• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bloomberg's origin story

swing_voter

swing_voter

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
13,042
Reaction score
8,463
Location
'Murica
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Bloomberg was born at St. Elizabeth's Hospital, in Brighton, a neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts, on February 14, 1942, to William Henry Bloomberg (1906–1963), a bookkeeper for a dairy company,[5] and Charlotte (Rubens) Bloomberg (1909–2011).[6][7] The Bloomberg Center at the Harvard Business School was named in William Henry's honor.[8] His family is Jewish. He is a member of the Emanu-El Temple in Manhattan.[9] Bloomberg's paternal grandfather, Alexander "Elick" Bloomberg, was an immigrant from Russia.[2] Bloomberg's maternal grandfather, Max Rubens, was an immigrant from what is present-day Belarus.[10][11]

The family lived in Allston until Bloomberg was two years old, when they moved to Brookline, Massachusetts, for the next two years, finally settling in the Boston suburb of Medford, Massachusetts, where he lived until after he graduated from college.[12]

Bloomberg is an Eagle Scout.[13][14] Bloomberg graduated from Medford High School in 1960.[15]

Michael Bloomberg - Wikipedia
Click to expand...




Self made man living the American Dream.

That will resonate with voters.
 
Yeah, he's a real man of the people. :lamo
 
swing_voter said:
Self made man living the American Dream.

That will resonate with voters.
Click to expand...

Certainly not the minority vote, who know all to well what happens when the police are empowered with Constitutionally questionable tactics.

Or the lowest income quintile, who know all to well what 'sin taxes' does to their tight budgets.

He is no man of the people, and he has way too much baggage to survive open debate.
 
swing_voter said:
Self made man living the American Dream.

That will resonate with voters.
Click to expand...

But his policies wont. Infringement on speech, gun rights, capitalism. He smacks of one of those guys who was so successful he now has the freedom to tell and force others how to live.
 
How ironic would it be for the Democrats to nominate a top one percenter?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Certainly not the minority vote, who know all to well what happens when the police are empowered with Constitutionally questionable tactics.

Or the lowest income quintile, who know all to well what 'sin taxes' does to their tight budgets.

He is no man of the people, and he has way too much baggage to survive open debate.
Click to expand...

But Trump is so much worse so Bloomberg is not that bad of an alternative. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
But Trump is so much worse so Bloomberg is not that bad of an alternative. ;)
Click to expand...

Ironically, there may be plenty that look at it that way.

It truly is amazing that this is where we are today politically.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
But Trump is so much worse so Bloomberg is not that bad of an alternative. ;)
Click to expand...

If it comes down to effectively Republican Bloomberg or Trump, it's a very easy choice for me. Trump is that much worse IMO.
 
Last edited:
Nominee Bloombag = The Death Knell of the Democrat Party

:hm
 
JasperL said:
If it comes down to effectively Republican Bloomberg or Trump, it's a very easy choice for me. Trump is that much worse IMO.
Click to expand...

What does that say about the other DNC POTUS hopefuls? At least they seem to show some respect for those performing easy to learn jobs. Obviously, in order for Bloomberg to run against Trump, he must first best all his other demorat competitors - that does not involve Trump or even republicants in any way.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What does that say about the other DNC POTUS hopefuls? At least they seem to show some respect for those performing easy to learn jobs. Obviously, in order for Bloomberg to run against Trump, he must first best all his other demorat competitors - that does not involve Trump or even republicants in any way.
Click to expand...

Right, and I won't be voting for Bloomberg in my state's primary in a few weeks. All I was saying is Bloomberg is clearly preferable to Trump in every way IMO.

As to the other candidates, I see why Bloomberg is getting traction. I'm friends with a number of people who despise Trump with a red hot passion and will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate, but who aren't on the far left. So they want a moderate alternative, and Bloomberg is essentially a fiscal conservative with liberal social values. Thirty years ago he was and would still be a Republican. There's a lot of people in that category, and who also don't appreciate Trump's breathtaking ignorance, incompetence, recklessness, laziness, and apparent determination to burn all the institutions of the federal government to the ground, and shatter all norms of behavior we've come to expect from the President, such as for him to get through a single speech or rally without telling a dozen obvious lies.

