Mayor Bloomberg to announce $127 mil. in new program for troubled Black & Latino men

[B35 via Church]

Nothing conflicting about it all. What you're confusing is the following: I'm saying that it IS a good deed so long as taxpayer dollars aren't funding it. The part that you're referring to where I am slamming the program is when taxpayer dollars are involved.

It absolutely is conflicting.....

 

If you're using that as a basis of a program being a (good or bad) cause/deed or not, that's troubling.... but anyway....

 

 

If what you're tellin me now is the way you really felt, it would've been much simpler to state your case some'n similar to:

*The cause is good..... The using of taxpayer dollars to assist in funding the cause, I'm outraged at*....

....and then elaborating on either, or both points accordingly

 

....As opposed to resorting to sounding off talkin about "the whole program is hilarious", and that crack about professionals receiving priority, and even harping/commenting on someone's optimism about the program itself (as you did to myself & UrbanFortitude)... No one that feels that it's a good deed would say somethin like that, or even think along those lines.... that's what makes it unbelievable when you present yourself the way you are now....

 

In this entire discussion, you give off the impression that you're outraged about the program itself, AND that you feel tax dollars is being wasted on this program....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It absolutely is conflicting.....

 

If you're using that as a basis of a program being a (good or bad) cause/deed or not, that's troubling.... but anyway....

 

 

*The cause is good..... The using of taxpayer dollars to assist in funding the cause, I'm outraged at*....

 

^^ It would be much simpler to state your case that way, if that's the way you really felt... No confusion involved in that....

 

....As opposed to resorting to sounding off talkin about "the whole program is hilarious"... No one that feels that it's a good deed would say somethin like that, or even think along those lines.... that's what makes it unbelievable when you present your point the way you are now....

 

In this whole discussion, You give off the impression that you're outraged about the program itself, AND that you feel tax dollars is being wasted on this program....

 

 

I'm outraged that the program will use taxpayer dollars that EVERYONE (everyone meaning all different races and ethnicities) pays and yet only focuses on two groups of people. It's not only racist, but gender bias as well. If it was funded with just private funds and they decided to focus solely on one group then more power to them, but don't do that sort of thing with taxpayer monies.

[checkmatechamp13]

I remember reading this in Metro yesterday. IIRC, it said that part of the deal is that they would get an internship paying minimum wage ($7.25/hr), but in order to get paid for that internship, they would have to attend those classes.

 

So in a way, it is making a slight dent in unemployment. Except that it is focused on "troubled" people.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I remember reading this in Metro yesterday. IIRC, it said that part of the deal is that they would get an internship paying minimum wage ($7.25/hr), but in order to get paid for that internship, they would have to attend those classes.

 

So in a way, it is making a slight dent in unemployment. Except that it is focused on "troubled" people.

 

LOL... Correction... It's making a temporary slight dent in unemployment. Internships don't last forever... A couple of months if that and then what... B)

[B35 via Church]

I'm outraged that the program will use taxpayer dollars that EVERYONE (everyone meaning all different races and ethnicities) pays and yet only focuses on two groups of people. It's not only racist, but gender bias as well. If it was funded with just private funds and they decided to focus solely on one group then more power to them, but don't do that sort of thing with taxpayer monies.

 

So then don't paint this impression that you think the program is a good deed.

You could care less about what the program has to offer BECAUSE of the outrage you have, and these reasons you state for even feeling that way....

 

If it was just about the 67 million in tax money you have a gripe at, the demographic the program would serve would be irrelevant....

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So then don't paint this impression that you think the program is a good deed. You could care less about what the program has to offer b/c of your outrage.....

 

If it's using taxpayer dollars, no I DO care. That 67 million needs to be re-allocated elsewhere and they can do just fine with the 60 million that was given privately and that would be a good deed. Tell me why $127 dollars is needed for 3 years for two groups of people? Talk about overkill...

[B35 via Church]

If it's using taxpayer dollars, no I DO care. That 67 million needs to be re-allocated elsewhere and they can do just fine with the 60 million that was given privately and that would be a good deed. Tell me why $127 dollars is needed for 3 years for two groups of people? Talk about overkill...

 

Just because somethin is paid for with private funds doesn't make it any more or less of a good deed.... A good deed is a good deed, regardless of how it's funded....

 

As for why they decided to allocate 127 million dollars, instead of just the 60, ask the mayor... How is the common man supposed to know the answer to that....

