‘Will Not Wait’ on Inequality, de Blasio Tells New York - NY Times

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well the fact is that many poor families and many of todays single working adults who may be on hard times hold education as instrumental to economic success, however costs are rising dramatically which makes an impact on the cost of living. Not even in the public schools but in terms of college tuition. Many employers are seeking qualified personnel who are college educated which makes secondary education critical in today's monetary climate.

 

I'm not denying for a minute that there are the scam artists ripping off the system thinking they can get away with it. Therefore delegation of reforms are needed but in such a way that those who are sincere do not have to suffer because of the ethical and moral incompetence of others. I think New York should be setting the example. We will need some innovative measures to be implemented here, and I think it is possible. The problem though is that many are not willing.

 

We can agree to disagree however.

lol... That's a whole different issue entirely.  Someone graduating with a college degree these days doesn't have the same meaning as it did when I graduated college not that long ago.  Hell a lot of people graduating college can't even write properly.  A joke to say the least... Watered down education system... 

 

The problem with the concept of affordable housing is that to have truly affordable housing, we need to remove a lot of restrictions on development near transit rich areas (which, outside of major hubs like Flushing, Forest Hills, Jamaica, etc. isn't viewed as desirable.) Sure, you can have a mandate to develop X percent of units as affordable, but with the population expected to hit 9 million in 2030, what very little developable land we have is going to be exhausted, and even then only by the rich and possibly the upper middle class.

 

As far as I am concerned, we have lost Manhattan as an affordable borough with the gentrification of Chinatown, which was essentially the last frontier of affordability. We mustn't lose the inner parts of the outer boroughs as well.

Hey there's always most parts of the Bronx.... 

[realizm]

lol... That's a whole different issue entirely.  Someone graduating with a college degree these days doesn't have the same meaning as it did when I graduated college not that long ago.  Hell a lot of people graduating college can't even write properly.  A joke to say the least... Watered down education system...

The point is that if one expects solutions to the problems concerning high rates of homelessness, then we may have to look at the deeper problems behind what is preventing people from escaping poverty in the first place. Instead of sweeping the problems under the rug as many politicians are doing, which has been proven to be ineffective. More people are facing evictions then ever before because of the current housing crisis we are in, a major component of the problems being discussed. The unemployment rate is still high.

 

For the sake of those who really want to succeed, their efforts in obtaining a college education in a field that is growing will be the better long term solution along with other anti-poverty measures. In fact this the advice that many sociologists and economists provide to individuals who are looking for prosperity and ultimately, an escape from being dirt poor.

 

There are many brilliant minds out there even from within the lower economic classes.

[MHV9218]

 

lol... That just shows how "smart" Dinkins was... We needed feet on the ground then and there, not years later... His worst debacle was his handling of the Crown Heights situation.  A complete mess.

 

As for Giuliani, he worked tirelessly to clean up 42nd street so that professional New Yorkers could go and enjoy the theatre or a nice movie instead of clutching their personal belongings in fear.  He also made it possible to use the subways again and got control of the punks and street thugs lurking about.  Killing off the homeless? More like making people accountable instead of allowing them to leech off of the welfare system... This de Blasio guy needs to take a page from real leaders instead of playing class warfare and attacking the rich and the upper middle class for their success and hard work.

 

And clearly how not "smart" you are... "Feet on the ground" do not materialize out of nowhere. Dinkins trained and got those cops on the streets as fast as possible, and that's why our streets got safer.

 

42nd St? Who gives a shit? Great, tourism. Not to mention, that 'broken windows' was all Bratton (de Blasio's guy), not Giuliani. And I'm sorry, but his homeless policy was atrocious. Inhumane and reprehensible; nobody should be defending it. When it comes to de Blasio, there has been no class warfare. 

 

You should like Bill. Nearly fluent in Italian. 

[CenSin]

I don't exactly buy into the whole "equality" thing myself. Here's some more from the other point-of-view:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/08/so-what-if-rich-people-have-more-money-than-poor-people-in-2014/

 

So what if rich people have more money than poor people in 2014

By John Stossel

 

President Obama says income inequality is "dangerous ... the defining challenge of our time."

 

The pope is upset that capitalism causes inequality.

 

Progressives, facing the failures of ObamaCare, are eager to change the subject to America's "wealth gap."

 

It's true that today, the richest 1 percent of Americans own a third of America's wealth. One percent owns 35 percent!

