Bloomberg said on NBC's "Meet The Press. The president campaigned back -- in -- on a bill that would -- prohibit assault weapons. Transcript of the August 1, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, December 7, President-elect Barack Obama makes his first. Michael Rubens Bloomberg KBE (born February 14, ) is an American businessman, .. On October 2, , Bloomberg announced he would seek to extend the .. On January 7, , he met at the University of Oklahoma with a bipartisan . , Bloomberg penned an op-ed officially endorsing Barack Obama for.
New York City mayoral election, Bloomberg was re-elected mayor in November by a margin of 20 percent, the widest margin ever for a Republican mayor of New York City. Thomas Ognibene sought to run against Bloomberg in the Republican Party's primary election. New York City mayoral election, On October 2,Bloomberg announced he would seek to extend the city's term limits law and run for a third mayoral term inarguing a leader of his field was needed following the financial crisis of — New York City mayoral election, On September 13,Bloomberg announced that he would not endorse any of the candidates to succeed him.
And that's one of the reasons I've decided I'm just not going to make an endorsement in the race. Earlier in the month, Bloomberg was chastised in the press for his remarks regarding Democratic mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio 's campaign methods.
I think it's pretty obvious to anyone watching what he's been doing. I do not think he himself is racist. It's comparable to me pointing out I'm Jewish in attracting the Jewish vote. You tailor messages to your audiences and address issues you think your audience cares about.
He is regarded as socially liberal or progressive on multiple issues, supporting abortion rights, same-sex marriage, strict gun control measures, environmentalism and a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
On economics and foreign issues, Bloomberg has tended towards a conservative or moderate stance. He opposed a timeline for withdrawal from the Iraq Warand criticized those who favored one.
Economically, he supports government involvement in issues such as public welfare, while being strongly in favor of free trade, pro-business, and describing himself as a fiscal conservative because he balanced a city budget.
On this issue, you're either with us or against us. He has stated that he smoked marijuana in the past, and was quoted in a interview as saying "You bet I did. Bloomberg stated in a interview that he regrets the remark and does not believe that marijuana should be decriminalized. We're determined to see that gun dealers who break the law are held accountable, and that criminals who carry illegal loaded guns serve serious time behind bars.
He favors after-school programs to help students who are behind. As mayor, Bloomberg strengthened the cell-phone ban in schools. A Greener, Greater New York on April 22,to fight global warming, protect the environment and prepare for the projected 1 million additional people expected to be living in the city by the year In NovemberNew York City planted its one millionth tree, two years ahead of the original year schedule.
Let's give them permanent status. You might as well as sit in your beach chair and tell the tide not to come in. As long as America remains a nation dedicated to the proposition that 'all Men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness', people from near and far will continue to seek entry into our country.
Beginning with five schools, the pilot had been expanded to thirteen schools by September The legislation requires that at each event, the mohel receives signed consent forms from the parents, acknowledging that they were notified of health risks associated with cleaning the wound by sucking blood from the male baby's organ. This regulation caused an outcry among certain Orthodox Jewish communities on this alleged infringement of their religious freedom,   and the matter was taken to federal court.
The limit would have applied to businesses such as restaurants and movie theaters, but did not apply to grocery stores, including 7-Eleven. Diet varieties of sweetened drinks were unaffected. The city appealed the decision. Bloomberg announced that the city would appeal the decision. In one example, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul brought Big Gulps to a joint appearance for Cuccinelli's ultimately unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign to symbolize Bloomberg's efforts to restrict soft drink sales, criticizing the mayor for wanting "to buy the governor's office down here", a reference to pro- gun control advertisements his political action committee was running in the state.
When he assumed office, he set up a Counterterrorism Bureau which works along with the NYPD intelligence division to gather information about terrorism affecting New York City worldwide. Being a fiscal conservative is not about slashing programs that help the poor, or improve health care, or ensure a social safety net. It's about insisting services are provided efficiently, get to only the people that need them, and achieve the desired results.
It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don't squander it. Bloomberg pointed to the Wall Street profits and the real estate market as evidence that the city's economy is booming and could handle a tax break.
Bloomberg balanced the budget of New York City by raising property taxes and making cuts to city agencies. Regarding this deal, Bloomberg stated, "This [New York City] is where the best want to live and work. The New York Times, as part of its reporting, made this piece of analysis--and I'll put it up on the screen--on Monday: I don't think that the Taliban being stronger than they've been since is, is news.