[checkmatechamp13]

If it's using taxpayer dollars, no I DO care. That 67 million needs to be re-allocated elsewhere and they can do just fine with the 60 million that was given privately and that would be a good deed. Tell me why $127 dollars is needed for 3 years for two groups of people? Talk about overkill...

 

The thing about these programs is: How much actually goes to the people that are supposed to receive it? Half of that money will probably get lost in the bureaucracy.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Just because somethin is paid for with private funds doesn't make it any more or less of a good deed.... A good deed is a good deed, regardless of how it's funded....

 

As for why they decided to allocate 127 million dollars, instead of just the 60, ask the mayor... How is the common man supposed to know the answer to that....

 

In this case it certainly does though. If we had money like that and were doing well I would say okay, but you had firehouses on the chopping block, a reduction in police and mayor crying about the city being broke and then you spend 67 million dollars in taxpayer dollars on a so called good deed when 60 million is already being spent in private funds... Totally unnecessary. :tdown:

[MHV9218]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Via Garibaldi 8]

And we reach the core. You couldn't care less about the cost, or who funds it, or any of that. Your problem is when public money goes to help brown people instead of you "working professionals," that's what really gets you. You'll ignore the fact that it's a good thing, ignore the fact that $67 million is very little, ignore the fact that the white man starts out at an advantage in life -- you'll ignore all that because public money, for some reason, isn't going to you and your "working professional" buddies, but some brown people.

 

Oh please. A city doesn't cry BROKE and then suddenly splurges 67 million dollars of taxpayer money on a pilot program when 60 million dollars was already donated. That's what I find suspect about the whole thing and you should too. How did they suddenly find $67 million dollars, but just a few months ago Bloomberg wanted to close several fire houses, risking thousands of lives? If you don't find that suspicious, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

The main problem is that the parents of these "troubled" minority men are not much better than the youth themselves. You wouldn't have young men living in the ghetto if the losers already there didn't decide to have kids. What makes you think that someone who doesn't care for their own standard of living as an individual will care for a child or children? This program is a nice idea but what I would do is place a salary cap on kids. Potential parents MUST prove their age to be 21 or over, their household income in excess of $60,000 a year (income limit goes up for each child a family has) and their address to show they don't live in a high crime neighborhood. The hospital staff will keep all newborns until parents have shown (to child protective services) that these requirements have been met. If they are not met, the child AUTOMATICALLY goes up for adoption.

[IntExp]

The main problem is that the parents of these "troubled" minority men are not much better than the youth themselves. You wouldn't have young men living in the ghetto if the losers already there didn't decide to have kids. What makes you think that someone who doesn't care for their own standard of living as an individual will care for a child or children? This program is a nice idea but what I would do is place a salary cap on kids. Potential parents MUST prove their age to be 21 or over, their household income in excess of $60,000 a year (income limit goes up for each child a family has) and their address to show they don't live in a high crime neighborhood. The hospital staff will keep all newborns until parents have shown (to child protective services) that these requirements have been met. If they are not met, the child AUTOMATICALLY goes up for adoption.

 

I smell a due process of the law type of lawsuit coming up if that plan is ever approved, the plan in bold.

 

Dude, money will not be solution to every single problem facing black and latino children. I'm latino, I have both my parents, and I live below the poverty line. I live in Corona, god damn it, which is somewhat infested with gangs. Since I meet 3 of the requirements that is required to be met for the child to be automatically put up for adoption, will me and my brother get taken away from my mommy and daddy. Your plan fails logic, it doesn't make sense. You state newborns, but can this also apply to all other kids under the age of 18? Can this also apply if the parent's ages are over 21? Clarify your plan, or discard it, because it does not make ense at all.

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

I smell a due process of the law type of lawsuit coming up if that plan is ever approved, the plan in bold.

 

Dude, money will not be solution to every single problem facing black and latino children. I'm latino, I have both my parents, and I live below the poverty line. I live in Corona, god damn it, which is somewhat infested with gangs. Since I meet 3 of the requirements that is required to be met for the child to be automatically put up for adoption, will me and my brother get taken away from my mommy and daddy. Your plan fails logic, it doesn't make sense. You state newborns, but can this also apply to all other kids under the age of 18? Can this also apply if the parent's ages are over 21? Clarify your plan, or discard it, because it does not make ense at all.

