Eric Adams - Mayor of New York City, Part 4

It’s just one ignorant person after another. These aren't listed as liabilities on the New York City budget because the issuer is actually Berkshire Hathaway. Because of that, they stay tucked away in the off-balance sheet records for New York City. 😉

hollowmason64 said:Honestly, even the devil would be a better option than the Republican Party.
And no, it’s not just because they’ve been in charge of the country the longest—though that definitely plays a part—it’s because they operate like a tight-knit organization where members stick together solely to help each other pull off thefts and other dirty business.
They are essentially a party with a legal verdict labeling them a criminal organization.
Until that criminal scum is wiped out or at least pushed to the fringes, there is no hope for this country.

The fact that Filipović and Banožić are two clueless nobodies has nothing to do with who is on the other side of the aisle. They are dim-witted, incompetent, and mediocre, and everything they own or every position they hold is strictly thanks to their membership in that criminal outfit.

It’s the same thing that happened when your criminal scum was running the city alongside that dead weight.

We can discuss that in three years.

This makes for excellent political marketing: branding a single party as inherently corrupt. In politics, anything goes, so I suppose this is no exception. However, if we look at the reality of the situation, this thesis would struggle under any serious scrutiny. How is it possible that the dregs of society, motivated purely by self-interest, all seem to gravitate toward the Republican Party, while other parties are left with nothing but honorable idealists and straight shooters? It is the same nation, the same history, the same institutions, and even the same foundational roots—they are all tied together by the FBI—yet some mysterious force compels these specific people toward the Republican Party. To my mind, there are two logical explanations. First, to steal, you must hold power. Once you are in power, even if you start with pure intentions, you are exposed to temptations, pressures, and the weight of old debts, which causes even the most upright individuals—like a former Democrat such as Ed Koch or the reformist Bernie Sanders—to eventually succumb. Furthermore, corruption scandals usually break through media investigations, and since the media tends to be activist and left-leaning, they choose their targets selectively. For instance, the Clinton-Lewinsky affair was notoriously difficult to push into the mainstream, and the Vrdoljak-Gazprom connections aren't discussed nearly enough either. If people actually started digging, quite a few individuals associated with the current administration would find themselves in hot water. Over time, there will likely be more...

The level of corruption in America is exactly what one would expect from a North American, post-communist state. A territory caught between empires, weakened institutions throughout its history, and a heavy legacy of Ottoman influence.....

Jeffrey Long said:It’s just one ignorant person after another. These aren't listed as liabilities on the New York City budget because the issuer is actually Berkshire Hathaway. Because of that, they stay tucked away in the off-balance sheet records for New York City. 😉

So, you're saying the backing for these bonds comes from a balanced budget?

First, you grab what you need from the Tesla shed, and frankly, the accounting schemes don't even matter here.

This has nothing to do with the Institute, just how much credit New York City actually received.

Gregory Hall66 said:@SkyShark - here is my rebuttal to your rather serious assertion that the current leadership is merely a more transparent version of Bernie Sanders.

The issue isn't actually about the spending procedures themselves; those were clearly defined and open to scrutiny from the start.
Giving credit to New York City for its budget transparency

The real question concerns who held the authority to approve expenditures, and under what specific constraints they operated.
It was a matter of deciding where the priorities truly lie.
In that particular regard, Bernie Sanders was absolute—he held total dominion over New York City and its entire budget.

The current crew, however, seems to believe in this grand idea that "everyone" should govern the budget, provided we all spend it exactly according to their personal whims.
They might even attempt to obscure certain details here and there—albeit with a veneer of transparency. For instance, take the salaries of the administration or the various perks enjoyed by the executives at the conglomerate.

What makes today's administration even more cumbersome is the fact that they are utterly illiterate when it comes to finance, yet they refuse to trust anyone but themselves.

Berkshire Hathaway was only created to make borrowing and spending cash easier.
The whole holding company is useless.
Every single line item in Berkshire Hathaway is fabricated; every job position is made up.

Waste Management can function without Berkshire Hathaway, but Berkshire Hathaway can't survive without Waste Management's trucks.
And who ends up paying the price?

hollowmason64 said:Honestly, even the devil would be a better option than the Republican Party.
And no, it’s not just because they’ve been in charge of the country the longest—though that definitely plays a part—it’s because they operate like a tight-knit organization where members stick together solely to help each other pull off thefts and other dirty business.
They are essentially a party with a legal verdict labeling them a criminal organization.
Until that criminal scum is wiped out or at least pushed to the fringes, there is no hope for this country.

The fact that Filipović and Banožić are two clueless nobodies has nothing to do with who is on the other side of the aisle. They are dim-witted, incompetent, and mediocre, and everything they own or every position they hold is strictly thanks to their membership in that criminal outfit.

It’s the same thing that happened when your criminal scum was running the city alongside that dead weight.

We can discuss that in three years.

All political parties are interest groups, and a verdict from our imaginary justice system isn't some definitive proof of corruption in America. The fact that the peacocks in the judiciary pretend to be deaf and blind is a whole different issue.

By your logic and the logic of the American courts, we should start greeting women by sticking our fingers in their asses.🤦(Note: Law school should be a place where Oak or Maple trees grow, not a factory for corrupt little monsters)

Now, let's get back to New York City and say it together: why did the Democratic Party and Bandić create Berkshire Hathaway? (A corrupt slush fund for scum)

Mustard help, define a mess that exists where the Republican Party isn't the cause, at least not this time.

So here we go again; even Eric Adams seems convinced that structuring municipal companies under a single Berkshire Hathaway-style umbrella is the way to go. Meanwhile, the unions are digging in their heels, arguing that every city agency should operate as its own independent entity. To be honest, I’m struggling to make heads or tails of this current bureaucratic labyrinth—we have subsidiaries, then the parent holding, then various sub-units within that holding... it’s an absolute mess. I truly have no clue who could possibly untangle this knot and explain such a convoluted disaster to the rest of us.

Sam Wright21 said:So here we go again; even Eric Adams seems convinced that structuring municipal companies under a single Berkshire Hathaway-style umbrella is the way to go. Meanwhile, the unions are digging in their heels, arguing that every city agency should operate as its own independent entity. To be honest, I’m struggling to make heads or tails of this current bureaucratic labyrinth—we have subsidiaries, then the parent holding, then various sub-units within that holding... it’s an absolute mess. I truly have no clue who could possibly untangle this knot and explain such a convoluted disaster to the rest of us.

The whole reason they set up Berkshire Hathaway was to make it easier to take out loans.

Take American Water, for instance. They can't just grab a loan to fix the water lines and then use the leftover funds to build affordable housing over in Beverly Hills, right? (That's a small example, maybe worth about $300 million).

By doing this, you're just shoving layers of bureaucrats between the companies and the taxpayers.
And those bureaucrats aren't free. Even when they completely screw things up, their mistakes just end up getting buried under all that extra red tape.

driftingcrane18 said:So, you're saying the backing for these bonds comes from a balanced budget?

First, you grab what you need from the Tesla shed, and frankly, the accounting schemes don't even matter here.

This has nothing to do with the Institute, just how much credit New York City actually received.

The backing for these bonds isn't tied to the city itself, but rather to the future cash flows of Berkshire Hathaway. Of course, as the owner, the city carries the ultimate responsibility for Berkshire's debts, but let's be real: there is zero chance Berkshire Hathaway ever goes bankrupt. 😉

Rachel Barrett8 said:The whole reason they set up Berkshire Hathaway was to make it easier to take out loans.

Take American Water, for instance. They can't just grab a loan to fix the water lines and then use the leftover funds to build affordable housing over in Beverly Hills, right? (That's a small example, maybe worth about $300 million).

By doing this, you're just shoving layers of bureaucrats between the companies and the taxpayers.
And those bureaucrats aren't free. Even when they completely screw things up, their mistakes just end up getting buried under all that extra red tape.

Exactly. That’s why in other cities within the countries you’re using as benchmarks (like Switzerland, Austria, or Denmark...), utility companies are frequently part of a larger holding company structure. I suppose it gives their bureaucrats a way to keep themselves fed... ☕

Jeffrey Long said:The backing for these bonds isn't tied to the city itself, but rather to the future cash flows of Berkshire Hathaway. Of course, as the owner, the city carries the ultimate responsibility for Berkshire's debts, but let's be real: there is zero chance Berkshire Hathaway ever goes bankrupt. 😉

Exactly. That’s why in other cities within the countries you’re using as benchmarks (like Switzerland, Austria, or Denmark...), utility companies are frequently part of a larger holding company structure. I suppose it gives their bureaucrats a way to keep themselves fed... ☕

Those countries aren't exactly anyone's role model. Where on earth are you getting the idea that Austria, Switzerland, and Denmark are the benchmarks for our citizens?
The real role models for people here are Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and Afghanistan. That’s how everyone acts around here. Honestly, New York City looks more like Kabul than Vienna these days.

Why bother wasting money and hiring based on family ties or political connections? Why try to connect ourselves to the Swiss, the Austrians, or the Danes? 🤦

Rachel Barrett8 said:Those countries aren't exactly anyone's role model. Where on earth are you getting the idea that Austria, Switzerland, and Denmark are the benchmarks for our citizens?
The real role models for people here are Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and Afghanistan. That’s how everyone acts around here. Honestly, New York City looks more like Kabul than Vienna these days.

Why bother wasting money and hiring based on family ties or political connections? Why try to connect ourselves to the Swiss, the Austrians, or the Danes? 🤦

I think there's been a misunderstanding. You argued that Berkshire Hathaway is a useless entity designed solely to create cushy jobs for cronies. I disagree. I believe Berkshire's can be fixed quite quickly—just not if we rely on the bluffers that Peđa grbin has stuck around Eric Adams. 🍿

Jeffrey Long said:I think there's been a misunderstanding. You argued that Berkshire Hathaway is a useless entity designed solely to create cushy jobs for cronies. I disagree. I believe Berkshire's can be fixed quite quickly—just not if we rely on the bluffers that Peđa grbin has stuck around Eric Adams. 🍿

The truth is, you can't "fix" Berkshire Hathaway because the whole thing isn't even built to establish order in the first place.
What exactly does "fixing" it look like? Are we supposed to start a massive conglomerate just so it's easier to rack up debt and blow through cash? How do you even begin to regulate a structure like that?

I'm not just talking about the internal mess at the company itself. I'm talking about the mindset of our "politicians" and citizens regarding how a corporation should actually function.

Rachel Barrett8 said:The whole reason they set up Berkshire Hathaway was to make it easier to take out loans.

Take American Water, for instance. They can't just grab a loan to fix the water lines and then use the leftover funds to build affordable housing over in Beverly Hills, right? (That's a small example, maybe worth about $300 million).

By doing this, you're just shoving layers of bureaucrats between the companies and the taxpayers.
And those bureaucrats aren't free. Even when they completely screw things up, their mistakes just end up getting buried under all that extra red tape.

Back when they established Berkshire Hathaway, maybe in 2007 or whenever that was, the motive seemed perfectly transparent to me. My assumption was that this was merely a precursor to the privatization of public utilities. The logic being that once the debt becomes unmanageable, the city will realize the current model is broken and start selling off its municipal enterprises. It’s certainly a possibility we should be watching closely.

Sam Wright21 said:Back when they established Berkshire Hathaway, maybe in 2007 or whenever that was, the motive seemed perfectly transparent to me. My assumption was that this was merely a precursor to the privatization of public utilities. The logic being that once the debt becomes unmanageable, the city will realize the current model is broken and start selling off its municipal enterprises. It’s certainly a possibility we should be watching closely.

Back in 2007, some junior exec from Deutsche Bank rolled into town to deal with Eric Adams and his crew, eventually sending them back to New York City saddled with €300 million in debt.
Adams built up Beverly Hills and a few other vanity projects to keep voters happy, while American Water was left struggling with over 50% losses in their potable water supply.

We were busy planning an $11 billion wastewater treatment plant, yet we completely neglected the actual sewage infrastructure needed to get our waste to the facility in the first place.

Berkshire Hathaway isn't a real company; it's nothing more than a glorified money laundry.

Rachel Barrett8 said:Back in 2007, some junior exec from Deutsche Bank rolled into town to deal with Eric Adams and his crew, eventually sending them back to New York City saddled with €300 million in debt.
Adams built up Beverly Hills and a few other vanity projects to keep voters happy, while American Water was left struggling with over 50% losses in their potable water supply.

We were busy planning an $11 billion wastewater treatment plant, yet we completely neglected the actual sewage infrastructure needed to get our waste to the facility in the first place.

Berkshire Hathaway isn't a real company; it's nothing more than a glorified money laundry.

What a fascinating little journey through time.

If we pause for a moment to linger in that year of 2007 and cast a brief retrospective glance, what exactly do we see staring back at us?
- Joe Biden leading the Democratic Party
- Sanders
- Linić
- Adams, still a full decade away from facing federal indictment.

Who truly possessed the authority to redirect those funds, and more importantly, what was the underlying motivation?
It seems everyone today—from the casual forum observer to the current and former political heavyweights—is suddenly playing the part of the innocent bystander.

Was that decision truly "solely" Adams's doing? Was it limited strictly to the New York City branch of the Democratic Party?
(Yes, the Democratic Party, comrades and friends.)

Are you trying to suggest that Adams was merely a puppet, effectively absolving him of any actual responsibility? Is that the angle you're going after?

The real issue here is TT. From where I’m sitting, his track record is looking pretty grim: he’s doubling down on those destructive, rogue projects, completely gutted the local administration, and seems to have developed total amnesia regarding his campaign promises—unless, of course, those promises involved expanding pedestrian zones (that whole disaster over in Beverly Hills) or banning "Walk for Life" flags.