Meet the Press transcript for August 1, 2010
I mean, I've been concerned about the growing insurgency there for a number of years. We really are at a time in Afghanistan, after the president's review, where we've got the right strategy, the right leadership, and the right resources. And, and we really are in the second year of that aspect of Afghanistan. I certainly understand it is the ninth year, it is a long time, the sacrifices have been significant, and yet, at the same time, I think the strategy'sright. And the release of these documents, best that I can tell, have not affected the strategy.
Many of them were very, very old. That said, it's still--I think we've got to work our way through exactly what the potential impact would be; and I think, from my perspective, we're headed in the right direction.
But the reality is still the same, whether it's news or not, the disillusionment with the--among the American people about the fact that the Taliban is stronger and not weaker--go back a year ago, nearly, you were on this program, and I asked you about the mission, and here's a portion of what you said. Videotape, August 23, MR. We're rebuilding this nation? To, to a certain degree, there is, there is some of that going on. Is that what the American people signed up for? No, I'm--right now, the American people signed up, I think, for support of getting at those who threaten us, and, and to the degree that, that the Afghan people's security and the ability to ensure that a safe haven doesn't recur in Afghanistan, there's focus on some degree of making sure security's OK, and making sure governance moves in the right direction, and developing an economy which will underpin their future.
The problem with that a year on is that, again, the Taliban is stronger and there appears no evidence that they're willing to do the core thing, which is to turn their back on al-Qaeda. Isn't that the case? Well, I think, again, that is the main mission is to make sure that, that Afghanistan can't become a safe haven again.
They are indeed stronger. And yet the president approved additional forces, most of which are there, but there are still additional forces yet to come this year. So we've said for many, many months this would be a very difficult year; you pointed out the, the losses that have occurred in the month of July, the highest ever.
We recognize that this is a tough fight, but we think we've got the resources right, the strategy right. There's also a regional piece of this, a lot of effort gone on the Pakistan side, a significant effort on the part of Pakistani leadership, Pakistani mil to address that--military to address that as well. But we're not there. We're at a point now where, over the course of the next 12 months, it really is going to, I think, tell the tale which, which way this is going to go.
But another problem area, in terms of achieving the goal, is indeed Pakistan. I've talked to people who say the strategy, in effect, boils down to this, with General Petraeus on the scene: Bloody the nose of the Taliban to the point that they are willing to turn their back on al-Qaeda, Pakistan can broker a deal where there is some power-sharing in the country where the, the Taliban have a seat at the table and control some part of that geography, and in return, al-Qaeda's out of the picture.
That's still a big "if," and here's one of the reasons why: Look at Pakistan's record; start with this Pew Research Center survey poll from this week: We know that the Taliban is operating from within Pakistan, from safe havens, and escalating their attacks. David Cameron, the conservative leader now of the U.
Is Pakistan working against our interests there? I've said for a long time, clearly the--a, a critical key to success in the region is going to be Pakistan and our relationship with Pakistan, which was one that was broken in the late '80s and which we've worked hard to restore. That there are elements of the Pakistani intelligence agency that are connected or have had relationships with extremists is certainly known and that has to change. I just came back from, I think, my 19th trip to Pakistan since I've been in this job, spending time, particularly with military leadership, General Kayani.
And he has, he has actually directed his military to take on the, the insurgent threat in his own country. We--and he's made great strides. We recognize that part of that is to focus on the Haqqani network and--as well as the other Afghan Taliban.
They operate in that tribal area? And they, and they have a safe haven there, and that causes us great problems in Afghanistan as well.
Aug. 1: Mullen, Bloomberg, Greenspan, Rendell - Meet the Press - Transcripts | NBC News
That we are anxious to have that addressed is, is well known to him. So this isn't going to turn overnight. And you, you laid out one possible outcome. I think it's a little early to say exactly what the outcome would look like specifically. Suffice it to say, I think we have to be in a stronger position in Afghanistan vis-a-vis the insurgency overall.
We have to continue to develop this relationship and evolve this relationship with Pakistan. There's a regional approach here, and certainly India, which is where Prime Mi nister Cameron spoke from, India is certainly more than just concerned with the overall outcome here. But true or untrue, the big fear is that Pakistan is working against us and not with us?