 

This would only apply to newborns so you won't be affected. The idea behind the plan is to make sure every child enters a stable family. If a family lacks the resources to take care of a child why should that family be allowed to

have one? My plan attacks that idea on three fronts. The age limit is in place to avoid the teen mom crisis. People under 21 just aren't mature enough to

deal with a child most of the time. The income limit is in place to make

sure that the child never becomes a product of the public assistance system which drains the government's resources. The address requirement is there to assure that the child won't be pressured into a life of gangs or other crimes as is the case in high-crime neighborhoods. I would also check the parents to see if there is a history of drug abuse or mental disorders while I'm at it.

[East New York]

This would only apply to newborns so you won't be affected. The idea behind the plan is to make sure every child enters a stable family. If a family lacks the resources to take care of a child why should that family be allowed to

have one? My plan attacks that idea on three fronts. The age limit is in place to avoid the teen mom crisis. People under 21 just aren't mature enough to

deal with a child most of the time. The income limit is in place to make

sure that the child never becomes a product of the public assistance system which drains the government's resources. The address requirement is there to assure that the child won't be pressured into a life of gangs or other crimes as is the case in high-crime neighborhoods. I would also check the parents to see if there is a history of drug abuse or mental disorders while I'm at it.

 

Other than the fact that this really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, could you at least try to come up with something plausible?

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

Other than the fact that this really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, could you at least try to come up with something plausible?

 

This actually has something to do with the topic. The topic is a $127 million program to aid "troubled" black and latino men. That program is nothing but a $127 million band-aid to the problem with taxpayers funding $67 million of it. The plan I addressed is an effort to greatly reduce the number of future troubles that come out of the wombs of undeserving others. It is very plausible, I am waiting for the first reason as to why it is not. The only other thing to do is to tell people to not have kids at all. It is quite sad that someone like me who plans to never have kids may end up being way more successful and living a much better life than the losers who decide to have kids these days.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

This actually has something to do with the topic. The topic is a $127 million program to aid "troubled" black and latino men. That program is nothing but a $127 million band-aid to the problem with taxpayers funding $67 million of it. The plan I addressed is an effort to greatly reduce the number of future troubles that come out of the wombs of undeserving others. It is very plausible, I am waiting for the first reason as to why it is not. The only other thing to do is to tell people to not have kids at all. It is quite sad that someone like me who plans to never have kids may end up being way more successful and living a much better life than the losers who decide to have kids these days.

 

I agree. That is another problem... Kids having kids...

[SoSpectacular]

The ACTUAL point of the program is to help this particular group of people get back on their feet in these so-called troubled times.

 

While teenage pregnancy is ONE reason for a troubled male, it is NOT the sole reason, there's also single parenting, the general environment, bad influences, etc.,

[Hawk Operator]

We need another Giuliani, a mayor who tackled crime and rampid welfare and waste of taxpayer dollars and got results.

 

Giuliani and his Police Commissioner thug violated the rights of numerous NYers. If 9/11 hadn't happened, his mayoral history would reflect his lacking ability. The only boro that enjoyed him was Staten Island. Sleep-with-marry-my-cousin Guiliani was lucky that his PC took the fall on the sword and not passed it to Rudy.

[Hawk Operator]

The ACTUAL point of the program is to help this particular group of people get back on their feet in these so-called troubled times.

 

In these times, we all need to get back on our feet. This is nothing more then a shakedown by the minority city council leadership for allowing Bloomberg's third term. Who do you really think is going to get this $$$ to allocate to various community based groups?

 

I'm outraged that the program will use taxpayer dollars that EVERYONE (everyone meaning all different races and ethnicities) pays and yet only focuses on two groups of people. It's not only racist, but gender bias as well.

 

Call it whatever you want, ain't nothing more then a public bribe.

But then Staten Island has "boro bias" & doesn't complain about its free ferry and how much does that costs the rest of us other boros who pay for our transit?

 

it said that part of the deal is that they would get an internship paying minimum wage ($7.25/hr), but in order to get paid for that internship, they would have to attend those classes.

 

So in a way, it is making a slight dent in unemployment. Except that it is focused on "troubled" people.

 

Yeah believe that, we also are selling shares for partial ownership of the Brooklyn Bridge, you in?

 

ask the mayor...... How is the common man supposed to know the answer to that....

 

The common man had better start paying attention, finding out, and thinking about the answers to these and other issues, or rest assured the present NYC Oligarchy is going to continue to exploit, divide, & conquer the working class.