So I absolutely get it. Bloomberg has proved he can handle tough politics as mayor of NYC, and Trump cannot intimidate him, or his campaign outspend him, and Bloomberg has proven he can and does hire excellent people, which is why he's worth $60 billion or whatever. I still can't vote for him in good conscience in the primary for several reasons, but in the general, it would be very easy.

And on the 'moderate' side in the primary, it's Biden (who is in the early stages of dementia IMO), or Pete who I don't support, or Klobuchar, who has the charisma of Hillary, which is to say almost none. Nobody else is viable. Enter Bloomberg....
 
He made his money on Wall Street and in politics. No one's going to be impressed.
 
Mongidig said:
How ironic would it be for the Democrats to nominate a top one percenter?
Click to expand...

Almost as ironic as the Repukes electing a serial adulterer lying conman malignant narcissist scumbag.
 
JasperL said:
Right, and I won't be voting for Bloomberg in my state's primary in a few weeks. All I was saying is Bloomberg is clearly preferable to Trump in every way IMO.

As to the other candidates, I see why Bloomberg is getting traction. I'm friends with a number of people who despise Trump with a red hot passion and will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate, but who aren't on the far left. So they want a moderate alternative, and Bloomberg is essentially a fiscal conservative with liberal social values. Thirty years ago he was and would still be a Republican. There's a lot of people in that category, and who also don't appreciate Trump's breathtaking ignorance, incompetence, recklessness, laziness, and apparent determination to burn all the institutions of the federal government to the ground, and shatter all norms of behavior we've come to expect from the President, such as for him to get through a single speech or rally without telling a dozen obvious lies.

So I absolutely get it. Bloomberg has proved he can handle tough politics as mayor of NYC, and Trump cannot intimidate him, or his campaign outspend him, and Bloomberg has proven he can and does hire excellent people, which is why he's worth $60 billion or whatever. I still can't vote for him in good conscience in the primary for several reasons, but in the general, it would be very easy.

And on the 'moderate' side in the primary, it's Biden (who is in the early stages of dementia IMO), or Pete who I don't support, or Klobuchar, who has the charisma of Hillary, which is to say almost none. Nobody else is viable. Enter Bloomberg....
Click to expand...

There is nothing socially liberal (or even moderate) about sin taxes, gun confiscation, red lining for real estate (or other secured loan) borrowers, using stop, question and frisk in only "those" neighborhoods or demeaning those working easier to learn jobs. Bloomberg is an elite control freak who is sure that his superior gray matter backed by his well deserved billions, of course, makes him fit to tell everyone how to live and work "properly".
 
Bloomberg's origin story
Click to expand...

He emerged fully formed from Scrooge McDuck's vault on planet Sintax and made it his life's mission to come to earth, snatch up all of the naughty things, and then purchase the planet.
 
Mongidig said:
How ironic would it be for the Democrats to nominate a top one percenter?
Click to expand...

Same amount of irony as for victims of the one percent to elect a one-percenter.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There is nothing socially liberal (or even moderate) about sin taxes, gun confiscation, red lining for real estate (or other secured loan) borrowers, using stop, question and frisk in only "those" neighborhoods or demeaning those working easier to learn jobs. Bloomberg is an elite control freak who is sure that his superior gray matter backed by his well deserved billions, of course, makes him fit to tell everyone how to live and work "properly".
Click to expand...

Right off the bat, stop and frisk isn't defensible IMO. It's a big reason I won't vote for him in the primary. But that was supported by Republicans, including HUGELY supported by Trump, so that won't be a factor in my vote in the general. It's a wash.

Sin taxes and gun control are arguably socially liberal. Look at cigarette taxes: https://fee.org/articles/how-high-a...vSFtTNcCbEiWJe-Z6bjJ0EEb3bSXiB7UaAnwVEALw_wcB

I understand opposition to both, but you can't claim they're an affront to Democrats given tobacco taxes.

And his comment did NOT support red lining. He was telling the same story told about 10,000 times on DP about the source of the mortgage and housing bubble - CRA, FNMA, banks FORCED to loan to the poor inner city, etc. which is a common REPUBLICAN talking point. Bring up the bubble and you'll see all our conservatives still repeating it. Call it fiscal conservatism if you want, but his ignorant defense of what IMO were criminal actions by his Wall Street buddies is a HUGE strike against him, even if he has, and I think it's true, he's later rejected that view as the data since then has convincingly shown otherwise.