In many ways Pakistan is working with us. I mean, their, their military, their intelligence agency. I mean, we've got a very strong relationship in the positive sense with, with their intelligence agency. That doesn't mean there aren't some challenges with some aspects of it. They are actively supporting elements killing U. But they have, they have shared intelligence with us, they've killed as many or more terrorists as anybody, they've captured them.
And certainly, the, the focus on changing the strategic shift, if you will, in that agency so that that doesn't happen at all, is a priority for us. Fair to say that among the outcomes you would look at would be a scenario where the Taliban would have some power in the country?
I think in any of these kinds of insurgency over history, in the political solution, those who have been insurgents at some point in time have been in a position of political influence at some point down the road.
But I think we're way too early to say how--what that looks like or when it might happen. It--it's--it seems to be an important point, if you look at the cover of Time magazine, which has a pretty striking photograph of a young woman whose nose was cut off by the Taliban, a--just one indication of how brutal and horrific these people are.
And, and they've done this when they were in power and, indeed, even when they've been out of power. The grim reality, if that's an argument for why the U. I think the central mission in Afghanistan right now is to protect the people, certainly, and that would be inclusive of everybody, and that in a, in an insurgency and a counterinsurgency, that's really the center of gravity.
But you said a year ago our central mission was to get at those who threaten us. Our central mission is not to protect the women, who could still be brutalized if the Taliban comes into power in any fashion. Well, the Taliban are incredibly unpopular with the Afghan people, even as we speak, and they have--as they have been for a long period of time. The mission--the overall mission is to dismantle and defeat and disrupt al-Qaeda. But we have to make sure there's not a safe haven that returns in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan has to be stable enough, has to have enough governance, have to--has to create enough jobs, have an economy that's good enough so that the Taliban cannot return to the brutality of the kind of regime that you just showed. However, the United States could still withdraw and, and do so having achieved the mission, and yet women like, like those on the cover of that magazine could still be in danger.
Certainly, the, the, the long-term goal is to make sure that the--with respect to the population in Afghanistan, that there's a governant--governance structure that treats its people well. And I--but to say exactly how that's going to look and what specifics would be involved, I think it's just way too early. I just want to ask you a couple of questions about Iran, another threat that this administration is facing. The consequences of Iran developing a nuclear weapon are vast, and something that the administration certainly wants to prevent.
This is what you said back in April ofI'll put it up on the screen, at Columbia University: I think attacking them would also create the same kind of outcome.
Actually, when I speak to that, I talk to unintended consequences of either outcome. And it's those unintended consequences that are difficult to predict in what is a, an incredibly unstable part of the world that I worry about the most. What I try to do when I talk about that is, is identify the space between those two outcomes, which is pretty narrow, in which I think the diplomacy, the kind of sanctions, the kind of international pressure that, that is being applied, I am hopeful works.
I, I, I recognize that there isn't that much space there. But, quite frankly, I am extremely concerned about both of those outcomes. But leaders have to make a decision.
You're a leader, the president's a leader. Which is worse, Iran with a nuclear weapon or what could happen if the United States attacks?
Well, certainly for our country, the president would be the one making those decisions, and I wouldn't be one that would, would pick one or the other along those lines. I think they both have great downside, potentially.
The president has said he is determined to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. He doesn't just say it's unacceptable, he says he's determined to stop it. Is force against Iran by the United States on the table in a way that it has not been even in our recent history, past six months, a year? No, I, I think the military actions have been on the table and remain on the table, and certainly in that regard it's, it's one of the options that the president has.
Again, I hope we don't get to that. But it's an important option, and it's one that's well understood. There was a concern among Israelis, among Americans, that there weren't very many good options when it came to attacking Iran, should it come to that. Is that still the case? I think that's the case. There aren't very many good options. I mean, there aren't--it depends on what you mean by that. None of them are good in a sense that it's certainly an outcome that I don't seek, or that, that we wouldn't seek.
At the same time, and for what I talked about before, is, is not just the consequences of the action itself, but the things that could result after the fact. But the military has a plan, should it come to that? Admiral Mullen, one final question of something I'm sure deeply troubles you, and that is the rate of suicides in the military. And the concern is not just that they have been increasing, but that commanders in the field have not been attentive enough to the, the problems that are leading to the suicides.