 

The thing about these programs is: How much actually goes to the people that are supposed to receive it? Half of that money will probably get lost in the bureaucracy.

 

Very true :tup:

 

In this case it certainly does though. If we had money like that and were doing well I would say okay, but you had firehouses on the chopping block, a reduction in police and mayor crying about the city being broke and then you spend 67 million dollars in taxpayer dollars on a so called good deed when 60 million is already being spent in private funds... Totally unnecessary. :tdown:

 

The city can afford to trim a few firehouses and the police force too, which DID NOT happen, did it? Amazing how noone questions why we have such an over abundance of personnel in these two agencies or the huge budgets they claim to need, yet talk about cutting them people freak and get the wool pulled over their eyes. Using the NYPD's own claims on crime reduction % for the past ten years it is at -12%, meaning there is no crime. Too politically risky, but useful threat.

PS: the firehouses weren't going to close, just a ploy to pull the wool over the eyes to jack rates and blame public employees benefits for being the cause of "deficits."

Tell me why does the police commisioner need a waiver to receive a yearly police pension of +100K, plus a NYPD salary of 225K for a combined yearly 325K of our tax $$$? Oh and why did he get a salary increase of 20K in 2009 and 2010 since the city is broke?

 

 

is when public money goes to help brown people instead of you "working professionals," that's what really gets you. You'll ignore the fact that it's a good thing, ignore the fact that $67 million is very little, ignore the fact that the white man starts out at an advantage in life -- you'll ignore all that because public money, for some reason, isn't going to you and your "working professional" buddies, but some brown people.

 

Working professionals come in all shades of the rainbow, and more then a few of us, brown & black people, are pretty pissed that this "program" is using tax $$. And white folks don't really have the advantage anymore, maybe a perk or two but the playing field is a lot more level then forty years ago.

 

Oh please. A city doesn't cry BROKE and then suddenly splurges 67 million dollars of taxpayer money on a pilot program when 60 million dollars was already donated.

 

You really believe the city was broke? If so I'm selling bridge ownership shares to you too! Bloomie been hoarding $$$ for years, ask Cuomo.

 

That's what I find suspect about the whole thing and you should too. How did they suddenly find $67 million dollars, but just a few months ago Bloomberg wanted to close several fire houses, risking thousands of lives? If you don't find that suspicious, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

:tup:

 

I find it suspect for a different reason: Bloomie is being "black mailed" over his illegal third term crap and possibly by his staunch orthodox jews & conservative right for his heavy financial & vocal support for gay marriage, forcing his hand to garner some support from the black and latino community by tossing them some crumbs via community based "programs."

 

 

I could keep going, but really wake up guys, take the wool off.

[SoSpectacular]

Aha, you do raise quite a point there... Well, time to make Bloomie our punching bag!

[Nova RTS 9147]

The main problem is that the parents of these "troubled" minority men are not much better than the youth themselves. You wouldn't have young men living in the ghetto if the losers already there didn't decide to have kids. What makes you think that someone who doesn't care for their own standard of living as an individual will care for a child or children? This program is a nice idea but what I would do is place a salary cap on kids. Potential parents MUST prove their age to be 21 or over, their household income in excess of $60,000 a year (income limit goes up for each child a family has) and their address to show they don't live in a high crime neighborhood. The hospital staff will keep all newborns until parents have shown (to child protective services) that these requirements have been met. If they are not met, the child AUTOMATICALLY goes up for adoption.

 

Your plan reeks of retardation.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Call it whatever you want, ain't nothing more then a public bribe.

But then Staten Island has "boro bias" & doesn't complain about its free ferry and how much does that costs the rest of us other boros who pay for our transit?

 

Actually I beg to differ. I don't think the ferry should be free for everyone. First off, Staten Islanders would be the ONLY borough that would have to pay an additional fee to get out of their borough. Folks from Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn nor Manhattan have to pay an additional fee to leave their boroughs, so why should we?? However, what I have called for is that the tourists be forced to pay a fee to ride the ferry, as would all other non Staten Island residents. Staten Island residents would only get a free ride on the ferry if they had a Metrocard, by way of a free transfer, but everyone else should pay.

 

The city can afford to trim a few firehouses and the police force too, which DID NOT happen, did it? Amazing how noone questions why we have such an over abundance of personnel in these two agencies or the huge budgets they claim to need, yet talk about cutting them people freak and get the wool pulled over their eyes. Using the NYPD's own claims on crime reduction % for the past ten years it is at -12%, meaning there is no crime. Too politically risky, but useful threat.