 

But I say, so what?

 

Progressives in the media claim that the rich get richer at the expense of the poor. But that's a lie.

 

Hollywood sells the greedy-evil-capitalists-cheat-the-poor message with movies like Martin Scorsese's new film, "The Wolf of Wall Street," which portrays stock sellers as sex-crazed criminals.

 

Years before, Oliver Stone's "Wall Street" created a creepy financier, Gordon Gekko, played by Michael Douglas, who smugly gloated, "It's a zero-sum game. Somebody wins; somebody loses."

 

This is how the left sees the market: a zero-sum game.

 

If someone makes money, he took it from everyone else. The more the rich have, the less others have. It's as if the economy is a pie that's already on the table, waiting to be carved. The bigger the piece the rich take, the less that's left for everyone else.

 

The economy is just a fight over who gets how much. But this is absurd.

 

Bill Gates took a huge slice of pie, but he didn't take it from me. By starting Microsoft, he baked millions of new pies. He made the rest of the world richer, too.

 

Entrepreneurs create things.

 

Over the past few decades, the difference in wealth between the rich and poor has grown. This makes people uncomfortable. But why is it a problem if the poor didn't get poorer? Progressives claim they did. Some cite government data that show middle class incomes remaining relatively stagnant.

 

But this data is misleading, too. It leaves out all government handouts, like rent subsidies and food stamps. It leaves out benefits like company-funded health insurance and pensions, which make up increasing portions of people's pay.

 

And it leaves out the innovation that makes life better for both the rich and poor.

 

Even poor people today have access to cars, food, health care, entertainment and technology that rich people lusted for a few decades ago. Ninety percent of Americans living "below the poverty line" have smart phones, cable TV and cars. Seventy percent own two cars.

 

But hold on, says the left. Even if the poor reap some benefits from capitalism, it's just not "fair" that rich people have so much more. I suppose this is true. But what exactly is "fair"?

 

Is it fair that models are so good-looking? Why is it fair that some men are so much bigger than I, so no one will pay me to play pro sports? It's hardly fair that I was born in America, a country that offers me far greater opportunities than most other countries would. We Americans should be thankful that life is not fair!

 

Freedom isn't fair, if fair means equal. When people are free, some will be more successful than others. Some people are smarter or just luckier. Globalization and free-market capitalism multiply the effect of smarts and luck, allowing some people to get much richer than others.

 

So what? Inequality may seem unfair, but the alternative -- government-forced equality -- is worse. It leaves everyone poor. Opportunity is much more important than equality, and there is still income mobility in America. People born poor don't necessarily stay poor.

 

Pew research shows 58 percent of the kids born to the poorest fifth of families rose to a higher income group. Six percent rose all the way from the bottom fifth to the top fifth. Sixty-one percent of kids born to the richest fifth of families fell from that group, and 9 percent fell all the way to the bottom.

 

Opportunity requires allowing people to take risks and make changes. We won't always like the outcomes. But over the long haul, we're still better off if people are free to strive and fail, or maybe -- reap big rewards.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

And clearly how not "smart" you are... "Feet on the ground" do not materialize out of nowhere. Dinkins trained and got those cops on the streets as fast as possible, and that's why our streets got safer.

 

42nd St? Who gives a shit? Great, tourism. Not to mention, that 'broken windows' was all Bratton (de Blasio's guy), not Giuliani. And I'm sorry, but his homeless policy was atrocious. Inhumane and reprehensible; nobody should be defending it. When it comes to de Blasio, there has been no class warfare. 

 

You should like Bill. Nearly fluent in Italian. 

Pffft please... In order to cleaning up 42nd street and growing our economy, Giuliani made the subways safe to ride again.

 

I don't exactly buy into the whole "equality" thing myself. Here's some more from the other point-of-view:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/08/so-what-if-rich-people-have-more-money-than-poor-people-in-2014/

I don't either... 

[realizm]

I don't exactly buy into the whole "equality" thing myself. Here's some more from the other point-of-view:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/08/so-what-if-rich-people-have-more-money-than-poor-people-in-2014/

 

John Stossel is known to distort facts and contradict himself as a FOX News contributor. He denies that there is an equality problem with the facts cited out in clear sight.

