Remember “loose lips sink ships”? I think that was a World War 1 poster, warning defense workers to be careful what they said.
Apparently no one ever passed that warning to Mike Bloomberg. Given that he is a billionaire, he feels free to insult at will.
This post reports a public forum where he compared the AARP to the NRA, complaining that they were a single-issue group that would fight any effort to raise the age when people collect Social Security.
In an event at the Council on Foreign Relations in 2015, presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg likened the 38-million strong American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) to the National Rifle Association, criticizing the senior advocates for opposing increases to the Social Security retirement age. The comments match Bloomberg’s consistent record of favoring cuts to social insurance programs, at odds with the current stance on his campaign website….
Speaking at the Economic Club of Chicago in August 2012, Bloomberg took similar aim, expressing his disappointment that “nobody’s going to stand up and say to the AARP, ‘we are going to really cut back your benefits.’” He held out hope for the one politician with the guts to stick it to the elderly and their allies: architect of social spending cuts Paul Ryan.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Paul Galt Ryan, love child of Ayn Rand and a preying mantis, with a political philosophy right out of Rand’s comic book novels (which can double as unabridged dictionaries of wooden character stereotypes, hyperbole, purple prose, and cliches, btw). I understand why Rand appeals to some incel teenaged boys, but why are there so many “grown-up” Repugnican politicians who still think she’s the bees knees?
I hope, for Bloomberg’s sake, that he has actually grown out of some of these sick views he once held. People do change. But he certainly has not changed with regard to what he wants to do to teachers and kids. If you think that charters and VAM and large class sizes and depersonalized education software and standardized testing are bopping at the sock hop, you’ll love Bloomberg. The Fordham Institute for the Securing of Big Paychecks for Officers of the Fordham Institute just ran a piece on Bloomberg, which they could have called “Mike Bloomberg Really Is the Messiah. Really.”
I hope that he has grown out of some of those sick views, but I wouldn’t stake the country on this.
cx: “that they could have called,” ofc
From watching the debate, it seems to me that Bloomberg is tone-deaf. . . he is thinking out of a five-decade-old consciousness. Everyone else should go home and let him “do the job,” regardless of (guess what) democratic process where women actually have a voice. “Why should we engage in THAT? I KNOW better.”
He’s living in every “big daddy with the money” cliche’ that has come down the pike since they assumed slavery was okay, and put women-with-brooms on their coins of the realm. What a show of arrogance. CBK
Perfectly observed, Ms. King!
well said
ciedie aech Dictionary writers should put Bloomberg’s picture next to their definition of “autocrat.”
He also fails to understand the fundamental difference between running a business and presiding over a democratic political system. This lack of significant distinction easily stretches itself into how someone thinks of education.
But I have to give it to Trump that he is far-and-away better at being ignorant, arrogant, and dangerous than Bloomberg. CBK
Bloomberg is “drunk” on himself.
Billionaires resent anyone that stands up to them and what they want to impose on everyone else. Bloomberg is a perfect example of that mindset. While the ARA is not the NRA (no money laundering for Russia), they are a lobbying group for seniors, AKA, the grey panthers. The ARA gives the elderly a voice in the sea of special interests in congress.
cx: AARP
Raise the Social Security retirement age?! That’s a non-starter. It’s already been done, the SS retirement age was raised to 67. People may live longer but what about the folks who work at hard physical jobs, or people who are on their feet most of the day, they (and the working poor) are not living that much longer and cannot keep working at their jobs into their late 60s or early 70s. Bernie is against raising the retirement age and wants to strengthen Social Security. Will this country ever be free from the oligarchs and corporate nabobs?
Right?! Can’t believe he said this just 4 yrs ago. 67 seems to me as far as you can push it; there’s already a mechanism in place that incentivizes waiting longer if you want to bet on your longevity/ physical fitness. I’m wondering if this was a “senior moment” for Bloomberg.
Blloomberg did a similar number of teacher unions and the New York civil liberties group claiming they were extremists….and this was just after the SandyHook massacres.
Bloomberg back in 2013, while he was still Mayor of New York City, defended his controversial policy of stop and frisk but also called teachers unions and civil libertarian groups “extremists” just like the NRA.
It was amusing in the debate last night to watch Bloomberg’s utter disbelief and horror at the fact that Bernie, a Social Democrat, should be leading in the Democratic polls and believes that billionaires shouldn’t exist. This is when Mike showed his true colors and called Bernie a “Communist.”
Amusing is not strong enough a word to describe the debate last night. Bernie was great. I was out of my seat, cheering aloud. Love the social media responses I read about this morning too, for example,
Michael Bloomberg (1942-2020) died on 19 February, 2020.
Cause of death: Elizabeth Warren.
Bloomberg’s performance last night is the result of the decades of his every word being treated as gospel by the obsequious media and his toadying employees and the heads of all the organizations that abase themselves to praise Bloomberg to get some of his largesse thrown their way.