Finally, his comment on the work force was out of context and I don't want to express an opinion on a minute of a much longer speech. I will say that the issues going forward ought to concern all of us. As AI and robotics get more advanced, lots of very serious thinkers believe it will be a huge problem. By definition, half the population is below average and lots of jobs, including my own doing mainly taxes, huge parts of the medical field like radiology, entire manufacturing plants, are replaced by software and sophisticated robots. So what high value jobs (and manufacturing jobs were high value in the 1950s) are going to employ the bottom half or bottom third of the workforce and pay decent wages? You can whine about him not respecting the working class, and that is likely true, but the concerns are real and advanced by very serious people with an agenda to HELP those left behind. It's one impetus behind things like Universal Basic Income.
 
JasperL said:
Right off the bat, stop and frisk isn't defensible IMO. It's a big reason I won't vote for him in the primary. But that was supported by Republicans, including HUGELY supported by Trump, so that won't be a factor in my vote in the general. It's a wash.

Sin taxes and gun control are arguably socially liberal. Look at cigarette taxes: The 10 States With the Highest Cigarette Taxes - Foundation for Economic Education

I understand opposition to both, but you can't claim they're an affront to Democrats given tobacco taxes.

And his comment did NOT support red lining. He was telling the same story told about 10,000 times on DP about the source of the mortgage and housing bubble - CRA, FNMA, banks FORCED to loan to the poor inner city, etc. which is a common REPUBLICAN talking point. Bring up the bubble and you'll see all our conservatives still repeating it. Call it fiscal conservatism if you want, but his ignorant defense of what IMO were criminal actions by his Wall Street buddies is a HUGE strike against him, even if he has, and I think it's true, he's later rejected that view as the data since then has convincingly shown otherwise.

Finally, his comment on the work force was out of context and I don't want to express an opinion on a minute of a much longer speech. I will say that the issues going forward ought to concern all of us. As AI and robotics get more advanced, lots of very serious thinkers believe it will be a huge problem. By definition, half the population is below average and lots of jobs, including my own doing mainly taxes, huge parts of the medical field like radiology, entire manufacturing plants, are replaced by software and sophisticated robots. So what high value jobs (and manufacturing jobs were high value in the 1950s) are going to employ the bottom half or bottom third of the workforce and pay decent wages? You can whine about him not respecting the working class, and that is likely true, but the concerns are real and advanced by very serious people with an agenda to HELP those left behind. It's one impetus behind things like Universal Basic Income.
Click to expand...

One drawback of UBI/BIG, as well as other "safety net" subsidies, is that they relieve the free market pressure on "job creators" to offer higher pay/benefits in order to attract and retain qualified labor.

My point about the mortgage loans is that it was not the buyer (who defaulted on the loan) who posed the problem, it was the lender overestimating the market value of the underlying asset in those "high risk" areas. With most real estate loans being (essentially) government insured, market traders felt free to pretend that all such insured loans were without substantial risk (in any given "bundle" of them being bought/sold) thus no need to further investigate the actual market value of each of those underlying (loan securing?) assets.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
One drawback of UBI/BIG, as well as other "safety net" subsidies, is that they relieve the free market pressure on "job creators" to offer higher pay/benefits in order to attract and retain qualified labor.

My point about the mortgage loans is that it was not the buyer (who defaulted on the loan) who posed the problem, it was the lender overestimating the market value of the underlying asset in those "high risk" areas. With most real estate loans being (essentially) government insured, market traders felt free to pretend that all such insured loans were without substantial risk (in any given "bundle" of them being bought/sold) thus no need to further investigate the actual market value of each of those underlying (loan securing?) assets.
Click to expand...

I agree with that mostly. The big problem was the lenders, that guy taking the loan application, didn't keep the loan on their books. Within 90 days in most cases, at most, they were free and clear because they sold it to some big bank who bundled it up into little pieces, then bought 'insurance' against default risk, and everyone took a big cut at each step and they were raking in money by the truckload. So nowhere did anyone have an incentive to even care about default risk, so long as the buyer could make 2 or 3 payments out of 360 scheduled.

And even THAT wasn't really the problem, and this is what Bloomberg should have known. The actual loans that went bad were nowhere NEAR enough to send the worldwide banking system into collapse. What did that is that one loan might represent or be the basis for 10X that amount in other bets on bets on bets on bets, $10s of Trillions with a T in opaque derivatives with god knew what offsets, and who held them and if they could honor their side of that bet. Etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom