Government’s job, this view held, was to uplift the mostly minority poor, victims of an oppressive society and exploitative economy, through lavish welfare policies and a cornucopia of social services. Gotham’s businesses and taxpayers existed to support all of this. Since racism and exclusion bred crime
Do none of the Democrats on this forum have anything to say about how well Republican principles worked in turning New York City around after a disastrous 50 years of Democrat leadership? All the old shibboleths of the Democratic Party including more and more money for education and welfare were clearly failures. Why this is a surprise given the collapse of communism is something that only the Democrats can answer? Why spend more money on failed policies? Why not reform? Why not vote Republican?
Because I am not, nor do I deserve to be treated as, a second-class citizen.[/quote]
As opposed to the Democrats, who treat you as a third-class untouchable, except when they want to pull you out of the closet to show their diversity?
I am Republican and completely support gay marriage. There is room for all of us, but even more important, we must win the war on terrorism and keep the economy strong. To do so, we need Republican leaders not the tried and failed policies of the Demomarxists.
New York City is in the middle of a severe crisis: there are more homeless children now than since the Great Depression.
There were 5,000 homeless families—9,000 children – in New York City in 2000
There are over 9,500 homeless families—almost 17,000 children—in 2003
The average stay at a family homeless shelter has lengthened from 2-3 months to 11 months
The majority of New York City’s homeless population is now families
44% of homeless New Yorkers are children
Say it isn’t so. The media playing up homelessness during a Republican administration?!! The figures may or may not be true. I suspect many of these organizations are very partisan but the economic conditions in 2000 and 2003 are very different. Given that the recession began with the bursting of the tech boom that built up under Clinton, does anyone imagine that these numbers would have been different if a Democrat had been president?
But look at the overall conditions of NY City. I used to live there. Ask anyone who has and did and does and they will tell you, NY City under Giuliani was a miracle after the crap that occurred before. If a Republican like Giuliani can reform the worst city with a tough program of responsibility and reform, perhaps it is time to get rid of all the other Democratic administrations running almost every other major city in the US? Given the inner city problems have been addressed in a similar fashion by each and every one of these Democrats, why not try something that has worked: a Republican mayor with the balls to face down these unions and vested interests for the good of the people? Why not?
Because I am not, nor do I deserve to be treated as, a second-class citizen.[/quote]
As opposed to the Democrats, who treat you as a third-class untouchable, except when they want to pull you out of the closet to show their diversity?[/quote]
Oh Fred, don’t dodge the question?
Do you judge a country/city successfull/strong by how many rich people it has, or do you judge it by the population of the poor?
Anybody trying to paint New York as anything but one of the world’s richest and most successful cities is just plain daft.
New York continues to prosper a mere, what, three years after huge amounts of some of its most valuable real estate was destroyed and 2,000+ of some of its most productive citizens were slaughtered.
If New York is in crisis, I would gladly have my home town and every major metropolis on the face of the earth, particularly Baghdad, plunged into crisis.
And finally, if you want to know why there are people without homes in New York, check out Paul krugman (yes, the Bush basher) on RENT CONTROLS. pkarchive.org/column/6700.html Who in their right mind would want to build more houses if they are not allowed to charge the going rate for rent? Huh?
New York could be doing better. It has everything going for it but my impression is that New Yorkers don`t really care…the trains are late…the service in every industry is slow. I really think they are running on fumes right now.
As for rent control, it is badly needed to house the underclass. If there is no underclass with a roof over their heads, the garbages don`t get cleaned properly, etc. etc. Even Hong Kong has massive rent control for the underclass…and it is the most capitalist city in the world. Wait, now that I think about it…the government owns those buildings…hm
I would rather be employed and homeless in NYC than unemployed sitting in my welfare house up in Canada.
There is no housing for the underclass because of rent control.
I am afraid your comment is an unthinking one. Read Krugman’s article. Rent controls merely slow new building and worsen the quality of existing homes. Why build? Why repair? You cannot get a good rent. It has degraded and prevented the growth of New York’s housing stock.
Every city with rent control has a homeless problem. Another democratic success story? Gosh, why not discuss this?
As to homelessness in NY increasing. Hah! It only gets mentioned if any way the statistics can be made to show a Republican administration in a bad light. This has been covered by so many media watch groups and is now a joke. Of course, I believe that homelessness could have increased under Bush’s term since the economy has been in a downturn that started during the Clinton term.
But also remember that thousands and thousands of poor new immigrants that don’t have an education and do not speak English swarm in each and every year. This is a constantly increasing pool of “poor” as it were and for those professional welfare cases that did not take advantage of the “boom years” under Clinton to get off and get a job, well cry me a river. The working poor um “work” so the welfare cases even if they remain poor have to work is going to be good for them in the long run. Also remember that in all these poverty “statistics” nothing is included for rent subsidies, nothing is included for food stamps, nothing is included for free medical care, nothing is included for child care, job training, etc. etc. etc. The poverty statistics only show what they get in terms of money NOT in terms of benefits. Got it?
What nonsense! Both sides try to use stats. to their advantage.
According to the stats in my earlier post, it has, hasn’t it? Alarmingly so, in fact.
So Fred, I’ve gotten you off trumpeting the successes of Guiliani and the Republicans to trying, once again to defend a position based on ideology, inferring the tried and proven untrue “trickle down, pull yourself up by your bootstraps,” philosophy. (If NY was so much more prosperous as you claim, it stands to reason that homelessness would decline, or would be declining istead of increasing, wouldn’t it?)
That simplistic approach to economy/social justice only reinforces structoral inequalities.
Guess what? Poor people are poor not by choice–unless they suffer from some form of mania.