Follow Roosevelt Islander On:




Friday, October 3, 2014

Good News - Roosevelt Island F Train Service To And From Manhattan This Weekend

According to the MTA Weekender, there will be Roosevelt Island F train service

to and from Manhattan this weekend.

F Trains run local in both directions between 21 St-Queensbridge and 71 Av

Weekends, 12:01 AM Sat to 5 AM Mon, until Oct 13

Trains stop at 36, Steinway, 46 Sts, Northern Blvd, 65 St, Roosevelt, Elmhurst, Grand Avs, Woodhaven Blvd, 63 Dr and 67 Av.


NotMyKid said...


You work for yours, I work for mine. There is no equality when it comes to money.

Don't like it? Go back to school or aim higher.

Mark Lyon said...

In her mind, though, it's better to take from others, because the people who don't have money are obviously more deserving of lucre than those who have it.

As someone who has both both not had and had (at least a marginal amount of) money, though, I can't say it would have pleased me to find my source of subsidy in worse times to have been the result of a forced taking from another, equally hardworking and deserving person.

I'm all for charity and understand that, as a society, we need to protect our neighbors when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable, but she seems to promote a lifestyle of dependence on the largess and favors of those with their hands in the pockets of others. It's a shame that such a great nation can produce such horrible people who see our desire for charity and security and deign to abuse that instinct in order to avoid taking any form of responsibility for their own lot in life.

CheshireKitty said...

What are you saying? We shouldn't pay income tax? You don't believe in the brackets, which are designed to transfer income/wealth from the upper-income to the lower-income members of society, in the form of the social safety net, as well as benefits everyone takes for granted such as public school education, infrastructure projects such as power generation/electrification and rail projects, and so forth? Are you an anti-tax "extremist" - would rather go back to the "good old days" before the income tax was voted in - to fund vital programs such as our military?

CheshireKitty said...

I suppose you, Mark Lyon, feel that President Obama, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and even one of your "main men" President George W. Bush, are all "horrible people" as they all pushed to implement the initiation/expansion of our social safety net. How very unpatriotic.

Moreover, our recent Mayoral election revealed that the majority of New Yorkers, who enthusiastically voted for de Blasio, were all "horrible people" insofar as they embraced de Blasio's recommendation that the rich, i.e. those making in excess of $250,000/year, pay an extra tax to fund Universal Pre-K.

Likewise, on a national level, I suppose you Mark Lyon and you Yet, would have to characterize the overwhelming majority of Americans of any political stripe as "horrible people" since they hold Social Security and Medicare dear to their hearts. It seems that people like you are few and far between - in your disdain of compassion for the elderly, poor, and disabled. The Bible - Old Testament and New, as well as texts/tenets of many religions, of course have a lot more to say about those who do not care for their less fortunate neighbors.

Your problem is that you are not living in the century that would exactly suit you: The era prior to the implementation of progressive taxation and the social safety net. You can only imagine the crueler era and kvetch that it is gone, because you will never succeed in scuttling the social safety net, no matter how you try. The numbers just aren't there: 1% vs. 99%.

Also, let's not forget that the social safety net (based on socialism) was first implemented in 19 C Germany by none other than Otto von Bismarck, an arch-conservative otherwise.
Why? He saw what "I got mine, now you get yours" always leads to: Social chaos, and eventually, revolution.

Thus, the rich figured: It is better to give a "little" - of course, the amount the rich must give in the form of tax is always negotiable/variable - than to lose a "lot" i.e. rage leading to destruction and so forth - or worse still, have the entire "system" fall apart (aka economic collapse) and possibly get swallowed up in the dreaded "nationalization" and so forth.

Mark Lyon said...

You're not asking for people to pay their share, helping to cover the debts that we, as a society, incur in providing for a common defense or promoting the general welfare. You're calling for an outright taking from those who have a certain amount of money and redistribution to those who have lesser amounts of money, and you're calling for doing so at a level that would likely result - once all other taxes and costs are factored in- in negative income on at least the portion of earnings necessary to place one in the bracket you propose.

You're a fool, either willfully ignorant of the practicalities of the world around you or so unwilling to question the things you're told that you merely parrot the latest talking point from those who have convinced you that they'll help you improve your sorry lot in life.

