• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: Do You Favor Bailing Out Detroit?

Do you favor bailing out Detroit?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 13 18.8%
  • No.

    Votes: 51 73.9%
  • Don't know.

    Votes: 5 7.2%

  • Total voters
    69
If the US consumer wanted higher priced "union made in the USA" goods then they would surely buy them.

Good evening, ttwtt. :2wave:

The problem is since we decided to try having a service-based economy instead of a manufacturing-based economy, people no longer have the jobs that pay well enough to buy enough of those "union-made in the USA" goods. Look at the number of years the car companies, as an example, have been forced to offer consumers to pay off a car loan. And the loan agreements keep giving longer and longer terms. I saw one recently for 72 months! One in every six Americans are on some sort of government assistance today, and the number is growing. Most people like to have nice things--they just can't afford them today on part-time jobs. Sad catch-22! :thumbdown:
 
I wish there was another option honestly.
I think there are many possible options that would require joint cooperation from government, big business, and the people of Detroit, but it would be a huge gamble that nobody wants to make. Businesses won't do it because any projection made will point to failure, and a loss of millions, perhaps billions of dollars. The government won't do it because hands are tied, money is tight, and failure would make it really difficult to ensure victory at the polls. The people of Detroit won't do it because people are ignorant, fear change, and don't care about anything that doesn't involve something being in it for them, especially if it involves them changing their ways.
 
No doubt there are lots of manufacturing losses in "union" areas, the problem is that the manufacturing losses are not just union jobs, they are ALL manufacturing.

And here is the kicker, those non union areas (South of the Mason-Dixon) that had increased manufacturing jobs.....had very spotty increases in wages/income:

View attachment 67151505

So they got some of those manufacturing jobs, but their wages did not increase from what they were doing before.

Hooray for the foreign manufacturers, they get discounted labor, huge tax cuts and subsidies.....while the US workers (and govts)...meh, not much.

Again, no national industrial policy, you let the corporations set the policy, you end up with rust belts, less manufacturing, greater market share going to foreign corporations and lower wages for critical, strategic industrial workers.

Let's see... there's a down turn in the economy, and wages drop for new jobs. Never would have thought that would happen? And of course, the US industries that have to compete with the foreign low wage jobs that you brought up, well, make it more difficult to raise wages here. That of course never enters into the conversation, just that our wages are too low.

You see, if we only have to compete with our own products, then we can set our costs (wages for instance) as high as we want. The problem is that we have to compete on a global scale, with those same low wage worker produced products from around the world. Sticky thing, facts...

Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I'm just trying to voice the true economic facts of a global market (Smoot-Hawley didn't work then, and a similar act will not work now).

National policies (the one-size-fits-all) is not, will not, and never has been the answer to the problem. Local government understands the local market for labor and supplies and can make the proper adjustments for taxes and wages.

Want to see what a laissez faire attitude toward the global market and a damned the torpedoes advocacy of high labor costs can do to an economy? Just look at Detroit today.
 
Good evening, ttwtt. :2wave:

The problem is since we decided to try having a service-based economy instead of a manufacturing-based economy, people no longer have the jobs that pay well enough to buy enough of those "union-made in the USA" goods. Look at the number of years the car companies, as an example, have been forced to offer consumers to pay off a car loan. And the loan agreements keep giving longer and longer terms. I saw one recently for 72 months! One in every six Americans are on some sort of government assistance today, and the number is growing. Most people like to have nice things--they just can't afford them today on part-time jobs. Sad catch-22! :thumbdown:

I don't think that "we decided to try having a service-based economy instead" is a fair or accurate statement. We developed a service-based economy because there were enough high-paying manufacturing job to support it as something of an indulgence. Then, due to globalization and the world getting figuratively smaller, those high-paying manufacturing jobs moved overseas because it was more economically feasible for the corporations to turn them into low-paying manufacturing jobs. The result being that we are left with a more service-based economy and not nearly the discretionary money to fully support it.
 
Good evening, ttwtt. :2wave:

The problem is since we decided to try having a service-based economy instead of a manufacturing-based economy, people no longer have the jobs that pay well enough to buy enough of those "union-made in the USA" goods. Look at the number of years the car companies, as an example, have been forced to offer consumers to pay off a car loan. And the loan agreements keep giving longer and longer terms. I saw one recently for 72 months! One in every six Americans are on some sort of government assistance today, and the number is growing. Most people like to have nice things--they just can't afford them today on part-time jobs. Sad catch-22! :thumbdown:

Yet you cannot expect to live like a middle class worker with a McJob. In a global market you must accept a global lifestyle. The silly idea now seems to be to turn all "essential" goods and services into entitlements provided by the huge nanny state via income redistribution schemes. Even the village idiot will magically become a middle class regular Joe in the utopian land of unicorns; we will now strive for mediocrity and accept anything short of that as still meriting a "fair share" of the American dream. Instead of making more pies we will now simply share less pies more equally to achieve "social justice".
 