What should be done about that? Well, I, I think it was addressed this week very well by General Chiarelli, specifically.
I mean, the purpose of the review, which was widely reported on, was to understand as much as we could about what the problem was. It is not a problem that exists just in the Army, because the suicide rate is up in all our services. And we don't have the answers. I'm one who believes that the pressure of these wars and the repeated deployments is a significant factor, but there's a significant population that have committed suicide that have not deployed.
So it's a, it's an incredibly complex, vexing problem. I think what General Chiarelli did was, was correctly focus on leaders to be all-attentive to this in every single way and know that we certainly, we're not even close to solving it. It's an enormously complex problem nationally for us, and certainly we are a microcosm of that. But our rates now exceed the norm in the country, and it's something we absolutely have to continue to focus on.
Admiral Mullen, thank you very much. Plus, look for updates from me throughout the week. It's all on our Web site, mtp. Up next, the economic outlook. If this is really recovery, why does it still feel like a recession? Three key voices weigh in: Then, assessing the Obama presidency in this highly-charged midterm election year, analysis from Doris Kearns Goodwin and Mark Halperin.
The biggest challenge facing this administration by far is the deep economic hole this country is still in. This week, the government adjusted its economic growth numbers, illustrating that the economic recovery is slower and more fragile than previously thought.
Welcome to all of you. There is so much to discuss, and we'll get to as much as we possibly can. Mayor Bloomberg, Recovery Summer is how the White House is describing this, and yet, we know that the recovery in the second quarter is slower, we know that unemployment is stubbornly high, that companies have a lot of cash but they're not hiring.
So my question is, why is it that recovery feels so much like recession? Well, you have the public not wanting any new spending, you have the Republicans not wanting any new taxes, you have the Democrats not wanting any new spending cuts, you have the markets not wanting any new borrowing, and you have the economists wanting all of the above.
And that leads to paralysis. And paralysis, it leads to uncertainty, and uncertainty is not good. You don't make spending decisions, investment decisions, hiring decisions, or whether-you're-going-to-look-for-a-job decisions when you don't know what's going to happen.
You pass 2,page bills, but the regulations are where all the details are. Everybody's got to lobby up with lobbyists and, and lawyers, and nobody knows what the future is. We have to end the uncertainty, and until you do that, I don't think you come out of this recession. Greenspan, the Associated Press reported on a survey this week of economists, and we'll put a portion of it up on the screen.
They foresee weaker growth and higher unemployment than they did before. Does that mean--do you think that means the economy gets worse before it gets better? Maybe, but not necessarily. I think we're in a pause in a recovery, a modest recovery. But a pause in the modest recovery feels like quasi recession.
Large banks, who are doing much better, and large corporations, whom you point out and the--and everyone's pointing out, are in excellent shape. The rest of the economy, small business, small banks, and a very significant amount of the labor force, which is in tragic unemployment, long-term unemployment, that is pulling the economy apart. The average of those two is what we are looking at, but they are fundamentally two separate types of economy.
If you add in the housing crisis, which remains a crisis, do you think it's possible that we get this double-dip recession that a lot of people fear? It is possibly if home prices go down.
Home prices, as best we can judge, have really flattened out in the last year. And while it is true that most economists expect a small dip from here, largely as a consequence of the ending of the tax credit, the data don't show that at this particular stage. If home prices stay stable, then I think we will skirt the worst of the housing problem. But right under this current price level, maybe 5, 7 or 8 percent below is a very large block of mortgages which are underwater, so to speak, or could be underwater, and that would induce a major increase in foreclosures.
Foreclosures would feed on the weakness in prices, and it would create a problem. So that--it's touch and go. Governor Rendell, one of the things that Secretary Geithner said on this program last week is that we've reached a point, as he said, where we need to make a transition to a recovery led by private investment, led by the private sector.
So, you know, government has to take its foot off the accelerator when it comes to stimulus. But here's a reality that we're talking about at so many states where, on the local level, on the state level, huge, huge cutbacks creating more unemployment in states.
Governor Paterson telling The Washington Post earlier this month, we'll put it up on the screen, "We may be looking at a culture and lifestyle around this country that will start to remind people of the Depression, not a recession, if we cut through these budgets much more. Governor of New York, of course, saying, you know, government can't pull back when you have so many people still in need.