PS: the firehouses weren't going to close, just a ploy to pull the wool over the eyes to jack rates and blame public employees benefits for being the cause of "deficits."

Tell me why does the police commisioner need a waiver to receive a yearly police pension of +100K, plus a NYPD salary of 225K for a combined yearly 325K of our tax $$$? Oh and why did he get a salary increase of 20K in 2009 and 2010 since the city is broke?

 

Oh please. Crime overall may be down, but crimes like rapes and robberies have spiked here in the city. Try telling that to the women that are being assaulted on the streets and the folks being robbed for practically nothing. We need more cops. The economy is in the tank and people are becoming desperate.

 

As for the city being broke, you know I think it is total BS and I don't like the idea of the head games this mayor is playing. The city has money for what it wants to have money for.

[Hawk Operator]

Actually I beg to differ. I don't think the ferry should be free for everyone. First off, Staten Islanders would be the ONLY borough that would have to pay an additional fee to get out of their borough. Folks from Queens, the Bronx, Brooklyn nor Manhattan have to pay an additional fee to leave their boroughs, so why should we?? However, what I have called for is that the tourists be forced to pay a fee to ride the ferry, as would all other non Staten Island residents. Staten Island residents would only get a free ride on the ferry if they had a Metrocard, by way of a free transfer, but everyone else should pay.

 

Good thing you don't live in Queens. Rockaway to Brooklyn, tolls. Rockaway to Broad Channel and rest of Queens, toll. Queens to Bronx, tolls. Brooklyn to Rockaway Queens, tolls. And absolutely no free ferries anywhere between Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, and Manhattan.

 

Oh please. Crime overall may be down, but crimes like rapes and robberies have spiked here in the city. Try telling that to the women that are being assaulted on the streets and the folks being robbed for practically nothing. We need more cops. The economy is in the tank and people are becoming desperate.

 

Actually the police need to be better depolyed. The daily use of outer boro precinct officers on every tour being assigned to Manhattan to sit around in case of incident needs to stop. As for assaults and rapes, loosen up the gun regulations here and allow self defence, watch the numbers plummet like in every other right to carry state.

 

 

 

As for the city being broke, you know I think it is total BS and I don't like the idea of the head games this mayor is playing. The city has money for what it wants to have money for.

 

:tup:Agreed 100%!:tup:

 

Your plan reeks of retardation.

 

That is putting it nicely.

[B35 via Church]

I don't believe ANYONE that cries broke; from the corporate level on down to mommy & daddy dearest.... You really don't have money, you won't make a habit of tellin everyone you know w/i a 50 mile radius that you aint got it.... The last thing I'd want someone to know is that I'm broke...

 

 

As far as Bloomberg's image or w/e the f***, I could care less about that.... whether he put up 60 million or 60 cents towards aiding & assisting minorities, that's not gonna change my overall opinion about the guy... End of the day, I'm stuck in a middle class bracket, while this guy's sittin pretty in the forbes 400 top 10 list.....

 

Whether I think this program has disingenuous intentions behind it, is not relevant...

 

 

 

As far as the chicken & the egg scenario JW brought up, that's not an immediate concern here.... how do you think those troubled men that continue to repopulate the earth; full knowin they aint got f*** all to live for, except for the products of their neverending breeding w/i the lower classed communities they live in, got that way?? The fathers that raised their asses (or weren't in the picture to begin with), that's how.... You start to get into a blame game of "which generation dropped the ball", which to me is moot....

 

placing a salary cap on kids does what..... stopping people (kids & adults) from havin kids does what... You think racism is bad now, attempt to pull that s*** on lesser off minorities in this society.... What would it yield? A hell of a lot more senseless crimes, eventually kills communities & makes races extinct, that's what...

I'd rather have a phucked up community than no community at all.... whether someone has kids or not, you would still have young men livin in the damn ghetto... you can't have a upper & middle class w/o a lower class.... why do you think the middle class is being phased out (as opposed to the lower class)....

 

I don't even wanna get into the women & how they milk the goddamned system for wth it's worth.... havin babies by no good nzzzzz then immediately hittin them for child support.... babies = paycheck in the minds of these broke hoes out here.... way I see it, this is becoming a feminized society anyway....