The wealthiest among us already pay far more in taxes than others. Since around 2003, the top 1% paid more federal taxes than the bottom 90% combined. Even if we're to feign ignorance of the unfairness of such a situation (after all, the 1% don't get better services for their increased contribution to the common weal) placing society's economic future in the hands of so few is incredibly dangerous and risks ruin if those collections fall below expectations.

Providing reasonable supports for the needs of the government and our people, and distributing that burden in a reasoned and fair manner provides far more stability and doesn't seek to punish success.

CheshireKitty said...

"The highest rate for regular marginal income tax in the twentieth century was instated under Franklin D. Roosevelt toward the end of World War II at 94 percent. A marginal income tax of over 90 percent for top earners lasted well beyond the end of the war."

If you are calling prior Presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, fools, for instituting and continuing the 90%+ bracket, then you are really un-patriotic. Interestingly, the time of least income inequality, when this bracket was in effect, coincided with an expansion of the economy.

It appears that you Mark Lyon are the fool, and an un-patriotic one at that.

NotMyKid said...

Typical. This is why people refuse to go to work and aim higher for their progression in life. Everything and everyone just waits for their hand outs in life.
Why strive for better living if I get a free apartment, free food stamps, free medical. Why even bother? American dram right there!

YetAnotherRIer said...

Are you saying that healthcare is supposed to be dependent on one's income?

OldRossie said...

You have to realize that you lose credibility when you say things like: Mark calling some presidents fools because he called you a fool; Mark calling Obama a horrible person because he referred to abusers as horrible people; Saying Bush is his "main man".. who knows why!

Someone presents an opinion, and you exaggerate it enough so you can force in your own opinion. Sad really.

KTG said...

I can't speak for Mark (and really you shouldn't either) a major issue for me in taxation based approach is graft and patronage system it supports. On both sides of the aisle but in NYC & NYS the reality is theft is largely on democratic side (Silver, Lopez, Espada, Smith, etc).

To me giving more money to people who have proven them selves to be irresponsible at best, and criminal in most cases is like giving an alcoholic who crashes car a better car hoping they won't wreck this one. Until this more proactively addressed I don't think anyone should be asked to pay more.

On the whole 90% tax bracket in the 30's, 40's & 50's keep in mind we were paying off financial crisis and war debt, which was fiscally sound. The focus was on right sizing national debt not running a massive social agenda. In LBG years we stopped tracking to debt reduction as we funded "Great Society" and Vietnam, This ended up being a huge blow to economy that across all tax brackets.

OldRossie said...

Only seems fair, doesn't it? I'll give you more money if I agree with how it's spent...
There's a laundry list of abuses, lacks of oversight and accountability.. Even if you agree with socialist programs you can't trust that's where your salary is going. Conversely if you somehow get away with not contributing, the government will just keep borrowing against you to pay for.. whatever...

Ultimately, we don't have a choice. We're all going to have to pay in. We may as well work toward an equitable balance where earners contribute a fair portion to support those in need who are defined in fair terms.

But lets be honest, it's a pipe dream. It requires people who work hard for their money to be willing to give it away, it requires people who don't have any money to be honest about why, and it requires the intermediary not to skim off the top. Certainly plenty of people are honest in doing their part. But will there every be enough? Doubtful.

KTG said...

look at today's main post on the blog, its perfect example. RIOC is a relatively small body with limited budget yet wastes 80k over a 2 year window.

CheshireKitty said...

Well, that's "genius" thinking, Not: For those of us who cannot "strive" for whatever reason, old age, disability, lack of good-paying jobs and so forth, what exactly do you recommend? We know what the Nazis did with the infirm - they were the first to be "removed" since they were considered a "burden." Is that what you recommend?

CheshireKitty said...

Yet: Obviously, Not is opposed to "socialism" in the US, in the form of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and housing subsidies (to name some of the programs of our social safety net).

However, unfortunately for Not, these very programs that are based on socialist principles, are overwhelmingly popular with the American people, especially Social Security and Medicare, because millions of Americans rely on programs like Social Security after having paid taxes into them all their working lives.

I've explained that the "father" of these "socialist" programs was Bismarck, a 19 C right-wing conservative in Germany: The article explains why Bismarck felt it was critical to institute social safety net "socialized" insurance programs (pension/disability/unemployment insurance and so forth).

