Question that I feel comfortable answering:

Do you agree with de Blasio’s definition of “wealth” as $500,000 – $1,000,000 in income? How does this definition impact residents who are on the brink of this major tax bracket – and do you feel more should be paying for universal pre-K?

This question originated from de Blasio’s statements about wealth and how we should “tap into the wealthiest to do so.” It got me wondering about how de Blasio reached his conclusions about wealth, and also whether a smaller OR wider gap could be included in this definition.

Question that I feel is controversial/difficult:

Is de Blasio’s administration merely hiding behind “smoke and mirrors” like Bloomberg? Will his administration prove to be more transparent than Bloomberg’s or is he promoting a false image?

According to several of the authors, such as Bill Bradley and Dana Rubinstein, de Blasio has only recently modeled himself as the progressive pragmatist that helped him to win the election. Both authors reveal that in previous years (as councilman of Park Slope), de Blasio either supported questionable projects – such as the Atlantic Yard – or did not push strongly enough on others. I would like to address the underlying question of whether de Blasio’s goals for the city are authentic or whether he really has other plans in mind.

Question that has a relevant example:

Is it enough to simply provide funding for education – as de Blasio plans to do (and Bloomberg did as well) – or will de Blasio provide resources and policy to alter education within the city?

In my group’s education project, we are finding that learning has become extremely specialized to very limited skills. My argument against simply funding for more education is that de Blasio will continue to perpetuate a learning system that is highly flawed.