I know....look at all those lousy local govts....


View attachment 67151504

Now, don't stop there - do a little more research and see how many of those cities that lost significant manufacturing jobs have also declared bankruptcy. Here's a hint, those that didn't declare bankruptcy had governing bodies that adjusted to the new reality, encouraged new and different investment, and cut back on expenditures until their local economies turned around.
 
No, we shouldn't bail a city out that's run itself down the tubes with constant, blatant corruption. Citizens and employees should have looked at the self inflicted downfall of Detroit, starting decades ago, and realized that it was time to pack up and leave or come up with a plan for success. I think bailouts would just enable more failure.
 
Are you kidding me? These "servants" of the people should not get one dime more than the SS/Medicare system that they "opted" out of gives to anyone else with the same earnings history. It is simply insane to "honor" these very special agreements that are unsustainable by the tax base/electorate which allowed these moronic unfunded promises to be made in the first place. Converting selected local gov't employees to some federally protected class of super citizen is not legal, and doubtfully even constitutional.

I was unaware all they were paying was social security taxes until yesterday. I thought they were paying extra into a pension fund.
 
Yet you cannot expect to live like a middle class worker with a McJob. In a global market you must accept a global lifestyle. The silly idea now seems to be to turn all "essential" goods and services into entitlements provided by the huge nanny state via income redistribution schemes. Even the village idiot will magically become a middle class regular Joe in the utopian land of unicorns; we will now strive for mediocrity and accept anything short of that as still meriting a "fair share" of the American dream. Instead of making more pies we will now simply share less pies more equally to achieve "social justice".

Great post! :thumbs:

It's not going to work, as has been proven over the ages, yet they are trying. "Fair share" is only for the serfs, not the elite class who envision themselves worthy of more. If this is Utopia, it isn't going to work in America--we're too used to striving for better, and will fight for it! :peace:
 
Great post! :thumbs:

It's not going to work, as has been proven over the ages, yet they are trying. "Fair share" is only for the serfs, not the elite class who envision themselves worthy of more. If this is Utopia, it isn't going to work in America--we're too used to striving for better, and will fight for it! :peace:

That is not going to work out well without any export industry growth and a continued "easy money" policy.

As I pointed out, in a global economy, we (the US) are now enjoying a far higher than average median household income compared to that of most other nations - which is not likely to last for much longer.

Median household income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Income
 
Come on liberals. Ya'll need to get behind this in a big way.
Meaning ?
Please elaborate.
And be hoest...
I believe not in bail-outs..
But, we do have the "too big to fail" conditions.....is this one ??
This "too big" should never have been allowed to happen....
 
Now, don't stop there - do a little more research and see how many of those cities that lost significant manufacturing jobs have also declared bankruptcy. Here's a hint, those that didn't declare bankruptcy had governing bodies that adjusted to the new reality, encouraged new and different investment, and cut back on expenditures until their local economies turned around.

Good morning, CJ! :2wave:

How radical! It could never work --just ask someone from the Nanny State who has never tried it!

Reminds me of the Grasshopper and the Ant. Or the Little Red Hen who did all the work required to get her loaves of bread made, and had no help from the lazy ones until it came time to eat the bread--then they were happy to help!

There's a reason these life lesson stories have endured over the ages! :thumbs:
 
I don't think we should bail them out. I think we should investigate and prosecute. Same with "too big to fail."
 
I think those who's pensions are in jeopardy should somehow be taken care of. I don't think Detroit as a city is worth saving. I can't think of any industry where it makes sense to make Detroit its global headquarters where it wouldn't make more sense to have it somewhere else. The auto industry would be more efficiently run out of a city with an international seaport in my opinion.

It would have been best to do this in advance, but create a national pool of all city workers pensions then if one city has issues, the retirees are safe. It might be good to go ahead and extend the national pooling to other benefits too like health insurance group, etc.

No mention is made of the amount nor value of the pensions ..
We do not know if they are excessive or not...
I have heard " a dime on the dollar" the value right now ?
Heartless in spades.
If , say 80 cents on the dollar, then, yes its a hit, but not a killer..
The truth needs to be open and public...
As to Detroit's location, as opposed to , say, San Francisco.....or NYC.
I remember the Chrysler Building in NYC....would this not be Chrysler's headquarters ?
 
