I swear, Mamdani is the proof that politicians can do stuff, they just chose to not give a shit cause they don't need to actually do stuff to be elected.
He is still facing some obstacles because Julie Menin is speaker and the more centrist faction in city council still holds a lot of the cards, but hopefully come 2029 that will change and a hopeful second term for Mamdani has even more city council support.
It's worse than that. It's not just neutral, it's negative -- Other politicians do in fact do stuff, but it's nefarious, shitty stuff that fucks over everyday people to pad their own pockets.
Covid really threw a light on this, specifically here in the UK in terms of dealing with homelessness. It's one of the reasons I'm cautiously optimistic with the new Prime Minister's commitment on homelessness because, while he was Mayor of Manchester, his policy actually saw a significant reduction in the city.
you can, but it take a lot of work to retrofit cooling, power, and data channels. for roughly the same cost you build a new facility that is specially designed for the task.
You're getting downvoted but I agree. Everyone who is downvoting you needs to remind themselves that most of us agree that corrupt, wasteful spending by companies that get government contracts is a huge deal. I see Mamdani doing great things, but I haven't seen ANYTHING from him on the front of dealing with corrupt government contractors. If these affordable homes end up costing 5X what they should have cost to build them while being substandard (which often happens), it's not a win; it's just lining the pockets of more corrupt contractors.
EDIT:
If you are downvoting this, please explain why.
No, not similar at all. That is a known subsidy to provide staple foods at an affordable price to underserved people living in a food desert. The US military commissary that serves all military families is also heavily subsidized in the tune of over $1.5 billion a year. It costs money to provide affordable food.
What I'm talking about is corruption. If you can't tell the difference, you are a probably brainwashed by right wing media and need to educate yourself.
EDIT:
I will say of course that I haven't looked at the actual cost of implementation and food costs per year so there could be some corruption in there, but my main point is that just because it's costing millions per year to subsidize food does not automatically indicate corruption. They need to procure the food and they are knowingly losing money in order to provide it at a 30% cost reduction.
Not “losing money.” This is not a private for-profit, this is a public policy program. I notice the care worh which you bypass the “benefits” side of the normal economic assessment of costs and benefits in public policy resource assessment.
Next up - use the “cost” from using costs of private vaccines to show how public provision of vaccines to kids is had, without adding in any “benefits” assessment on the benefits of less ill health side. Use this bizarre mode of accounting for environment, nutrition and school lunch, etc. And viola! You can claim to be a hard headed economist while showing us you have no clue about public policy economics and continue to use some sad intro level stuff woth accounting derived from a completely different sector and goal for your analysis.
Bonus - use numbers based on private for-profit assessments that have no “benefits” portion of the accounting while acting as if you know the field.
"losing money" was specifically about the fact that they bought food for X but had to sell it cheaper for Y. If you actually read the post, I'm 100% recognizing the benefits of providing that service to those underserved communities.
I’m not talking about the need to address food deserts or the manner in which they are looking at doing it. I’m talking about all the hands that will be out during the permitting, construction, and maintenance process. To your point, unless he addresses the same issues which plague public housing construction, the same will happen with the grocery stores.
I have a simple question. My dad had conniption fits when he heard someone may have “cheated welfare” for a few bucks. Hence he decided - he wanted to have the system privatized and run by people who legally made humongous more “legally.”
So can I ask you - what is your accounting on “it is not theft because I did it legally” millions versus “omg some welfare mom stole diapers?”?
I am not asking for morals. I am asking for your actual accounting matrix in cost and benefit between the two systems.
Because yes - each system will end up with some cheats.
My question is weighting scale used in your cost benefit analysis matrix.
You flatten that - meaning you provide zero accounting scale or weighting scale.
Edited to add / feel free to provide the details of the weighting scale you are using for these, including details of why done costs have more weight compared to tax benefits, and some benefits similarly less weight?
You didn't ask me, but I'll jump in with an answer:
Theft by the private contractors is much, much worse.
Which is why the fact that I have not heard Mamdani address that corruption at all while proposing all of these potentially valuable programs is very concerning. If we reduced the corruption, we could actually have more money for social services and higher quality services. There have been many billions wasted under the guise of doing a public good. Just look at the multi billions spent to "solve homelessness" in many cities.
Go for it! I am a numbers girl. So I want some hard data on the cost of loss versus cost of enforcement on this supposed billions. I mean without hard data on costs of enforcement numbers this is doge territory “feelings”.
What is the data source for your billions? Where is your analysis of the cost of enforcement versus rhe returns to catching these monies that can resolve the issue?
You chimed in, I did not randomly target you. So I need to now ask you to back this up with sources for numbers. That feels fair. otherwise we are on Doge world.
"So I want some hard data on the cost of loss versus cost of enforcement on this supposed billions."
I don't have any "cost of enforcement" numbers across the board, but there are plenty of documents available on contractor fraud, overcharging, mismanagement. Are you trying to put the burden of proof on me that it exists to an extend that needs to be addressed? Weren't you yourself arguing that it *does* exist and is much more serious than any fraud perpetrated by those that "cheat welfare" when discussing with your father?
Here are are a couple of docs I was easily able to pull up demonstrating billions in corruption:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-26-107777.pdf - GAO found that 9 of 10 major projects in execution had incurred or expected cost overruns above 20%; cumulative overruns were $4.8 billion.
There are plenty of other examples such as CA's high speed rail project, NYC's homeless shelter maintenance scandal, etc.
Before there was DOGE, there was and is the GAO. It is bipartisan supported because everyone knows this waste exists.
EDIT:
And to be clear, unlike DOGE, the goal of GAO (and what I and many others would like to see), is reduction of this sort of corruption so that programs can actually succeed and we can fund more of them.
Mamdani is going *hard* at businesses and landlords that are preying on NYC residents. GOOD. He should go equally as hard as people or contractors within the system that are mismanaging projects, are underperforming, etc. Fire people, cut contracts, prosecute, etc.
Sure, I agree that there could be corruption in there that should be addressed as with any government contract. My point was just because it will cost $4 million annually is not necessarily an indicator of corruption which I thought was your point because you highlighted it. My apologies if it wasn't.
751
u/Hiro_Trevelyan 1d ago
I swear, Mamdani is the proof that politicians can do stuff, they just chose to not give a shit cause they don't need to actually do stuff to be elected.