Politics

[NorthDakota]

He was handed a $5.4 billion dollar deficit, he's proposed $1.7 billion in cuts already. Sure it's the free buses fault.

Free busses would raise the deficit by $800 million (annual total fare collected per chatgpt).

So....I mean it's something to consider

 

[drayer54]

He was handed a $5.4 billion dollar deficit, he's proposed $1.7 billion in cuts already. Sure it's the free buses fault.

I don't think you're correct. In fact, I think you're confusing a projected future shortfall and a wishlist of savings where only a small increment has been acted upon. They've also identified ~4B in new spending. It gets worse if Ken Griffin goes to Florida.

 

[GATTACA!]

I don't think you're correct. In fact, I think you're confusing a projected future shortfall and a wishlist of savings where only a small increment has been acted upon. They've also identified ~4B in new spending. It gets worse if Ken Griffin goes to Florida.

Mamdani administration identifies first budget cuts

New York City agencies found $1.7 billion in potential savings.

ny1.com

I don't think so. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. It does seem that the $5.4 billion is after his proposed cuts though.

Mamdani had tasked agency leaders to pick chief savings officers to identify ways to spend less. They found $1.7 billion in potential savings.

But his budget team only publicly identified more than $200 million worth of cuts that had been approved. Even if all cuts were approved, the city’s budget gap of $5.4 billion would remain.

“That $1.7 billion in savings is already built into how we get down to the $5.4 billion, and we’re confident in being able to deliver exactly that,” Mamdani said.

 

[Irish#1]

He was handed a $5.4 billion dollar deficit, he's proposed $1.7 billion in cuts already. Sure it's the free buses fault.

He's not going to eliminate the deficit with his grocery store.

 

[drayer54]

Mamdani administration identifies first budget cuts

New York City agencies found $1.7 billion in potential savings.

ny1.com

I don't think so. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. It does seem that the $5.4 billion is after his proposed cuts though.

Identified budget cuts are a wishlist. It’s even in the stuff you pasted. “Potential savings” “approved”

 

[GATTACA!]

Identified budget cuts are a wishlist. It’s even in the stuff you pasted. “Potential savings” “approved”

In my first post I said "proposed". He doesn't have unilateral authority to just cut whatever he wants.

 

[Fbolt]

Wondering if one will have to show some sort of NYC ID to shop at the "free grocery store"?

 

[NorthDakota]

Wondering if one will have to show some sort of NYC ID to shop at the "free grocery store"?

I would doubt it. The occasional tourist there buying stuff wouldn't be an issue. It's not like anyone would travel there from outside the city to grocery shop. I can't imagine many less convenient things

 

[Bishop2b5]

I would doubt it. The occasional tourist there buying stuff wouldn't be an issue. It's not like anyone would travel there from outside the city to grocery shop. I can't imagine many less convenient things

But think of the selection. I'm sure it will be marvelous!

 

[Fbolt]

I do dig that govie cheese. No joke!

 

[Irish#1]

 

[Bishop2b5]

Same people screaming Trump is a pedophile without any evidence are the ones protecting buying sex from young teens, sexualizing children with dragqueen story hour, pushing lgbtqlmnop on elementary school kids, putting porn in school libraries, and letting men in women's bathrooms with little girls.

 

[drayer54]

In my first post I said "proposed". He doesn't have unilateral authority to just cut whatever he wants.

 

[GATTACA!]

Same people screaming Trump is a pedophile without any evidence are the ones protecting buying sex from young teens, sexualizing children with dragqueen story hour, pushing lgbtqlmnop on elementary school kids, putting porn in school libraries, and letting men in women's bathrooms with little girls.

Typical republican political gamesmanship. Propose something that sounds logical, write a bill that's intentionally vague or could be easily misapplied, try to score points when Democrats want to make sure the bill doesn't have unintended consequences.

hUrR dUrR tHeY'rE pRotEcTiNg cHiLd rApIsTs!!

 

[NorthDakota]

The only stuff I found from a quick Google search indicate this is from last year and the proposal had to do with 18-19 year old teenagers soliciting.

If I'm wrong, ignore.

Gotta be careful with any of the ultra MAGA accounts and similarly, the goofy lib ones. They basically exist to make you mad and generate a few bucks of income.

 

[GATTACA!]

The only stuff I found from a quick Google search indicate this is from last year and the proposal had to do with 18-19 year old teenagers soliciting.

If I'm wrong, ignore.

Gotta be careful with any of the ultra MAGA accounts and similarly, the goofy lib ones. They basically exist to make you mad and generate a few bucks of income.