 

 

Over the past few decades, the difference in wealth between the rich and poor has grown. This makes people uncomfortable. But why is it a problem if the poor didn't get poorer? Progressives claim they did. Some cite government data that show middle class incomes remaining relatively stagnant.

 

But this data is misleading, too. It leaves out all government handouts, like rent subsidies and food stamps. It leaves out benefits like company-funded health insurance and pensions, which make up increasing portions of people's pay.

 

The measure for calculating the poverty line for anti-poverty measures are outdated and based on a model from the 1950's! The calendar states that this year is 2014. I think the process is due for a major overhaul, obviously.

 

All they essentially do is take the minimum base income earnings and multiply it by 6 with inflation somewhat adjusted on an assumed bare-boned budget which is unrealistic. What they do not take into account is rapidly rising costs of housing, kids tuition, and utilities. How about internet service which is critical for many of today's simple activities, such as paying bills? That is not even factored in!

 

By this half a century old outdated standard, supposedly 15% percent of Americans are in poverty. But wait a minute, 35% percent of the American population are employed in positions which pays less than a living wage.

 

On top of that it is noted that the poverty level is at its highest since 1959 at least! Unemployment is reaching new highs. With all that said and he even mentioned it himself, that the data collection method is flawed he still is bent on believing we are living in some sort of utopia when we are not, making up things along the way!

 

Its all about perspective, that's the issue with this article. The 'pot calling the kettle black' mentality will not solve the problem. It will not help to educate viewers either. Contrary to popular belief: He's the liar, not these so called 'progressives' as he puts it.

[CenSin]

The measure for calculating the poverty line for anti-poverty measures are outdated and based on a model from the 1950's! The calendar states that this year is 2014. I think the process is due for a major overhaul, obviously.

 

All they essentially do is take the minimum base income earnings and multiply it by 6 with inflation somewhat adjusted on an assumed bare-boned budget which is unrealistic. What they do not take into account is rapidly rising costs of housing, kids tuition, and utilities. How about internet service which is critical for many of today's simple activities, such as paying bills? That is not even factored in!

 

By this half a century old outdated standard, supposedly 15% percent of Americans are in poverty. But wait a minute, 35% percent of the American population are employed in positions which pays less than a living wage.

 

On top of that it is noted that the poverty level is at its highest since 1959 at least! Unemployment is reaching new highs. With all that said and he even mentioned it himself, that the data collection method is flawed he still is bent on believing we are living in some sort of utopia when we are not, making up things along the way!

 

Its all about perspective, that's the issue with this article. The 'pot calling the kettle black' mentality will not solve the problem. It will not help to educate viewers either. Contrary to popular belief: He's the liar, not these so called 'progressives' as he puts it.

That's Fox News being Fox News, but he had the right idea when he said:

 

Freedom isn't fair, if fair means equal. When people are free, some will be more successful than others. Some people are smarter or just luckier. Globalization and free-market capitalism multiply the effect of smarts and luck, allowing some people to get much richer than others.

So what? Inequality may seem unfair, but the alternative — government-forced equality — is worse. It leaves everyone poor. Opportunity is much more important than equality, and there is still income mobility in America. People born poor don't necessarily stay poor.

[realizm]

That's Fox News being Fox News, but he had the right idea when he said:

 

 

Freedom isn't fair, if fair means equal. When people are free, some will be more successful than others. Some people are smarter or just luckier. Globalization and free-market capitalism multiply the effect of smarts and luck, allowing some people to get much richer than others.

 

So what? Inequality may seem unfair, but the alternative — government-forced equality — is worse. It leaves everyone poor. Opportunity is much more important than equality, and there is still income mobility in America. People born poor don't necessarily stay poor.

 

 

Lets dig into that little sniplet even further to show what a fool this guy on FOX really is.... he's saying that government forced equality will make everyone poor.

 

What he does not say is that the problem with the Republican party is the Tea Party aligned hardliners who are creating the filibusters to block simple social extensions from being passed through both chambers. They wish to severely curtail food stamp benefits after an agricultural surplus which is a crying shame. They already enacted cuts only a few months ago. They wish to cut extended unemployment benefits allowing for millions of Americans to fall through the cracks in an unresolved recession, under this pretense that poor Americans do not wish to work, which is absurb. What should be done, and it makes sense is to approve the extension for 3 months as revisions are made, attaching work requirements for the benefits to continue. Not cut it out altogether. 