KTG said...

Hang on multiple programs exist to get disabled into work force and where its nit feasible I agree a social safety net should exist.


OldRossie said...

Now you're talking about Nazis!! The ridiculousness of it just ruins any point you might have had.

CheshireKitty said...

Now you are reciting the conservative mantra that all of us should save and invest our savings in the stock market, in 401(k) and so forth - we should all be "mini-capitalists" that way, right?

In the best of all possible worlds, where the cost of living would allow for savings, that might be possible, I suppose. Also, in a society where savings is paramount, as opposed to the reality where spending drives the economy, it might be possible.

Social Security, OTOH, and the other social safety net programs, are based on the concept of "enforced saving" - they assume the majority of people do not have the discipline to save enough for their retirement, which is, for better or worse, very true. Remember, you only get as much out of Social Security old age pension as you pay in over a lifetime of working.

Socialized insurance programs are necessary, even in societies where saving/frugality is a tradition, they are in effect and wildly popular.

Consider Germany, which continues to enjoy an extensive social safety net, since the time of Bismarck. The social safety net exists side-by-side with a robust capitalist economy. How can you possibly complain about an arrangement that has led to what is probably the #1 European economy? The social safety net generous benefits mean that society hums along, there is less discontent, less of a chance there will be strikes, disruption of business, and so forth.

The US is currently the world's #1 economy, and has enjoyed the benefits of a social safety net for almost a hundred years. Consider for a moment, was the US the #1 world power, both economically and militarily, before the social safety net, including the 90%+ tax bracket, was instituted by FDR, or after the social safety net including the 90%+ tax bracket, was instituted? The answer is: The US emerged as the #1 world power after a version "socialism" in the form of a social safety net was instituted.

Our social safety net brought with it social peace and economic progress and more or less led, along with the sacrifice of so many lives in the war against fascism, to where we are today - the #1 place economically and militarily.

CheshireKitty said...

Well, maybe it is ridiculous, but the principle of "you either work or you perish in a completely uncharitable, unforgiving landscape" was one of the hateful cornerstones of fascism in the last century.

The problem isn't so much that people refuse to work, it's that work is not fairly compensated. The exploitation of workers means that full-time Walmart employees across the country apply for social safety net benefits such as Food Stamps - and qualify! Therefore, the taxpayers are subsidizing the Walton family's greed, in not paying a living wage to these employees as determined by the Federal poverty guidelines that determine Food Stamp eligibility! Do you defend the Walton family's wage policies, Rossie? How can you?

KTG said...

On first paragraph yes, your future is your responsibility, that what makes it yours.

And social security was never designed to serve the purpose you outlined. No one not even FDR has ever said that. It was designed to assist those who had left work force in times of crisis. if that was the case why would redundant and wasteful.

Lastly Germany is just starting to feel this but most of its European counterparts are feeling weight of these programs as retirees live longer and system can not sustain itself. And actually Germany prosperity is actually a benefit of its historical industrial infrastructure where other neighbors lack that capability (ex. UK).

KTG said...

By just blaming Walmart or any employer you choose to ignore the individual (for adults) and family (for minors) responsibility to pursue avenues of economic enhancement (school or vocational training.

Multiple studies have found two key repeatable factors for poverty they are lack of education and early pregnancy (teen). The studies state while that both create significant long term economic pressures and that both are avoidable.

CheshireKitty said...

Well, how about the elderly, even those who saved? How much would they have had to save to "make it" in today's economy?

When they were saving, it's possible housing for even a 2 BR apartment, was under $200/mo. I know I was paying under $200/mo for a 2-BR in Brooklyn even as recently as the mid-80s. If you are budgeting for a rent during your working life, anticipating a similar rent when you retire, that no longer exists, then what? Just - kick the elderly to the sidewalk, because they did not anticipate that the rent on a 2-BR would be $2,000/mo by the time they retired? Is that the "solution?"

CheshireKitty said...

I certainly am blaming Walmart and the low-paying fast-food chains; someone has to perform this work, and in today's economy, with the dearth of jobs, even McJobs are sometimes the main source of income for families. A job is a job - why shouldn't the Walton family pay a decent living wage to their employees, and the same for the fast-food workers? You feel good about subsidizing the Walton family's greed? I guess this is the Republican way, though: Retain as much profit as possible, and soak the rest of the American people, get them to pay for the Federal Food Stamp subsidy so your low-paid Walmart employees can survive! How very patriotic.