That's exactly what it was. Dems supported it just wanted the "wobblers" element taken out so that the law matched their statutory rape law. Just a carve out for teens within 3 years in age so you don't get parents accusing their 16 year old daughter's 19 year old boyfriend of a felony.

 

[NorthDakota]

That's exactly what it was. Dems supported it just wanted the "wobblers" element taken out so that the law matched their statutory rape law. Just a carve out for teens within 3 years in age so you don't get parents accusing their 16 year old daughter's 19 year old boyfriend of a felony.

Thats what I was thinking. I dont have a strong feeling one way or the other on it. But state legislatures are always dealing with stuff that can be framed kinda wild.

 

[TorontoGold]

The only stuff I found from a quick Google search indicate this is from last year and the proposal had to do with 18-19 year old teenagers soliciting.

If I'm wrong, ignore.

Gotta be careful with any of the ultra MAGA accounts and similarly, the goofy lib ones. They basically exist to make you mad and generate a few bucks of income.

It’s wild that people saw Jojo and Brooklyn Dad get flamed for being backs but are now getting continually duped by the MAGA version. Boomer gunna boom.

 

[Irish#1]

I'm sorry, I didn't know we can only discuss current news. Schumer and Jeffries are notorious for doing what you're complaining about, yet all we hear is crickets.

I guess the LA Times and KCRA don't count? Let me know which news sources are okay to use.

In late April and early May 2025, California Democratic lawmakers in the Assembly Public Safety Committee voted against a Republican-backed proposal to make it a felony to purchase sex from 16- and 17-year-olds.
KCRA +1
The move, which drew national attention and criticism, resulted in stripping a felony provision from Assembly Bill 379 (AB 379), a bill aimed at child sex trafficking consumers.
Los Angeles Times +1
Key Details of the Action:

• The Vote: The Democratic-led Assembly Public Safety Committee voted to block the felony provision for 16-17 year olds, maintaining it as a lower-level offense (misdemeanor) in that specific bill draft, despite a push to make it a felony, similar to laws for children 15 and under.
• The Rationale: Proponents of removing the felony provision, including some progressive Democrats, expressed concern that the law could be "weaponized" against older teenagers in consensual LGBTQ or interracial relationships, leading to felony charges for consensual behavior.
• Internal Division: The vote exposed a divide among California Democrats, with several moderate Democrats supporting the Republican effort to make the act a felony, saying 16- and 17-year-olds deserve the same protection as younger children.
• "Wobbler" Provision: Earlier discussions involved making this a "wobbler"—a crime that could be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony—but that was removed from the bill in committee.
• Support for the Change: The effort to block the felony was opposed by Republican lawmakers and prompted a rare public rebuke from California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has stated that purchasing sex from any minor should be a felony.
  KCRA +6

 

[Bishop2b5]

That's exactly what it was. Dems supported it just wanted the "wobblers" element taken out so that the law matched their statutory rape law. Just a carve out for teens within 3 years in age so you don't get parents accusing their 16 year old daughter's 19 year old boyfriend of a felony.

How does that have anything to do with purchasing sex from a minor? You know, prostitution. We all understand the idea that an 18-year-old shouldn't go to prison for having consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. Most states have such laws with most having a two year age gap window. Cali actually has one of the stricter such laws. However, this is about making it illegal to purchase sex from minors and seems aimed at prostitution instead of just keeping teens from being charged with felonies for having consensual sex with a slightly younger partner.

 

[TorontoGold]

I'm sorry, I didn't know we can only discuss current news. Schumer and Jeffries are notorious for doing what you're complaining about, yet all we hear is crickets.

I guess the LA Times and KCRA don't count? Let me know which news sources are okay to use.

In late April and early May 2025, California Democratic lawmakers in the Assembly Public Safety Committee voted against a Republican-backed proposal to make it a felony to purchase sex from 16- and 17-year-olds.
View attachment 3063181KCRA +1
The move, which drew national attention and criticism, resulted in stripping a felony provision from Assembly Bill 379 (AB 379), a bill aimed at child sex trafficking consumers.
View attachment 3063182Los Angeles Times +1
Key Details of the Action:

