NYC: Communist Wins By 49 Percent

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
125,095
60,651
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Something in the drinking water????

Americans see the result of a communist in the White House: lies, failed foreign policy, incompetent handling of the economy....





Yet.... this:

"De Blasio Is Elected New York City Mayor in Landslide"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/nyregion/de-blasio-is-elected-new-york-city-mayor.html



Once, there was this:
"Under Rudy Giuliani's leadership, New York City has become the best-known example of the resurgence of urban America." Biography of Rudolph Giuliani


And then Bloomberg who continued Giuliani's economic policies:



1. "The 1996 federal welfare-reform law, which time-limited aid and imposed a work requirement on many recipients, also gave the states wide latitude in designing welfare programs.... During their tenures, Rudolph Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg not only reduced the welfare rolls; they transformed the nation’s capital of welfare dependency into a center of welfare reform founded on an ethos of personal responsibility.
[Obama has destroyed that 1996 reform, no longer requiring work...]

2. .... remember the costly misery of the pre-reform era.... irrational excess. The federal War on Poverty had flooded the city with social-services money to help the poor, and John Lindsay, who became mayor in 1966, enthusiastically spent it .... Lindsay’s first commissioner of social services, Mitchell Ginsberg—“Come-and-Get-It Ginsberg,” as the Daily News dubbed him.



3. ... welfare-rights advocates took him at his word. They scoured New York for potential recipients, held sit-ins, and issued ultimatums for even more government welfare money and fewer restrictions on getting it... Activist lawyers and liberal judges diluted—and, in some cases, overturned—rules that had kept the welfare rolls from dramatically expanding in the past.... The number of New Yorkers on welfare doubled during Lindsay’s mayoralty.
[Of course, this President is the national John Lindsay]



4. .... welfare explosion reflected a striking shift in social attitudes. Until then, the poor had come to New York to improve their lot. Some might need public or private aid, but to receive it was evidence of failure, even a reason for shame.

The Roosevelt administration had intended the main federal welfare program, Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), to be merely a temporary way for abandoned and widowed women with children to counter the severe hardship of the Great Depression.

Even so, FDR worried that the program could become a “narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit” that sapped individual initiative.

[Obama's pride is that under him, more are on food stamps than work full-time in America]

CJ Mobile: Saving Welfare Reform



Now NYC has an Obama as mayor....and back we go to crime, dependency, and the unsustainable economic environment that the national $17 trillion debt represents.




And so, the sunlight fades on the once great 'shining city on the hill.'
 
False premise.

Obama didn't remove the work requirement. He gave the OPTION to the STATES to revise, ADD TO or eliminate them via a waiver process.

And, if States did opt to seek the waiver, they were still required to participate in one of the 12 work activities and *also still had a time limit.
 
Only 29 percent of those receiving cash assistance met the work requirement by the time President Obama took office.

Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific “work activities,” such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment,” which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an “evaluation plan” that includes “performance measures” that must be met — or the waiver could be revoked.


As a result, the Administration for Children and Families within the Department of Health and Human Services solicited recommendations from state officials on how to improve its programs.

One of the responses ACF received was from Kristen Cox, executive director of the Utah Department of Workforce Services. “Utah is especially interested in the development of a waiver authority in the TANF grant,” the Aug. 1, 2011, letter said.

The Utah letter said the federal work-participation rules focused too much on process and not enough on outcome. “The lack of focus on outcomes makes the program less about the need to help parents find and retain work and more about the need to assure that parents are active in prescribed [work] activities,” the letter said.

Utah expressly said it would not use a federal waiver to avoid work requirements. “The expectation to participate fully in specific [work] activities leading to employment is not the issue,” the letter stated. Instead, Utah was seeking the flexibility to overcome the “narrow definitions of what counts [toward work participation] and the burdensome documentation and verification process.”


Does Obama?s Plan ?Gut Welfare Reform??
 
False premise.

Obama didn't remove the work requirement. He gave the OPTION to the STATES to revise, ADD TO or eliminate them via a waiver process.

And, if States did opt to seek the waiver, they were still required to participate in one of the 12 work activities and *also still had a time limit.



Wrong.




Obama shredded the Constitution by unilaterally changing the law.


1. "Determined to destroy Bill Clinton's signature achievement, President Barack Obama's Administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 Welfare Reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement -- the central feature of the legislation -- has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services.

2. The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement. When it passed welfare reform, Congress expressly limited the authority of the Secretary of HHS to waive the work requirement.

a. "Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that "a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title (the one that HHS now claims it is acting under) or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on September 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State."

b. In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum."
Obama Kills Welfare Reform | RealClearPolitics



We live in a lawless nation under a corrupt dictator.....

...and it is people like you that make that possible.
 
False premise.

Obama didn't remove the work requirement. He gave the OPTION to the STATES to revise, ADD TO or eliminate them via a waiver process.

And, if States did opt to seek the waiver, they were still required to participate in one of the 12 work activities and *also still had a time limit.



Wrong.




Obama shredded the Constitution by unilaterally changing the law.


1. "Determined to destroy Bill Clinton's signature achievement, President Barack Obama's Administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 Welfare Reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement -- the central feature of the legislation -- has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services.

2. The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement. When it passed welfare reform, Congress expressly limited the authority of the Secretary of HHS to waive the work requirement.

a. "Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that "a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title (the one that HHS now claims it is acting under) or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on September 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State."

b. In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum."
Obama Kills Welfare Reform | RealClearPolitics



We live in a lawless nation under a corrupt dictator.....

...and it is people like you that make that possible.