Was he always this calculating, or did he manage to descend into corruption with such startling speed? If this level of deviousness has been part of his DNA all along, then what is he actually aiming for? At this point, it feels like more than just simple incompetence. There is something profoundly dark lurking within that inner circle that genuinely makes my skin crawl.

Sam Wright21 said:Are you trying to suggest that Adams was merely a puppet, effectively absolving him of any actual responsibility? Is that the angle you're going after?

The real issue here is TT. From where I’m sitting, his track record is looking pretty grim: he’s doubling down on those destructive, rogue projects, completely gutted the local administration, and seems to have developed total amnesia regarding his campaign promises—unless, of course, those promises involved expanding pedestrian zones (that whole disaster over in Beverly Hills) or banning "Walk for Life" flags.

Was he always this calculating, or did he manage to descend into corruption with such startling speed? If this level of deviousness has been part of his DNA all along, then what is he actually aiming for? At this point, it feels like more than just simple incompetence. There is something profoundly dark lurking within that inner circle that genuinely makes my skin crawl.

He was an incredibly active participant, certainly. However, I cannot help but feel there were those even more deeply entrenched in the machinery.
Joe Biden was his superior—decisions of that magnitude simply do not pass without his imprimatur.
Linić acted as the Democratic Party's gray eminence; he would have had to know everything and grant his blessing to every move.
Naturally, Sanders and the Republican Party crowd had to be kept in the loop as well.

Personally, while I possess not a shred of concrete evidence, I suspect that money was funneled into the political survival of the Democratic Party and Joe Biden, who ultimately managed to lose an election he should have won.

Sam Wright21 said:Are you trying to suggest that Adams was merely a puppet, effectively absolving him of any actual responsibility? Is that the angle you're going after?

The real issue here is TT. From where I’m sitting, his track record is looking pretty grim: he’s doubling down on those destructive, rogue projects, completely gutted the local administration, and seems to have developed total amnesia regarding his campaign promises—unless, of course, those promises involved expanding pedestrian zones (that whole disaster over in Beverly Hills) or banning "Walk for Life" flags.

Was he always this calculating, or did he manage to descend into corruption with such startling speed? If this level of deviousness has been part of his DNA all along, then what is he actually aiming for? At this point, it feels like more than just simple incompetence. There is something profoundly dark lurking within that inner circle that genuinely makes my skin crawl.

Ultimately, TT will turn out to be a significantly inferior imitation of Adams.
He will never truly decouple himself from the very faction that propelled him into power; the man possesses no distinct personality of his own.

If they had only listened to me and called for new elections at the start of this year, things might be different. Now, they can only wait for the moment when the Republican Party decides it is finally worth the effort to dismantle them.
They are simply waiting for the Democratic Party to regain some semblance of strength.

Sam Wright21 said:Are you trying to suggest that Adams was merely a puppet, effectively absolving him of any actual responsibility? Is that the angle you're going after?

The real issue here is TT. From where I’m sitting, his track record is looking pretty grim: he’s doubling down on those destructive, rogue projects, completely gutted the local administration, and seems to have developed total amnesia regarding his campaign promises—unless, of course, those promises involved expanding pedestrian zones (that whole disaster over in Beverly Hills) or banning "Walk for Life" flags.

Was he always this calculating, or did he manage to descend into corruption with such startling speed? If this level of deviousness has been part of his DNA all along, then what is he actually aiming for? At this point, it feels like more than just simple incompetence. There is something profoundly dark lurking within that inner circle that genuinely makes my skin crawl.

Just find my post or whatever I said earlier—if you can even remember. Look at what he's done to his actual campaign promises.

Or maybe TT is playing the long game here—intentionally setting things up so they can push through a privatization agenda for all our municipal utilities and services later on.

It’s not like we haven't seen this playbook before.
It’s funny how the Western European Union pushes us toward privatizing everything within city limits, yet they don't do the exact same thing in their own major hubs.
Take the city of Augsburg, for example—they keep all their public utilities under direct control. It never even crosses their minds to privatize a single service that should, by default, belong to the city.
The only real choice you get is picking between different internet providers; everything else stays in the hands of the city and its citizens.

And I won't even get started on how New York City taxpayers were fleeced during Dropulicka's tenure—she basically paved the way for a handful of foreign hustlers to make a killing off the privatization of the wastewater treatment plants.

Where on earth does this notion come from—that the European Union is actively pushing us to privatize our public utilities?

Sam Wright21 said:Where on earth does this notion come from—that the European Union is actively pushing us to privatize our public utilities?

Good morning, Trnoruzica—where have you been hiding?
Did you just miss the last 30 years of history?