• The Vote: The Democratic-led Assembly Public Safety Committee voted to block the felony provision for 16-17 year olds, maintaining it as a lower-level offense (misdemeanor) in that specific bill draft, despite a push to make it a felony, similar to laws for children 15 and under.
• The Rationale: Proponents of removing the felony provision, including some progressive Democrats, expressed concern that the law could be "weaponized" against older teenagers in consensual LGBTQ or interracial relationships, leading to felony charges for consensual behavior.
• Internal Division: The vote exposed a divide among California Democrats, with several moderate Democrats supporting the Republican effort to make the act a felony, saying 16- and 17-year-olds deserve the same protection as younger children.
• "Wobbler" Provision: Earlier discussions involved making this a "wobbler"—a crime that could be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony—but that was removed from the bill in committee.
• Support for the Change: The effort to block the felony was opposed by Republican lawmakers and prompted a rare public rebuke from California Governor Gavin Newsom, who has stated that purchasing sex from any minor should be a felony.
  KCRA +6

Lighten up Francis. Slow down and read the criticism. It’s on the framing by MAGA4Liberty that everyone thinks is stupid. There’s a reason why you aren’t posting the source from a news org and doing it from a MAGA engagement farming account, think on why that is.

 

[GATTACA!]

How does that have anything to do with purchasing sex from a minor? You know, prostitution. We all understand the idea that an 18-year-old shouldn't go to prison for having consensual sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend. Most states have such laws with most having a two year age gap window. Cali actually has one of the stricter such laws. However, this is about making it illegal to purchase sex from minors and seems aimed at prostitution instead of just keeping teens from being charged with felonies for having consensual sex with a slightly younger partner.

I think the thought was that they didn't want a parent holding a gift or something over a kids head. Trying to claim the relationship was transactional. Idk seems like a pretty fringe and unlikely scenario, which is probably why Newsom told them to drop it.

 

[NorthDakota]

I think the thought was that they didn't want a parent holding a gift or something over a kids head. Trying to claim the relationship was transactional. Idk seems like a pretty fringe and unlikely scenario, which is probably why Newsom told them to drop it.

I think if that was the concern it was probably very silly, but I don't begrudge state/local types for getting hung up on things. Idk about California but our legislators here have full time jobs for the most part.

 

[drayer54]

This one never had a job and lived off her parents until she was 40. Seattle picked her anyways. Let them, like, burn.

 

[GATTACA!]

This one never had a job and lived off her parents until she was 40. Seattle picked her anyways. Let them, like, burn.

She’s right. The millionaires fleeing is a classic GOP boogeyman.

 

[Fbolt]

If so, it seems like the end of the world climate change fiasco. I have a feeling the increasing tax rates will result in an exodus.

 

[GATTACA!]

If so, it seems like the end of the world climate change fiasco. I have a feeling the increasing tax rates will result in an exodus.

Well it hasn’t and republicans have been beating the same drum for decades. MAGA is the party of cutting taxes on the 1% so no surprise.

 

[NorthDakota]

Well it hasn’t and republicans have been beating the same drum for decades. MAGA is the party of cutting taxes on the 1% so no surprise.

I don't think most of the high earners are leaving because taxes. If people leave, I think it's mostly because they are retiring or semi-retiring and they want better weather. At least at scale. Some people leave but most just complain. If you offered them the same job/salary in Omaha or Kansas City, I bet 99% would find an excuse to turn it down. The only thing that could cause an exodus I think is something like a wealth tax.

The bigger issue for NY i think is it has never been easier to work elsewhere in fields that used to be heavily concentrated in NYC. Lots of big finance/banking jobs that would have been added in NY in the past are in Charlotte, Miami, Dallas, etc.

Not sure how much of that is based on tax, lower expected salary, accommodating talent (NY is not for everyone). But those places have become very big in banking/finance.

Tl;Dr - NYers will complain. But they'll probably stay absent something wild.

Semi-related - during covid a fair number of BigLaw types that are from ND moved back here to work remote. So bar events and CLEs now have an interesting blend of solo practitioners, local prosecutors, and Chad Harvard from White Shoe PLLC.

 

[Fbolt]

Well it hasn’t and republicans have been beating the same drum for decades. MAGA is the party of cutting taxes on the 1% so no surprise.

Beating a drum for decades? I've most recently heard this in the "millionaires aren't paying their fair share" arguments. It's certainly made me rethink staying here in VA and has been a driver in getting out of WMA.

What do you say about the migration of people from Cali, NY, and Illinois moving to low-tax states?

 

[GATTACA!]

Beating a drum for decades? I've most recently heard this in the "millionaires aren't paying their fair share" arguments. It's certainly made me rethink staying here in VA and has been a driver in getting out of WMA.

What do you say about the migration of people from Cali, NY, and Illinois moving to low-tax states?

I say that the number of millionaires and billionaires in those states are growing and outpacing those that are leaving. In NY the number of millionaires has more than doubled since 2021 alone.

People in the media sabre rattling about higher taxes on rich people are running cover for rich people that don't want to pay more in taxes. Simple as that.