2007-03-29 07:02:12 · 4 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
expreses, careful, that is NOT what I mean...and I would vote for Rudy in a second. DOn't be so quick to judge...I know that throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it. It sure hasn't in Iraq...
2007-03-29 07:12:16 · update #1
Heidi,
As far as I can find out there seems there was no discernable spike in crime from people being forced off welfare. This was one of the few Clinton policies I supported. They did a good job at Health and Human services, headed up by Donna Shalala if my memory is not completely shot. They had a plan to transistion people from welfare to the work force and for the most part it worked. As you noted you can't solve a problem by throwing money at it...sometimes you have to use your head. Peace
2007-03-29 07:22:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not in New York city, where Rudy was mayor. Nationally crime went down under Clinton. All of that reduction was a result of Rudy's enlightened leadership in. NY. Without those numbers crime stayed steady or increased slightly in some areas. An aside, it is never good policy to pay protection, this is what your question seem to imply, that it would be to our benefit to give money to the unproductive just to keep them calm
2007-03-29 14:08:26 · answer #2 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, because he also put 100,000 more police on the streets.
2007-03-29 14:05:55 · answer #3 · answered by Crabboy4 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
no
2007-03-29 14:05:53 · answer #4 · answered by kapute2 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