Streams

Bloomberg's Private Efforts

Friday, August 05, 2011

Joyce Purnick, WNYC political analyst, longtime New York Times political writer and author of Mike Bloomberg: Money, Power, Politics, discusses Mayor Bloomberg's use of private money to fight poverty and to fund Regents testing—and what New York City will do when it no longer has a billionaire mayor.

Guests:

Joyce Purnick

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [13]

Olivia from New York City

I am not impressed. First, for Bloomberg 30 million really isn't all that much - and over what period of time does this extend? But more to the point: he has been in charge of the schools for nine years now - his policies and reforms proved to be misguided and failed. He refused to listen to anyone with other ideas. Those he put in charge were not really qualified (every chancellor required a waiver). So let's see - these 16 year old youths that he wants to put on the right paths were 7 year olds when he took over the schools. Perhaps many of these kids would have found sparks of inspiration in school had they had the right leadership and these kids would already be on positive paths.

Aug. 05 2011 10:42 PM
Alex from Brooklyn NY

I am sorry if I sound too cynical!! but it's for good reason!
The mayor's poverty plan is LIPSTICK ON A PIG!
He never sees panhandlers in the subway…
The Mayor's NYPD security detail drags away the homeless from public places before Bloomberg arrives…
I went with friends to give out hot soup for the homeless late at night during the freezing winter. my friend got an email from a high ranking city administration official dis-encouraging him from doing it, because it enables the homeless their life style, using the same reasoning of the biblical courts of Sodom-and-Gomorrah…
so give me a brake he doesn't care about the less fortunate…
He wants to them out of the city… or to socially engineer them… it's never about helping them, TODAY!
Even the headline of his own press release gives it away "young black and Latino males" as if others are not poor like in his own ethnicity, he just doesn’t want to see or admit it… Don’t make the "poor" the others, The "poor" are US!
Helping the poor by socially engineering them, not to be or become poor, is very good, but it's only believable when you care for the currently poor as well.
enough said!

Aug. 05 2011 07:13 PM
Hillary from Manhattan, NY

To the guy from Pt Washington who called and said private efforts are more successful than public ones, what about how Wall St and the rating agencies crashed the global economy with their greedy shenanigans?

How about the bankers who are unwilling to take those haircuts to get mortgages followed by housing back on track?

How about how the private contractors flubbed the rebuilding of Iraq?

I know where I want private money to be and that's the one place they seem to be MIA: HIRING!

Hillary, NYC

Aug. 05 2011 11:00 AM
amalgam from NYC by day, NJ by night

@ john from office -

It's not so much that drug laws shouldn't be enforced on "blacks and Latinos," but that there is clearly an effort to go after those minorities when majority "whites," for instance, have a higher rate of drug use than any other racial groups.

Why is drug enforcement on white people so much easier than on minorities?

Aug. 05 2011 10:36 AM
Chris from Brooklyn

RE: Bloomberg opposes higher taxes for the wealthy

National conversation seems centered on the idea that taxation for the purpose of helping the poor (working poor included) is a case of government overstepping its bounds, often citing the Constitution as backing. They seem to forget, however, the preamble to the Constitution. It says, among other things, "...promote the general welfare..." Letting them eat cake seems like a fairly poor promotion of the general welfare.

Aug. 05 2011 10:36 AM
amalgam from NYC by day, NJ by night

Bloomberg's desire NOT to raise taxes on the wealthy while spending his own funds makes sense because, as Andrea stated at the top, it goes back to the medieval sensibility of noblesse oblige. During the American Gilded Age, there was great philanthropy expended by the wealthy robber barons for programs similar to what Bloomberg is doing.

I am opposed to returning to the Gilded Age where American citizens lose their individual rights and privileges that an open, democratic, civilized society can help to build.

All that aside, the initiative that Bloomberg is spearheading is a good one to try out because creative solutions are necessary.

Aug. 05 2011 10:34 AM
Smokey from LES

Any word if Bloomberg wants to REALLY be in charge of running New York City? And by that of course I mean running for governor?

Aug. 05 2011 10:33 AM
Robert from NYC

The problem isn't so much that he can't be bought but who he can buy and he sure as hell bought his 3rd term.

Aug. 05 2011 10:31 AM
john from office

Soooo, we should not enforce drug laws to help these "blacks and Latinos" ???

Hello????

Aug. 05 2011 10:25 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

It is pathetic that this "new" initiative follows 45 years of similar "new" initiatives for urban poverty every, oh, 4 years or so.
Isn't it time to admit that the great "liberal" experiment has failed miserably and that its only results are the destruction of urban families, ever increasing poverty, ever declining schools, etc., etc. etc?

Aug. 05 2011 10:24 AM
john from office

The aiming of any program at "black and Latino" men is a positive thing, but it has to be accepted by those it is offered to. Too manny baggy pants, droppy drawers and bad boy , thug life ambitions. When the desire to be a thug is gone and the culture that promotes it, then there will be change. The culture makes a trip to Rikers cool and hip, a badge of honor, not of shame.
There is no parenting going on.

I know I know, I am a racist

Aug. 05 2011 10:21 AM
marsha from Manhattan

Does Bloomberg see any connection between his stop and frisk policy and young black and Latino men?

Aug. 05 2011 10:18 AM
Susan from nyc

Parse this proposal and you get two billionaires who pay half the freight and then take enormous tax deductions, leaving the taxpayers to pick up the tab for half the program plus their tax breaks, while discriminating against women in a way that would never pass the smell test of the democratic process. Spare me. I prefer messy democracy, consistently undermined by Napoleon Bonaparte Bloomberg (see third term debacle) to his failed oligarchy.

Aug. 05 2011 10:00 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.