MTA Seeks $4 Billion Virus Bailout

[R10 2952]

2 hours ago, Lex said:

Sadly, the Democrats just roll over and let them do whatever the hell they want.

We need real leadership...

Unfortunately, the DNC is too busy stacking the deck against Sanders (for the second time in a row, no less).  They want Biden, who just said that if elected he'd veto Medicare for All if it ever reached his desk.

Now whether Medicare for All is good or bad is an issue worthy of discussion, but coming out as firmly against an initiative to increase people's access to healthcare amidst a public health crisis is just bad PR, to say the least.

I never liked the Republicans, but at this point I am done with the mainstream Democrats.  Both completely out of touch with reality at this point.

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, R10 2952 said:

Unfortunately, the DNC is too busy stacking the deck against Sanders (for the second time in a row, no less).  They want Biden, who just said that if elected he'd veto Medicare for All if it ever reached his desk.

Now whether Medicare for All is good or bad is an issue worthy of discussion, but coming out as firmly against an initiative to increase people's access to healthcare amidst a public health crisis is just bad PR, to say the least.

I never liked the Republicans, but at this point I am done with the mainstream Democrats.  Both completely out of touch with reality at this point.

Just a gentle reminder that even if you are done with the Democrats, if you don't want Trump you should still vote blue.

Not voting is not really a rejection of the system, it's a tacit endorsement of whatever happens. 

[Deucey]

44 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

Unfortunately, the DNC is too busy stacking the deck against Sanders (for the second time in a row, no less).  They want Biden, who just said that if elected he'd veto Medicare for All if it ever reached his desk.

Now whether Medicare for All is good or bad is an issue worthy of discussion, but coming out as firmly against an initiative to increase people's access to healthcare amidst a public health crisis is just bad PR, to say the least.

I never liked the Republicans, but at this point I am done with the mainstream Democrats.  Both completely out of touch with reality at this point.

So as a “mainstream Democrat” who has worked campaigns in the past, and is the brother of a “mainstream Democrat” who’s been campaign manager of campaigns and is now a pundit for one of the networks, it’s not the DNC that wants Biden, it’s the Democrat voters that want Biden. That’s what these elections are saying.

And the irony here, as an almost two-decade insurance industry veteran, is that if Corona Virus leads to a full-on public health crisis here in the US as it did in Italy and is doing in Spain, all those field hospitals and related deficiencies in providing care is going to make it more likely that M4A will be seen as a weak compromise to establishing a proper National Health Service that covers everyone. Trump’s negligence to take this seriously months ago may be the catalyst for getting this proper health reform the nation’s been sidestepping since 1969 done finally.

[R10 2952]

37 minutes ago, Deucey said:

So as a “mainstream Democrat” who has worked campaigns in the past, and is the brother of a “mainstream Democrat” who’s been campaign manager of campaigns and is now a pundit for one of the networks, it’s not the DNC that wants Biden, it’s the Democrat voters that want Biden. That’s what these elections are saying.

And the irony here, as an almost two-decade insurance industry veteran, is that if Corona Virus leads to a full-on public health crisis here in the US as it did in Italy and is doing in Spain, all those field hospitals and related deficiencies in providing care is going to make it more likely that M4A will be seen as a weak compromise to establishing a proper National Health Service that covers everyone. Trump’s negligence to take this seriously months ago may be the catalyst for getting this proper health reform the nation’s been sidestepping since 1969 done finally.

Perhaps you and I have differing definitions of mainstream Democrats- mine is those who, in my experience, haven't cared about ordinary working people and/or reforming government for the better (Pelosi, Schumer, Cuomo) vs. those who have (Bernie Sanders, Jimmy Carter, LBJ).  I guess 'pro-corporate' would be a better substitute for 'mainstream'?

Either way, the Democratic Party is in need of serious reform as they are addicted to wealthy establishment donors and individuals more generally; they need to re-embrace the working class if they want to win back votes, not just the middle class.  As to Biden, I don't buy the whole narrative of him being dead in the water only to magically come out of left field overnight.  I don't buy Biden legitimately winning Washington state where Sanders trounced Hillary by a large margin four years ago.  I don't buy a guy who, for all we know, might try to give Hillary the VP slot.  I don't believe in coincidences, not at this point in my life- where I see smoke, I suspect fire.