Well, first of all, I, I want to piggyback on what the mayor said. I think the mayor's absolutely right about the paralysis. But I think the paralysis is driven mostly by partisanship and by the fall election.
David Walker of the Peterson Foundation said it best. We should still be investing in things that stimulate the economy, and we can do that at the same time that we put together a long-term plan for deficit reduction. We can do both, and we have to do both. For example, and you've heard the mayor and I talk about infrastructure, well, the infrastructure part of the stimulus has worked.
There's absolutely no question about it. We can demonstrate in Pennsylvania and other states around the union how it's produced good-paying jobs, both on the construction sites and back in American factories. We should be investing more money in our infrastructure right now. We need it, number one, and number two, it's the best job creator. You know, if you look back in the s, the money went to infrastructure. The bridges, the municipal buildings, the roads, those were all built with stimulus money spent on infrastructure.
That went to buy flat-screen TVs made in China. That didn't exactly help our economy. Then all of this other stimulus money that's been given out to governments, they're using it for operating rather than investment. And the monies that are going to, to the private sector, they're doing the pet projects for companies that happen to have some influence throughout this country. And the argument is, "Well, these people would get laid off if we didn't do that," but nobody's directing this money at the people who've already been laid off.
Where do you see unemployment as we move through the rest of this year and beyond? I see we just stay where we are. The--there is a gradual increase in employment, but not enough to reduce the level of unemployment. We're at or about 10 percent. But I'm saying, is that where we remain, do you think? I, I would say that there's nothing out there that I can see which will alter the, the, the trend or the level of unemployment in this context.
Interest rates, how long before they start coming up? Do they need to stay low? Well, the problem there implies that the government has control over those rates, meaning the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department, in a sense.
There is no doubt that the federal funds rate, that is the rate produced by the Federal Reserve, can be fixed at whatever the Fed wants it to be, but which the government has no control over is long-term interest rates, and long-term interest rates are what make the economy move. And if this budget problem eventually merges to the point where it begins to become very toxic, it will be reflected in rising long-term interest rates, rising mortgage rates, lower housing.
At the moment, there is no sign of that, basically because the financial system is broke and you cannot have inflation if financial system is not working. Mayor Bloomberg, let me talk about the tax cut debate which is gripping Washington right now and will for some time. Dionne writes this in his column this week in The Washington Post. David Cameron, the new conservative prime minister in Britain, is a leading example. I have doubts about some of them, but at least Cameron cared enough about reducing his country's deficit that alongside the cuts he also proposed an increase in the value-added tax, from I don't think you want to run the risk that they are wrong.
I would say let's go on with the tax cuts for another couple of years, but you couple it with long-term solutions. And you have to look at what's politically possible. Governor Rendell, that is not the position of the administration or Democrats, who want to make this a, a big midterm election issue. And, and interestingly, I certainly agree with what the mayor said.
It--what we've got to do is, I think Simpson-Bowles is very important. I think both parties have to get together That's the debt commission's suggestions on how to cut spending. Both parties have to get together and say, "We're going to do this together, we're going to make the changes. They're not going to be popular, but they're necessary. And this fairy tale that increased taxes on the rich is going to hurt the economy, well, we don't have to look any further than What Bill Clinton did, without one Republican vote, was essentially the same thing.
He raised taxes on the top 2 percent in, in America. That was combined with budget cuts that the president and the Republican Congress did together, and it produced OK, but keep in mind you had that virtuous cycle going. We did not have a war, and a lot of things went perfectly. But there's also no question that that's irrefutable. If it was going to hurt small business, you would have seen not anywhere close to What I think we ought to do, sit down after the election, because it's our only chance to do this, everyone takes responsibility for cutting the entitlement programs which, as the mayor said, are absolutely necessary.
We maybe phase in the elimination of the tax, tax cut for the rich over two or three years. But taxes, as you said and Prime Minister Cameron did, you have to do both. You have to cut spending, and we ought to be doing that, you have to continue the short-term stimulus, as David Walker said, and you've got to raise some revenue.
Greenspan, it's not often that you hear Democrats and liberals quoting you. But, in this case they did when it come to--came to tax cuts because of an interview you gave recently with Judy Woodruff on Bloomberg television. Here was the question: Should they be extended? What should Congress do? These are choices between bad and worse. Look, I'm very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money. And the problem that we've gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money, and at the end of the day, that proves disastrous.
And my view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here on it.