 

Republican leaders are actually up for allowing such provisions to be revised into the federal budget in a spirit of bipartisanship according to Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio; priorities such as construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, expanding exemptions from the Affordable Care Act and venturing into energy exploration on federal land. Thats reasonable, we have to allow for a stream of steady revenue because the social programs in place has to be paid for. But the Tea Party are extremists who would want nothing better than to cut social programs and stop any proposal to curb the blow of this widening economic gap prematurely at the cost of the well being of many trying to move up the economic ladder. Regardless of the American public's concerns over the repercussions such a brazen move will bring.

 

We need to vote these damn Tea Party extremists out of Congress! Then we will be getting somewhere to everyone's benefit as true bipartisanship between Republican and Democratic parties can flow without interruption. 

[Turbo19]

Lets dig into that little sniplet even further to show what a fool this guy on FOX really is.... he's saying that government forced equality will make everyone poor.

 

What he does not say is that the problem with the Republican party is the Tea Party aligned hardliners who are creating the filibusters to block simple social extensions from being passed through both chambers. They wish to severely curtail food stamp benefits after an agricultural surplus which is a crying shame. They already enacted cuts only a few months ago. They wish to cut extended unemployment benefits allowing for millions of Americans to fall through the cracks in an unresolved recession, under this pretense that poor Americans do not wish to work, which is absurb. What should be done, and it makes sense is to approve the extension for 3 months as revisions are made, attaching work requirements for the benefits to continue. Not cut it out altogether. 

 

Republican leaders are actually up for allowing such provisions to be revised into the federal budget in a spirit of bipartisanship according to Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio; priorities such as construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, expanding exemptions from the Affordable Care Act and venturing into energy exploration on federal land. Thats reasonable, we have to allow for a stream of steady revenue because the social programs in place has to be paid for. But the Tea Party are extremists who would want nothing better than to cut social programs and stop any proposal to curb the blow of this widening economic gap prematurely at the cost of the well being of many trying to move up the economic ladder. Regardless of the American public's concerns over the repercussions such a brazen move will bring.

He's always been a tool. All of FOX has.

 

 

We need to vote these damn Tea Party extremists out of Congress! Then we will be getting somewhere to everyone's benefit as true bipartisanship between Republican and Democratic parties can flow without interruption. 

Agreed, but it's wishful thinking at this point.

[SoSpectacular]

Anyone who falls for Faux News' bullcrap is definitely a sucker in my book. Whoever takes them seriously needs to get their heads evaluated. With that said, I'm happy we finally have a new mayor. Things have been way too restrictive out here. We all need room to breathe.

[MHV9218]

Sorry, since when is "equal" not fair? Equal is, by definition, the most fair of all. If Stossel's definition of fair is only a situation where he's well-off, I'd like to see how he'd define the term living off of food stamps...

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Anyone who falls for Faux News' bullcrap is definitely a sucker in my book. Whoever takes them seriously needs to get their heads evaluated. With that said, I'm happy we finally have a new mayor. Things have been way too restrictive out here. We all need room to breathe.

 

 

He's always been a tool. All of FOX has.

 

 

Agreed, but it's wishful thinking at this point.

That's an unfair assessment of Fox.  Fox 5 is pretty fair.  Fox's cable channels on the other hand clearly have an agenda, but then again most networks do.  

[Turbo19]

That's an unfair assessment of Fox.  Fox 5 is pretty fair.  Fox's cable channels on the other hand clearly have an agenda, but then again most networks do.  

How is it an unfair assessment? Time after time the Fox Broadcasting Company has excised bias on numerous occasions. Do I necessarily care, truthfully no as I'm not part of the viewership, but while I do disagree with much of FOX's content if people freely like to intake that crap then I could not care less.

 

As for FOX 5 it's simply one of many affiliates that was purchase by Murdoch's News Corp. It's quite a difference looking at it, it's the powerhouse of right wing media and in contrast a shitty local syndicate of absolute trash that passes as entertainment.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

How is it an unfair assessment? Time after time the Fox Broadcasting Company has excised bias on numerous occasions. Do I necessarily care, truthfully no as I'm not part of the viewership, but while I do disagree with much of FOX's content if people freely like to intake that crap then I could not care less.

 

As for FOX 5 it's simply one of many affiliates that was purchase by Murdoch's News Corp. It's quite a difference looking at it, it's the powerhouse of right wing media and in contrast a shitty local syndicate of absolute trash that passes as entertainment.

lol@ Right wing media...

