state repeatedly covers city shortfalls without long-term reform, the underlying spending problem may persist.

So the disagreement is partly semantic and partly about framing:

  1. Critics: “The state had to rescue the city budget.”
  2. Supporters: “The state is returning resources to the region that already funds much of the state.”

Both contain some truth depending on the level of analysis.

Edit comment

Evidence of the afterlife

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/10d/evidence-of-the-afterlife

#2 •••
🔗 Link
@linate
The socialist govenor of NYC balanced a budget with a deficit of 12 billion


A balanced budget is a good budget.

Edit post

#3 •••
🔗 Link

Debt may sound tempting because it gives money faster, but you pay more later. It's a long term loss.

Edit post

#4 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

Remember that each taxpayer owes $288,000 on the US Debt. OMG, is Trump in China to convince them to buy the USA?

Edit post

#5 •••
🔗 Link
@linate
  1. The two questions you pose to launch the discussion don't go far enough by reply. Q1` Asks: Did New York State transfer money/resources to NYC to help close the budget gap? The "yes" response does not go far enough to conclude, by the CUNY report issued last December, and therefore does not include the $12B contribution back to NYCto resolve their budget gap, and I am suspicious that NY cannot continue to provide that kind of bailout on an annual basis, particularly since NYC Mayor Mamdami's socialist platform has barely begun to spend money NYC does not have. let alone NY. $12B is 17% of NYC's fiscal 2025's $69B tax paid to the State, and 25% of revenue NYC received back from NY for NYC services in fiscal 2025. I* do not believe the need for the $12B [or thereabouts] in future fiscal necessity. It's the same old problem socialism has; it only survives on use of other peoples' money, and It is no investment on their part because they should not expect any return on that money spent. The only thing that blows out of vacuum is hot air and dust, and that is perfectly descriptive of what to expect of socialism.
  2. The second question, Is NYC already a net fiscal contributor to New York State overall, is not a simple "yes," either, because of that vacuum phenomenon of socialism, and that is because there is not a single example of successful socialism over a period in existence. None have ever succeeded in sustaIning for more than China's current 77 years, and their system has become only more capitalist in handling money than socialist, so China cannot count as a successful socialist system. USSR held on for some 80 years before it crumbled. The average life of a socialist system is 40 years, and that number is dropping with each failure, such as Venezuela and Cuba. It certainly will never work with a population as large as the U.S.


China presents an interesting study. It is a country of 31 provinces, 23 of which are so poor, their individual gross fiscal GDP is -$250 - $0. The other eight, on the eastern seaboard, provide China's gross GDP = $20T fiscal 2025 [US was $31T 2025].



Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#6 •••
🔗 Link
@linate

NYC took out the largest can they could find and found the largest shoe, and kicked it as far as they could.


New York City balanced its budget the way someone balances a collapsing bookshelf by shoving the mess into the next room and closing the door. Instead of solving the underlying fiscal problems, the city relied heavily on deferred pension obligations, temporary state assistance, optimistic future revenue assumptions (as if revenue is gonna come back soon after the ongoing exodus of wealth generators), and other short-term financial maneuvers that mostly push today’s fiscal pain into tomorrow’s budget. Those liabilities do not magically disappear; they continue growing while future administrations and taxpayers inherit larger obligations with less flexibility. The city effectively grabbed the largest can it could find, put on the largest shoe imaginable, and launched the problem as far down the road as possible, and hoped economic growth and future political leaders can magically deal with these expenses later. All of this while also waging a social war on wealth generation. The politics of free lunch eventually turn into a soggy sandwich nobody asked for, and everyone eventually pays for.

Good Luck.


Edit post