Bloomberg’s performance last night is what happens when a emperor who is used to everyone fawning over his “new clothes” is faced with someone who isn’t scared of him, who asks the obvious question – “where are your clothes because your underwear is out there for everyone to see?” The journalists who have been reporting dutifully about Bloomberg’s news clothes and how beautiful they are should be ashamed. Elizabeth Warren showed the country that the reporters covering Bloomberg had never acted as journalists when they dutifully wrote down every word Bloomberg said and treated it as gospel.
Bloomberg had no idea how to respond when someone actually pointed out that nothing he just said addressed the reprehensible things he actually did and pointing out that everyone just heard him spouting nonsense.
Bloomberg’s shocked and embarrassingly self-incriminating response to Warren and others reminded me of Bloomberg’s favorite charter CEO Eva Moskowitz when John Merrow actually followed up after she spouted her usual nonsensical claims. Like Bloomberg, Moskowitz had years of fawning and obsequious writers dutifully reporting her every word as gospel. John Merrow asked a follow-up question that pointed out that her previous answer was a bunch of nonsense. And Moskowitz sputtered and stammered the way Bloomberg did and everyone watching knew that she had no answer for what she had done because it was true and she expected never to have defend it publicly.
If this country had more real journalists, Bloomberg would never have been a viable candidate to begin with.
But kudos to the DNC (and I assume the other candidates) who knew that getting to ask Bloomberg the questions the media would not is a GOOD thing for the other candidates and a bad thing for Mike Bloomberg’s candidacy.
Well said, NYCPSP.
Mike has been surrounded by toadies for years. He was stunned that the other candidates asked tough questions.
Yes – and I think there is an important distinction between asking tough questions and actually following up when the answer to that tough question is a bunch of malarkey that needs to be challenged.
The obsequious journalists who covered Mike Bloomberg may sometimes ask tough questions — but the problem is that those journalists believe that dutifully transcribing the self-serving reply of a powerful person to a tough question fulfills their entire role as journalists. Or they believe that they can dutifully transcribe the self-serving reply and include a vague line “partisans who hate Bloomberg disagree” and they have completed all their journalistic duties and should be admired and praised for being so “fair and balanced”.
The other candidates on stage during the debate didn’t just ask tough questions. Elizabeth Warren and others up there did the job that journalists have failed to do for decades when covering Bloomberg. They LISTENED to the self-serving and ridiculous replies that Bloomberg gave to those “tough questions” and asked follow-up questions that pointed out that his replies were nothing more than malarkey.
Without Elizabeth Warren and other candidates on the stage doing the job that journalists had failed to do for decades, that debate would have been dutifully reported in the NYT as “Bloomberg successfully faced tough questions from the panel and his brilliant replies put to rest all doubts that those issues would hurt him! We in the media will never again ask Bloomberg about any of those issues because he has already proved to us journalists that the issue should never be mentioned again!”
Last night proved that the entire journalistic establishment has failed during their decades of “asking hard questions” of Mike Bloomberg and dutifully reporting his answers as if they were brilliant explanations instead of self-serving glop.
Journalists now seem to believe their role is to be stenographers of whatever powerful people say in answer to “tough questions.” They do this with Trump, they do this with Bloomberg, and they do this with people that are protected by the rich and powerful, like William Barr and Eva Moskowitz. The reporters pat themselves on the back for asking “tough questions” and dutifully transcribe the replies and present those self-serving and ridiculous replies like we saw Bloomberg make last night as if those replies were brilliant and totally exonerated them!
Mike Bloomberg’s replies to questions about his long history and policies he supported have had no clothes for months, but not one of the obsequious journalists covering him had the courage to do anything but report that Bloomberg had the best clothes ever and only partisans disagreed.
If anyone should be embarrassed last night, it is the journalists that treated those self-serving replies as if they were brilliant. Those Bloomberg replies that got the audience groaning and gasping would have been dutifully presented by reporters at the NYT as brilliant responses that closed the case completely. No follow up necessary.
I just felt that Bloomberg thinks he doesn’t have to answer to anyone. Notice that he didn’t deny calling women heinous names. He just thinks he can buy ads and staff and become president. He was awful.
Warren would make a stellar Attorney General.
Unfortunately, if Bernie wins the nomination, I don’t think he would ask her to be his running mate (nor do I think she would accept even if he did ask) after what happened before and at the last debate
But Elizabeth Warren as Attorney General in a Sanders administration (or any Democratic adminjstration) might be possible.,
He needs a more moderate running mate to appeal to the other 2/3rds who wouldn’t ordinarily vote for him.
It’s hard for me to imagine why people find Bloomberg at all credible. It is really believable he changed each and every one of his long-held opinions in the last 6 months? Why would anyone believe that?
On social media many people bow to the oligarchy. I’ve been posting lots of Diane’s articles that reveal Bloomberg’s true nature and proclivities.