Until the Dem leadership does some serious work on reducing their credibility gap, I'm going to have a hard time taking them seriously again.  Fortunately I've had enough sense to never take the Republicans seriously on anything.  I guess the moral of the story is, two parties are not enough to fairly represent 330 million people and their various viewpoints- the "big-tent" concept is a fallacy.

 

As to Medicare for all, whether it is a good idea or a bad one, it would constitute a first step in the right direction all the same.  Right now, to get to an NHS-type system, one would have to start from nothing, while also trying to overcome the strong opposition that would inevitably result from those who have a vested interest in keeping things as they are (pharma executives/profiteers, insurance corporate leadership, Wall Street investors, et ceter).

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

52 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Just a gentle reminder that even if you are done with the Democrats, if you don't want Trump you should still vote blue.

Not voting is not really a rejection of the system, it's a tacit endorsement of whatever happens. 

Not sure I can agree with that, given how Biden and other Dems have basically played down the progressive wing and their concerns when they can (the man even said at a dinner with wealthy donors that "nothing will fundamentally change") You are not winning those voters over, and I'm not blaming anyone who feels that way. If Biden wins the election, whoever his VP is will likely more or less agree with him on policy issues, and will most likely be the preferred candidate come next election. So it's either 4 years of Trump or 8/12 years of a candidate who is a democrat but will bring nothing to the table. It's exactly why you have so many people who don't bother voting, and people who are uninterested in politics (and have deep cynicism and disdain towards politicians). 

50 minutes ago, Deucey said:

So as a “mainstream Democrat” who has worked campaigns in the past, and is the brother of a “mainstream Democrat” who’s been campaign manager of campaigns and is now a pundit for one of the networks, it’s not the DNC that wants Biden, it’s the Democrat voters that want Biden. That’s what these elections are saying.

And the irony here, as an almost two-decade insurance industry veteran, is that if Corona Virus leads to a full-on public health crisis here in the US as it did in Italy and is doing in Spain, all those field hospitals and related deficiencies in providing care is going to make it more likely that M4A will be seen as a weak compromise to establishing a proper National Health Service that covers everyone. Trump’s negligence to take this seriously months ago may be the catalyst for getting this proper health reform the nation’s been sidestepping since 1969 done finally.

The media has a very big impact on everything too (and for their self interests). Sanders may be losing, but his ideas either are or have become popular (such as M4A). A lot of the Biden demographic are older voters, who are just not looking up stuff independently and rely on whatever is mentioned on cable news. A lot of those networks have some degree of airing Sanders (and left/progressives) negatively and Biden more positively, with MSNBC being notorious for it. Sanders has the policies, but is losing on the basis of electability, which will mean nothing if when it's Biden vs. Trump. Regardless whether you love or hate Trump, he knows exactly what to do to flip stuff back at his opponents, and Biden's record alone offers a lot of ammo. 

Edited March 19, 2020 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Not sure I can agree with that, given how Biden and other Dems have basically played down the progressive wing and their concerns when they can (the man even said at a dinner with wealthy donors that "nothing will fundamentally change") You are not winning those voters over, and I'm not blaming anyone who feels that way. If Biden wins the election, whoever his VP is will likely more or less agree with him on policy issues, and will most likely be the preferred candidate come next election. So it's either 4 years of Trump or 8/12 years of a candidate who is a democrat but will bring nothing to the table. It's exactly why you have so many people who don't bother voting, and people who are uninterested in politics (and have deep cynicism and disdain towards politicians). 

The point being, is that if you made an active decision to not vote, that is just a tacit endorsement of whatever happens. Holding your arms while a forest fire is raging is not actively adding gasoline to a fire, but it's also not squirting a Poland Spring bottle to try and put some of it out. You don't get to whine about "why is the fire still going".

Don't complain about how votes go if you're not willing to participate in it.

Edited March 19, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[R10 2952]

I never said I didn't vote.  The reason I complain in the first place is because the people I used to vote for in the past (many Democrats) let me down, so I started voting independent and third-party.  If I can't have an elected official who I trust, then at least I can have a clean conscience.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

47 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The point being, is that if you made an active decision to not vote, that is just a tacit endorsement of whatever happens. Holding your arms while a forest fire is raging is not actively adding gasoline to a fire, but it's also not squirting a Poland Spring bottle to try and put some of it out. You don't get to whine about "why is the fire still going".