KTG said...

again that's why long term focus should be on home ownership but you don't believe in that because it makes you some kind of sell out,

KTG said...

what about personal accountability or is easier to ignore that point so you can rant. but then I forgot your old employer saw your decreasing skills and shelved you, but you still haven't admitted that to yourself.

CheshireKitty said...

And so, what are you saying? That because someone doesn't have a college degree, they're doomed to be poor? Is that it? That not having a college degree makes it OK for Walmart to not pay a living wage? And that we should all blame "them" for having the audacity to actually have kids, when, you know, "they really can't afford it!"

So what do you suggest then - the poor stay poor because they do not have educational attainments, or have dared have kids?

My counter-suggestion is that the working class, which would include the Walmart workers, the fast-food workers, and all sorts of other workers in many other industries who are currently exploited by means of low wages, instead receive a living wage. I think more money in the form of salary is the "cure" for poverty. Otherwise, Joe Taxpayer has to make up the difference by financing through your tax remittances programs such as Food Stamps for those who do not make enough at full-time jobs to put food on the table. I guess you think that is all right though, as long as the Walmart family get to keep all their money it's alright for you to pay tax to help feed their poor, fully "employed" employees.

CheshireKitty said...

No, the solution is not home ownership: Not everyone wants to be a home owner.

The solution is rents/housing prices that are commensurate to pay, so that a person can afford to put a couple of dollars away in savings, after paying taxes. Currently, housing costs are out of whack with pay - the greed of landlords/developers is driving the real estate bubble. Eventually, the market will get over-heated and there will be a crash; this always happens, it's just a matter of time before it happens again.

Believe me, the social safety net, financed by the income tax/FICA, is never going to go away. Social Security, Medicare, etc., are popular programs and politicians know they are elected and re-elected based on if they can deliver on what their constituents want: Expansion of the social safety net.

Ergo, Medicare Part D - initiated by GW Bush, and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) better known as Obamacare - initiated by BH Obama.

OldRossie said...

This is the perfect CK response! You say the solution is not home ownership, but rather controlled rents. Earlier you said wages should be increased for the walmart employees etc. So in total: pay people more and charge them less to live. WHO!! WHO IS PAYING MORE AND CHARGING LESS!! Certainly not you! Buildings aren't free - they have to be owned and maintained, AT A COST. Food chains aren't free, they have to be owned and operated AT A COST. I'm not going to open a restaurant bear the risks and costs then give away my profit to the servers, and I'm not going to invest in rental property and lose money because "rents are too damn high!" THEN, whatever money I do earn will be withheld by the government to subsidize the modest rents I'm charging and and the food I'm giving away!!! Your world doesn't exist FOR A REASON.

OldRossie said...

Social Security does not just go to to the elderly. That's a common misconception. There are more than a few young people receiving welfare-like benefits from social security money.

NotMyKid said...

The way I see it is simple.

If you can afford to live there, you live there. If you don't, look elsewhere.

Did I complain when I was looking out of state at one point in my life and realizing I absolutely could not afford it? No. I looked elsewhere.

Very easy and simple.

OldRossie said...

Couldn't agree more.

CheshireKitty said...

No, you do not have the freedom to exploit employees at will. That is why there are minimum wage laws, and why the minimum wage in NY was raised, once your old buddy BB left office. You are living in a society, and that means profits are partially socialized, in the form of wages and benefits such as sick leave you pay. Obviously, with your mentality, you would have been happiest as a slave-owner in the ante-bellum South - in those days, you wouldn't have had to pay your slaves a dime, which, I suppose would have made you ultimately happy, since in that way you could retain all (or almost all - since you would have to pay for your slaves' upkeep) your profit.

We see that your way of looking at things was smashed, though; time and again, morality smashes slavery, exploitation and fascism. Despite your greed, the trend since Roman times has been toward emancipation and workers gaining the upper hand in terms of democracy (I'm sure you're against that, too, right?). unionization, the achievement of systems such as socialized medical and old age pensions, and so forth. Too bad for you - in the world you live in, the meek and weak, the elderly, unemployed, the disabled, and so forth, do inherit the world. Accept it - accept it philosophically/stoically, and move on.