There should not be any "bailout" option. The city government created this mess and if the citizens want to save their city it is up to them it do it themselves.

The state and the federal governments do have responsibility. A century ago, the money began its migration from the city to the country.
Action should have been taken then ...and this applies to every city in our nation.
Now, thanks to irresponsible government, and the people not caring ....they will suffer - this , sadly, necessary.
 
No, we shouldn't bail a city out that's run itself down the tubes with constant, blatant corruption. Citizens and employees should have looked at the self inflicted downfall of Detroit, starting decades ago, and realized that it was time to pack up and leave or come up with a plan for success. I think bailouts would just enable more failure.

Good morning, JC! :2wave:

If they had applied their corruption skills honed over the years to making Detroit successful, instead of the bankrupt failure it is today, we wouldn't be discussing this. They apparently understand enough of governance to get personally wealthy, so you have to accept the fact that they are not inept--just greedy and self-serving! And now that they realize that someone may actually straighten out the mess they have made, they have the gall to complain that their gravy train is ending? Don't the voters in Detroit understand why their city is in trouble? Unbeliveable! :eek:
 
Morning Polgara :2wave:

:agree I would have moved out in the 70's.

Good morning, JC! :2wave:

If they had applied their corruption skills honed over the years to making Detroit successful, instead of the bankrupt failure it is today, we wouldn't be discussing this. They apparently understand enough of governance to get personally wealthy, so you have to accept the fact that they are not inept--just greedy and self-serving! And now that they realize that someone may actually straighten out the mess they have made, they have the gall to complain that their gravy train is ending? Don't the voters in Detroit understand why their city is in trouble? Unbeliveable! :eek:
 
There do seem to be simple, basic answers. A person could drive through Detroit now or 25 years ago and have the same impression that the city couldn't possibly be governed properly to say the least, so getting massive cuts in spending, including pensions, shouldn't be that much of a surprise.

Good morning, CJ! :2wave:

How radical! It could never work --just ask someone from the Nanny State who has never tried it!

Reminds me of the Grasshopper and the Ant. Or the Little Red Hen who did all the work required to get her loaves of bread made, and had no help from the lazy ones until it came time to eat the bread--then they were happy to help!

There's a reason these life lesson stories have endured over the ages! :thumbs:
 
I think those who's pensions are in jeopardy should somehow be taken care of. I don't think Detroit as a city is worth saving. I can't think of any industry where it makes sense to make Detroit its global headquarters where it wouldn't make more sense to have it somewhere else. The auto industry would be more efficiently run out of a city with an international seaport in my opinion.

It would have been best to do this in advance, but create a national pool of all city workers pensions then if one city has issues, the retirees are safe. It might be good to go ahead and extend the national pooling to other benefits too like health insurance group, etc.




It might have been a good idea if the worst run city in the world directed by the worst planners doing the worst things at both the best and the worst times had insured the pensions.

They didn't.

No surprise there.
 
Maybe the proper solution is to not have so many government workers in the first place. If the government focused on, you know, governing, rather than operating businesses, it wouldn't need so many workers on its payroll.
 
Maybe the proper solution is to not have so many government workers in the first place. If the government focused on, you know, governing, rather than operating businesses, it wouldn't need so many workers on its payroll.

Maybe the solution WAS to stand up and say no when all those free trade deals were being signed that paved the way for all productive jobs to be shipped over seas... It was Sao these were the jobs that Nobody WANTED to do... Well, we find out 15 years later, or so, that people really DO want these jobs, and that these jobs really were holding the economy together...

Let's say we give Detroit a cash injection, that will ease a bit of suffering, however, without any jobs, anything to export will mean that in 6 months the people there will be in the same spot they are today... Then what? Another bailout?
 
We bailed out the fat cats on Wall Street, doesn't Main Street get equal standing?
How silly of me, of course it doesn't - at least, not in America ... :(
 
We bailed out the fat cats on Wall Street, doesn't Main Street get equal standing?
How silly of me, of course it doesn't - at least, not in America ... :(

Could you remind me how the Federal government actually "bailed out" the shareholders of Lehman Brothers?
 
Could you remind me how the Federal government actually "bailed out" the shareholders of Lehman Brothers?
And how many hundreds of billions of taxpayer money did the other banks with a large interest in commercial banking get?


They lost their friggin' minds in 1999 when they repealed Glass-Steagall.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom