Do you acknowledge that the city government in Detroit had authority and responsibility for establishing yearly budgets and generating the revenues to support those budgets and expenditures?
Do you acknowledge that the city government in Detroit entered into collective agreements with their city employees over the past 50 years, signing off on all improvements in wages and benefits contained in those agreements?
Do you acknowledge that if the city government runs a deficit in a particular year, it is their sworn oath responsibility to account for that deficit in the next year and to ensure it isn't replicated in the next year?
Do you have any evidence at all of any extraordinary circumstances such as natural disasters or infrastructure catastrophes that hit the city so hard that they could not handle them in the budget year?
Bottom line, the current city government of Detroit may not be specifically responsible for all of Detroit's problems but all of the city governments of Detroit over the past 50 years are collectively responsible and all those governments were freely elected and reelected by the residents of Detroit.
So, yes, the people of Detroit are responsible for their mess.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
Women who want to responsibility for making their own health choices are great examples of personal responsibility.
Here's an example of a woman begging for help:
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI) were not happy with Sister Simone Campbell's request for government assistance in helping the poor
What’s more, Ribble’s willingness to shirk governmental responsibility echoed the sentiment of other Republican members at the hearing who looked down on the poor. In his opening statement, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) claimed that in America, “If you work hard and play by the rules, you can get ahead.” Ryan’s comments, combined with Ribble’s, invoked an old conservative stereotype of the lazy, unemployed welfare recipient, living off of government funding instead of working for her family’s wellbeing. Under their logic, those who receive welfare—or faith-based social justice charities that ask for government assistance—are just not working hard enough.
Campbell shot back, “Justice comes before charity… Everyone has a right to eat, and therefore there is a governmental responsibility to ensure everyone’s capacity to eat. Love and care makes a difference, but the issues are so big there isn’t sufficient charitable dollars there.”
Indeed, by placing the responsibility of social welfare on the Catholic church, Ribble ignored the federal government’s long history of working with faith groups to help guarantee equal protection and economic mobility for all Americans. Catholic Charities, for example, is one of the largest charities in the country, and gets over half of its operating budget from federal funds. Yet even with this support, the combined efforts of Catholic Charities and various other faith-based groups don’t even come close to meeting the demand of America’s impoverished, including the four out of 5 U.S. adults who struggle with joblessness, near-poverty, or relying on welfare for at least parts of their lives.
In reality, Ryan and Ribble’s image of the poor ignores the 68 percent of children
Why did 2/3s of the people leave? Why did the jobs leave? As stated previously, unions did a wonderful job of pricing their members out of the global marketplace. If a corporation, whose main job is to make a profit so they can survive, is put at such a disadvantage by having to pay higher and ever higher wages, high benefits, high pensions and unions who do not work with mangagement oftentimes so as to put out a better if not the very best product, but rather in an adversarial position to the point where the corporation becomes inclined to seek a more congenial and prosperous venue elsewhere from which to conduct business... whose fault is that?
What created the racial polarization? If you drive your tax base away due to racial friction leaving just the poor there, maybe they should rethink how strident their positions are, how far they are willing to push things and what the consequences of those decisions and what the benefits of other decisions might be. I am not accusing anybody or any side of anything...just saying if you drive people away, maybe you should have made the proper concessions prior, cause look what you are left with now?
Every city looking at trouble in the USA should be rethinking right now. if they don't, and do not work to resolve the problems now, sorry...too bad soo sad...
Get there firstest with the mostest. Trust, but verify. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
If you are arguing that the city should have foreseen for the massive decline in jobs/property values/increased unemployment that happened in the last 4 years ( a very real disaster) while still needing to maintain city services, then you ought to lend them your crystal ball.