Don't complain about how votes go if you're not willing to participate in it.

I'll vote for sure,for the person who I am most aligned with in terms of policy. But at the same time, you can't throw people who are the same ol' thing and expect people the vote for them. Politicians (are supposed to) work for us and have to earn votes, not the other way around.

Edited March 20, 2020 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[CenSin]

3 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Perhaps you and I have differing definitions of mainstream Democrats- mine is those who, in my experience, haven't cared about ordinary working people and/or reforming government for the better (Pelosi, Schumer, Cuomo) vs. those who have (Bernie Sanders, Jimmy Carter, LBJ).  I guess 'pro-corporate' would be a better substitute for 'mainstream'?

Either way, the Democratic Party is in need of serious reform as they are addicted to wealthy establishment donors and individuals more generally; they need to re-embrace the working class if they want to win back votes, not just the middle class.  As to Biden, I don't buy the whole narrative of him being dead in the water only to magically come out of left field overnight.  I don't buy Biden legitimately winning Washington state where Sanders trounced Hillary by a large margin four years ago.  I don't buy a guy who, for all we know, might try to give Hillary the VP slot.  I don't believe in coincidences, not at this point in my life- where I see smoke, I suspect fire.

Until the Dem leadership does some serious work on reducing their credibility gap, I'm going to have a hard time taking them seriously again.  Fortunately I've had enough sense to never take the Republicans seriously on anything.  I guess the moral of the story is, two parties are not enough to fairly represent 330 million people and their various viewpoints- the "big-tent" concept is a fallacy.

 

As to Medicare for all, whether it is a good idea or a bad one, it would constitute a first step in the right direction all the same.  Right now, to get to an NHS-type system, one would have to start from nothing, while also trying to overcome the strong opposition that would inevitably result from those who have a vested interest in keeping things as they are (pharma executives/profiteers, insurance corporate leadership, Wall Street investors, et ceter).

I think we’re f****d if Biden wins over Sanders. We get 2016 all over again as disillusioned young Democrats wonder why this happened again. But there are a lot of variables at play:

• Economic depression taints Trump’s current presidency—something he most definitely can’t pin on Obama.
• Economic measure like free money quells the populace’s anger—the bread-and-circus trick of the ancient Romans.
• CoViD 19 kills off the Republican voting base before November—which shouldn’t be too hard as Faux news just told them “Chinese virus = Democrat manufactured hoax” just two weeks ago.
• Democrats will turn out at the voting booths just to ensure Trump does not get reëlected. Given his inflammatory actions for the past 4 years, this could an incredible motivating force whether the candidate is Biden, zombie Andrew Yang, or even Hillary.

Edited March 20, 2020 by CenSin

[GojiMet86]

I'll be voting blue no matter what, but it already feels like a disappointment. Once again, the head honchos are sticking with the safest bet in Biden. I'm not even sure how much of the progressive agenda would be implemented with him. If Sanders somehow manages to win everything, at least I can expect his proposals to be watered down but that would still be more than Biden, who insists on keeping a lot of stuff the same.

 

If Sanders was leading, would everyone be so quick to say vote blue no matter who?

[R10 2952]

4 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

I'll be voting blue no matter what, but it already feels like a disappointment. Once again, the head honchos are sticking with the safest bet in Biden. I'm not even sure how much of the progressive agenda would be implemented with him. If Sanders somehow manages to win everything, at least I can expect his proposals to be watered down but that would still be more than Biden, who insists on keeping a lot of stuff the same.

 

If Sanders was leading, would everyone be so quick to say vote blue no matter who?

Personally, I could see myself acquiescing to Biden if he offered Sanders the vice-presidency.  Otherwise, all bets are off.

[CenSin]

43 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

Personally, I could see myself acquiescing to Biden if he offered Sanders the vice-presidency.  Otherwise, all bets are off.

I plan to sit out if we get a Biden–Hillary combo. In a situation like that, we need Trump to bring more despair to the country, because obviously the Democrats will not have learned their lesson.

[R10 2952]

10 minutes ago, CenSin said:

I plan to sit out if we get a Biden–Hillary combo. In a situation like that, we need Trump to bring more despair to the country, because obviously the Democrats will not have learned their lesson.