OldRossie said...

KTG - what CK is saying, in short, is that we are from Roman times fighting to retain our slaves while we dine with bloomberg, but unfortunately for us, the meek have already inherited the earth... what do you think, drugs?

CheshireKitty said...

LOL. Actually, that's a good way of describing the struggle between ethics/humanity and exploitation/inhumanity. Your beliefs (I got mine, now you get yours) are inherently anti-human and anti-democratic (you cannot get the majority of the population - the 99% - to "vote" for their exploitation by the 1%) which is why fascism/exploitation is usually associated with dictatorship/monarchy/etc.

The workers - or, the "meek" - have inherited the earth (the last shall be the first, as the Bible says) if rights/protections/regulations etc are seen as "victories" of the meek over the exploiters.

Every victory since Roman times - the abolition of slavery, the right to organize labor unions, allowing workers to rest on the weekends (the concept of the weekend itself) the 8 hr work week, sick pay, holiday pay, overtime, shift differential, the minimum wage, and the range of additional benefits ("socialized" medical, pharmaceutical, disability, unemployment, and old age pension insurance), and so forth - is another victory of the meek/weak/powerless over the powerful/those who would exploit/arrogant/proud.

This was of course the "revolutionary" message of Christianity: The ethical system of valuing the weakest above the corrupt "kings"/exploiters/slave-holders, considering all men as brothers, sharing with those who have nothing, and valuing helping others - rather than exploiting them. "What's in it for me" in this ethical system is transformed into: "What can I do for you."

If those who hold your beliefs about pay (why should I pay a living wage to the serving staff?) were not selfish and greedy exploiters, then the struggle that started in Roman times, and extends to today, would not have been necessary.

However, greed knows no limit, as we know; and thus, ethics and morality were the appropriate reaction to de-humanization and exploitation (theft by the exploiter of the fruits of the labor of the exploited, i.e. value/money).

Some call it Marxism, others Christianity; still others feel the principles of socialism can be applied to mitigate the effects of greed/exploitation - and of course this is what we have here in the US and in the West, with the social safety net system.

Unfortunately, although slavery, or near-slavery conditions still exist in some areas of the world, in general, the most brutal manifestations of exploitation such as wide-spread slave labor/child labor/the serf system that once held sway in Europe and the West, are a thing of the past.

Because the most brutal forms of exploitation such as slavery are largely a thing of the past, we can say the meek have inherited the earth.

OldRossie said...

So does this mean we're not Nazis anymore?

CheshireKitty said...

Actually, I was laid off because, due to excellent performance reviews and raises over time, I was making about twice as much as newly-hired employees and quite a bit more than newly-hired supervisors. I always had excellent performance reviews and also put in innumerable hours of overtime, which fed into my making so much; and, as I explained, I also achieved many years of perfect attendance (no sick days) which was unmatched, and of course exceeded the reliability of even the machines (computers & so forth).

Once I was laid off, technically due to down-sizing, I was still treated with kid gloves as a most valued employee, and received the full package of retirement benefits with which they had previously been unsuccessfully trying to lure me into retiring.

And there were many more "positives" associated with my layoff. In short, my retirement package/layoff was a nice send-off, which minimized the economic impact of job loss. At this point, I am "earning" - via my pensions - exactly what I was taking home while I was working, so I have no complaints. I not only survived the economic downturn, I did well from my layoff. From a financial standpoint, I don't need to work - what about you, KTG? Still punching the clock?

As far as personal accountability - how exactly does that figure into the exploitation of low-wage jobs?

How is a Walmart worker supposed to be personally accountable if they are unable to support their family on a low wage?

Face it: There is only one solution, and that is to pay the Walmart worker a lot more, say in the neighborhood of $25/hr. Either that, or the cost of living must go down, but how likely is that to happen?

If the cost of living does not go down or wages go up, then there is no question that the rest of us, via our taxes, will need to continue to subsidize the greed of the Walton family, by underwriting the social safety net programs their exploited workers must make use of to survive, since they are actually eligible to receive these benefits, despite being full-time workers, under the Federal income guidelines regarding poverty.