[Turbo19]

lol@ Right wing media...

Your attempt to infuriate is not working so it's a waste on your part.

 

I will say though, for someone who claims to take an independent stance you sure do like to raise a defensive stance for the right. You might as well just come out and state your actual beliefs for once, instead of being a spectator and otherwise pawn in the equation.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Your attempt to infuriate is not working so it's a waste on your part.

 

I will say though, for someone who claims to take an independent stance you sure do like to raise a defensive stance for the right. You might as well just come out and state your actual beliefs for once, instead of being a spectator and otherwise pawn in the equation.

I'm an Independent who leans to the right on economics (don't support over taxation of the rich and upper middle class) and some social issues like illegal immigration, but leans to the left on social issues like a woman's right to choose, the environment and am pro-transit overall, but at the same time a strong NIMBY.  I vote for candidates based on the issues and not their party.  I voted for a mix of Republicans but also some Democrats during the last election, so I am a true Independent and have and do support and vote for plenty of Third Party candidates.  In fact I would call myself a Libertarian in some respects (I agree with most of their policies though I am a protectionist), and I have supported Ralph Nader in the past.

[Turbo19]

I'm an Independent who leans to the right on economics (don't support over taxation of the rich and upper middle class) and some social issues like illegal immigration, but leans to the left on social issues like a woman's right to choose, the environment and am pro-transit overall, but at the same time am a strong NIMBY.  I vote for candidates based on the issues and not their party.  I voted for a mix of Republicans but also some Democrats during the last election, so I am a true Independent and have and do support and vote for plenty of Third Party candidates.  In fact I would call myself a Libertarian, though I have supported Ralph Nader in the past.

Right on. Speaking of which you should get more acquainted with Roadcruiser1, as he claims to be in support of Libertarian views. Yeah, what radicals you two are.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Right on. Speaking of which you should get more acquainted with Roadcruiser1, as he claims to be in support of Libertarian views. Yeah, what radicals you two are.

lol... I've been a Libertarian far longer than he... 

[Turbo19]

LMAO, case closed.

[Grand Concourse]

How is it an unfair assessment? Time after time the Fox Broadcasting Company has excised bias on numerous occasions. Do I necessarily care, truthfully no as I'm not part of the viewership, but while I do disagree with much of FOX's content if people freely like to intake that crap then I could not care less.

 

As for FOX 5 it's simply one of many affiliates that was purchase by Murdoch's News Corp. It's quite a difference looking at it, it's the powerhouse of right wing media and in contrast a shitty local syndicate of absolute trash that passes as entertainment.

and msnbc or cnn is any better? As far as news goes, the local news is ok. I don't bother with any of those 24/7 new networks and especially none of the primetime shows.

[Missabassie]

What's this? Do my eyes deceive me?

Is someone defending Fox 5.... the convenient dumping ground for people who can't really cut it at Fox News Channel...?

Lame ass so called anchors, you'd be better off getting news from the town crier for f**ks sake.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

What's this? Do my eyes deceive me?

Is someone defending Fox 5.... the convenient dumping ground for people who can't really cut it at Fox News Channel...?

Lame ass so called anchors, you'd be better off getting news from the town crier for f**ks sake.

Oh please... I watch Fox 5 in the morning and the anchors from 07:00 on are hilarious... NY1 is okay but very monotone...

[realizm]

What's this? Do my eyes deceive me?

Is someone defending Fox 5.... the convenient dumping ground for people who can't really cut it at Fox News Channel...?

Lame ass so called anchors, you'd be better off getting news from the town crier for f**ks sake.

 

They are aware because they must respond to white house press committee meetings. So the real problem is that they are deliberately spreading false propaganda to cater to a far right extremist audience. So yeah screw FOX News yes they are idiots all down to the scriptwriters that write this garbage for the anchorpersons and the editors who approves them.

[DJ MC]

Screw Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and every subsidiary of those garbage channels, the hell do those POS have anything to do with the subject?

[realizm]

Screw Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and every subsidiary of those garbage channels, the hell do those POS have anything to do with the subject?

 

Werd. I always without question look to the internet for current events without propaganda and media bias. I want the truth not bullshit.

 

Many times the radio networks are also good sources for meaningful news reports, minus Rush Limbaugh, another moron.