Umm, he offered a waiver to the States in return of providing a more efficient means of getting a person off of welfare.

It was not a universal waiving of the work requirement. It was an allowance for states to negotiate a waiver, shall they seek one.

Sorry - facts matter.
 
The thing is, well off liberal people put the socialist in office in New York that's what gets me
 
Last edited:
False premise.

Obama didn't remove the work requirement. He gave the OPTION to the STATES to revise, ADD TO or eliminate them via a waiver process.

And, if States did opt to seek the waiver, they were still required to participate in one of the 12 work activities and *also still had a time limit.



Wrong.




Obama shredded the Constitution by unilaterally changing the law.


1. "Determined to destroy Bill Clinton's signature achievement, President Barack Obama's Administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 Welfare Reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement -- the central feature of the legislation -- has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services.

2. The Congress specifically prohibited the use of education or training to fulfill the requirement. When it passed welfare reform, Congress expressly limited the authority of the Secretary of HHS to waive the work requirement.

a. "Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that "a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title (the one that HHS now claims it is acting under) or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on September 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State."

b. In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum."
Obama Kills Welfare Reform | RealClearPolitics



We live in a lawless nation under a corrupt dictator.....

...and it is people like you that make that possible.

Umm, he offered a waiver to the States in return of providing a more efficient means of getting a person off of welfare.

It was not a universal waiving of the work requirement. It was an allowance for states to negotiate a waiver, shall they seek one.

Sorry - facts matter.




I notice that when facts get in your way....e.g., the law that I quoted.....you simply ignore same.



Is that due to dishonesty or stupidity?
 
You didn't quote the law, you quoted an excerpt with a biased opinion attached to it.

The Law allows the States to request a waiver in exchange for a better plan.
The Law does not drop the work requirements.

READ THE LAW.
 
It also helps when your own real clear politics article says that the law does exactly as GT says: Its new regulations allow the states to substitute education programs for work to get welfare benefits. The regs say that "vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs count as well" in meeting the basic condition that recipients work in order to receive welfare benefits.
Read more: Obama Kills Welfare Reform | RealClearPolitics
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
 
there was absolutely no reason in the world to remove the work requirement. one of the poorest political decisions ever.
 
there was absolutely no reason in the world to remove the work requirement. one of the poorest political decisions ever.

It wasn't removed.

The option to remove it was afforded to the States.
 
We live in a lawless nation under a corrupt dictator
Lol drama queen much?

I always wonder if people like you who can only communicate via hyperbole and exaggeration are this way when interacting in person too, and what impact that has on your personal relationships.
 
Wins with less than 1/3 of eligible voters turning out. In other words, he had about 29% of the NYC vote overalll.
 
We live in a lawless nation under a corrupt dictator
Lol drama queen much?

I always wonder if people like you who can only communicate via hyperbole and exaggeration are this way when interacting in person too, and what impact that has on your personal relationships.

Thanks so much for your concern.....you needn't worry.

Actually, your post reveals your usual inadequacy....you can't respond to the OP.


And thanks for coming by...until your entry, I had never met the result of a first cousin marriage.
 
And more will change with the Sandanista and Castro supporter at NYC's helm.....


5. ....Giuliani dismissed the commonplace left-liberal view that low-wage jobs demeaned the workers who took them. Just the opposite: “Dignity and hope . . . can be found in a job, the very best social program there is.” Giuliani’s philosophy was grounded in a very American optimism about individual initiative and personal responsibility....described the administration’s belief that “work and self-reliance are . . . something individuals must achieve with their own efforts with the help and support of government,” contrasting that philosophy with the advocates’ contention that the circumstances of the poor were determined by vast forces beyond their control.




6. Giuliani made four major reforms to the city’s welfare system.
First, recognizing that fraud was extensive, he required recipients to identify themselves on fingerprint scanners, and he instituted home visits to verify the information on application forms.

Giuliani also refused to believe, as the advocates did, that most welfare recipients needed training before they could find respectable jobs and that many were unable to work at all. Instead, he operated under the assumption that what prevented the urban poor from finding work was welfare itself, which isolated them from mainstream life. To break that isolation, he insisted on a new “work-first” ethos for the welfare system: except for those with extreme disabilities, everyone, including mothers of young children, would have to work in exchange for temporary government help. Giuliani proceeded to strengthen the loosely enforced Work Experience Program, or “workfare,” as everyone soon called it, which required recipients to work in city parks or offices in exchange for benefits.

A third reform, led by the enterprising Turner, transformed the welfare bureaucracy so that it constantly emphasized work. Welfare offices became “Job Centers,” and caseworkers directed applicants to vendors specializing in finding employment for them.

That led to Giuliani’s final reform: paying these vendors not for the number of people they served but for the number who found jobs and kept them for at least three months.




7. These changes had dramatic effects. By the end of Giuliani’s second term, the welfare rolls had shrunk by 650,000 people. Just between 1996 and 2000, the share of single mothers who were in the city’s labor force grew from 16 percent to 42 percent. And the decline in overall poverty rates outpaced that of the rest of the country, giving the lie to those who had prophesied Dickensian horrors."
CJ Mobile: Saving Welfare Reform

Look at where we are now.

Look at who is the President....Mr. Food Stamp
 
Last edited:
We live in a lawless nation under a corrupt dictator
Lol drama queen much?

I always wonder if people like you who can only communicate via hyperbole and exaggeration are this way when interacting in person too, and what impact that has on your personal relationships.

Ironically enough, I was just wondering the same thing about people on the board who think that gay relationships are all about the sex and only the sex.
 

Forum List

Back
Top