I think a lot of people will if it comes to that.  At the end of the day, no one I've spoken with ever wants to see her of all people in government again.  God forbid.

[Deucey]

22 hours ago, RR503 said:

If it doesn't, we're likely going to have a front-line seat to a wave of transit authority defaults/bankruptcies. There really isn't a way for the agency to cut its way out of this -- the gap is too large. This isn't to say that I at all disagree with your assessment here, just saying this will be catastrophic. 

Three interesting things about possible  bankruptcy:

Chapter 9 lets municipal corporations file, and they can have CBAs rewritten as part of the filing; and

 Since technically states cannot file for bankruptcy, and state laws have to permit agencies and municipalities to file bankruptcy, and divisions of the state government technically can’t file bankruptcy, does  even have it as an option? Lastly:

Since ’s creation didn’t actually dissolve NYCTA, MABSTOA, or TBTA - it’s by statute that  board members and officers are also NYCTA and TBTA board members and officers - who has the debt:  or the not-dissolved subsidiaries authorities? And does filing through the subsidiaries get around that “states cannot file” technicality?

(I left out the railroads since those were private companies purchased directly by , so they don’t have the same legal fictions as the bridges, buses and subway.)

[SubwayFan3000]

On 3/17/2020 at 7:09 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

Say goodbye to phase 2 of SAS and ESA for 5 more years... looks as if the biggest capital project that will get done at this point will be the Nostrand Avenue exit re-openings...

that means phase 2 of SAS and ESA will be dead? smh

[SubwayFan3000]

8 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Perhaps you and I have differing definitions of mainstream Democrats- mine is those who, in my experience, haven't cared about ordinary working people and/or reforming government for the better (Pelosi, Schumer, Cuomo) vs. those who have (Bernie Sanders, Jimmy Carter, LBJ).  I guess 'pro-corporate' would be a better substitute for 'mainstream'?

Either way, the Democratic Party is in need of serious reform as they are addicted to wealthy establishment donors and individuals more generally; they need to re-embrace the working class if they want to win back votes, not just the middle class.  As to Biden, I don't buy the whole narrative of him being dead in the water only to magically come out of left field overnight.  I don't buy Biden legitimately winning Washington state where Sanders trounced Hillary by a large margin four years ago.  I don't buy a guy who, for all we know, might try to give Hillary the VP slot.  I don't believe in coincidences, not at this point in my life- where I see smoke, I suspect fire.

Until the Dem leadership does some serious work on reducing their credibility gap, I'm going to have a hard time taking them seriously again.  Fortunately I've had enough sense to never take the Republicans seriously on anything.  I guess the moral of the story is, two parties are not enough to fairly represent 330 million people and their various viewpoints- the "big-tent" concept is a fallacy.

 

As to Medicare for all, whether it is a good idea or a bad one, it would constitute a first step in the right direction all the same.  Right now, to get to an NHS-type system, one would have to start from nothing, while also trying to overcome the strong opposition that would inevitably result from those who have a vested interest in keeping things as they are (pharma executives/profiteers, insurance corporate leadership, Wall Street investors, et ceter).

Bernie is not as strong was he was back in 2016, he is showing weakness and lacking capacity.

[N6 Limited]

On 3/18/2020 at 11:31 PM, RR503 said:

If it doesn't, we're likely going to have a front-line seat to a wave of transit authority defaults/bankruptcies. There really isn't a way for the agency to cut its way out of this -- the gap is too large. This isn't to say that I at all disagree with your assessment here, just saying this will be catastrophic. 

 

On 3/18/2020 at 11:37 PM, bobtehpanda said:

Not the first bankruptcy Trump's seen, certainly not the last

I think the point is that if transit agencies go bankrupt then those pensions go bye bye.

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

 

I think the point is that if transit agencies go bankrupt then those pensions go bye bye.

The State Constitution guarantees pensions for state employees, so no dice. I'm pretty sure MTA employees count as state employees for that purpose (other than the railroads).

Literally no one mentioned pensions until your post.

[N6 Limited]

On 3/21/2020 at 3:56 PM, bobtehpanda said:

The State Constitution guarantees pensions for state employees, so no dice. I'm pretty sure MTA employees count as state employees for that purpose (other than the railroads).

Literally no one mentioned pensions until your post. 

They used plural for bankruptcies, in which I thought they were referring to agencies across the country.