• 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
Unitedwestand13 said:
and what if Detroit financial troubles causes it to fail and drags the entire country down with it?
Click to expand...

We are playing the "what if" game now? So what if a meteor strikes the world and we all die off in a massive extinction event? Anything is possible, but is it immediately likely? No.

Detroit is no longer an industrial hub, and if it actually falls completely into the crapper (which it won't) there isn't much more harm it can do to our economy than has already occurred with the "Great Recession of 2008."

Let me repeat myself. Detroit has enough of a tax base to pull itself out of the toilet without a bail out. It will require severe austerity measures, and the cooperation of it's citizens to make it work. If they don't cooperate to work it out? That's on them!
 
Detroit is facing a huge problem, to be sure. And it cannot be solved quickly or painlessly. But, what has Detroit done thus far to keep the situation from getting worse?

For example, even with reductions in staff through layoffs and/or attrition, there will come a point that new hires will have to be made. When those new people are hired, will they be steered into a more reasonable and rational 401k-type retirement plan, or will they continue to be funneled into the existing and broken pension plan?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Um, if you are arguing for bankruptcy...you are.

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.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating for anything other than what I suggested in my first post. As for arguing for bankruptcy, that ship has sailed. As for foreseeing Detroit's decline, if you believe Detroit has only been in decline for the past 4 years, that's just blind nonsense. This has been a long, long time coming.
 
lolabird said:
It was a metaphor.
You need to calm down and realize that not all people think as you do.
And stop trying to goad me. It's very off-putting.
Click to expand...

LOL I am perfectly calm and I responded to a facetious comment (i.e. "pipe") with a facetious answer.

Besides, I'm not the one using appeals to emotion to support my case. My responses have been the same throughout. If you find honesty off-putting...don't debate. ;)

In any case you are again avoiding the topic and trying to make this a personal issue. I do not intend to let that happen, so please stay on point because any further attempts to avoid the OP's issue will be ignored. Thanks.
 
Captain Adverse said:
LOL I am perfectly calm and I responded to a facetious comment (i.e. "pipe") with a facetious answer.

Besides, I'm not the one using appeals to emotion to support my case. My responses have been the same throughout. If you find honesty off-putting...don't debate. ;)

In any case you are again avoiding the topic and trying to make this a personal issue. I do not intend to let that happen, so please stay on point because any further attempts to avoid the OP's issue will be ignored. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Please stop with your accusations. Thank you.
 
radcen said:
The politicians who get elected are the ones who promise the world, even if the world is not deliverable. As long as the people keep insisting on getting the world, things will not change. And I don't mean just in Detroit, I mean all over the country. Detroit is just one of the first, and so far biggest, domino to fall.
Click to expand...

I agree. Citizens have neglected their civic duties and allowed corruption to gain control of the reins of government. Thereby creating a runaway situation; we need to recapture the reins and slow this buggy down. Detroit would be a good place to start.
 
haymarket said:
Some did . Some did not. Some did not live there when various administrations were elected. Some who did are gone. Some were not even born then.



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?

To a point. How does one generate needed revenues when 2/3 of the population has left and taken the jobs and tax base with it but the city is still the same size?



Yes they did. And we have seen no evidence offered by you nor anyone else that those agreements had anything wrong with them. So by itself, your question and my answer says nothing incriminating.



The city borrows money - just like the State and the Federal government does.



Yes. A loss of 2/3 of your population is probably worse than a one time natural disaster.
Yes. A loss of your good paying manufacturing jobs is probably worse than a one time natural disaster.
Yes, the failure of the State of Michigan to make good on its commitment for annual revenue sharing revenues in return for Detroit lowering its taxes is the equal of a natural disaster.



First, the slide began some 60 years ago - not 50.
Second, the people you want to hold responsible are not there to take responsibility as most are dead and gone.



As you can see by the answers to your own questions, that is not so clear cut as you would have us believe.
Click to expand...

I won't argue the points you've made - you identify the problems, but you don't identify the causes of those problems. I would argue that a well run city with a strong municipal government, responsible and dedicated to the people and the health of their city and not solely to themselves, does not have the exodus of residents and business for no reason - that's just not logical. People and businesses left for two main reasons - because taxes were too high and growing higher and crime was running rampant without any attempts to seriously curtail it.

These people didn't all flee the city for other big cities or other states - in many cases, they moved out of the municipal jurisdiction of the city of Detroit proper to surrounding metropolitan areas with less crime and lower taxes. Many of these, interestingly, are city employees like police officers, firefighters, etc. So they make their living from the city and pay their taxes somewhere else.

That's a recipe for disaster if you don't stop it and the city government seems to have just let the city rot.
 
Smeagol said:
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.
Click to expand...

That creates a huge problem. Are pensions and benefits still going to be negotiated and set by the city? So pretty much every city will be in an arms race to raise their pension as much as possible while also underfunding those same pensions as much as possible. Pretty much the only way its going to be resolved at that point is the federal government taking over the pensions for city workers.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm not advocating for anything other than what I suggested in my first post. As for arguing for bankruptcy, that ship has sailed. As for foreseeing Detroit's decline, if you believe Detroit has only been in decline for the past 4 years, that's just blind nonsense. This has been a long, long time coming.
Click to expand...
Well, again our resident soothseer, where was your crystal ball 4 years ago and why didn't you let everone know that the spike in unemployment was coming along with the dramatic declines in residents and property values?


detroit+unemployment.png



forecasters are always 100%.....years after an event.

PS...I have been posting about the big drop off in manufacturing since 2000 in multiple threads of late

PPS...the city's eligibility for bankruptcy is not a forgone conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Smeagol said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Well, again our resident soothseer, where was your crystal ball 4 years ago and why didn't you let everone know that the spike in unemployment was coming along with the dramatic declines in residents and property values?


detroit+unemployment.png



forecasters are always 100%.....years after an event.
Click to expand...

What I can forecast is that you'll never understand what I'm saying because you seem incapable of accepting that when governments go bankrupt it is the government and the people who elect and keep electing them that are at fault, period. You want to wallow in the results of that mismanagement as if God woke up one day and decide to smite the good city of Detroit. I think there are more earthly, human causes.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I won't argue the points you've made - you identify the problems, but you don't identify the causes of those problems. I would argue that a well run city with a strong municipal government, responsible and dedicated to the people and the health of their city and not solely to themselves, does not have the exodus of residents and business for no reason - that's just not logical. People and businesses left for two main reasons - because taxes were too high and growing higher and crime was running rampant without any attempts to seriously curtail it.

These people didn't all flee the city for other big cities or other states - in many cases, they moved out of the municipal jurisdiction of the city of Detroit proper to surrounding metropolitan areas with less crime and lower taxes. Many of these, interestingly, are city employees like police officers, firefighters, etc. So they make their living from the city and pay their taxes somewhere else.

That's a recipe for disaster if you don't stop it and the city government seems to have just let the city rot.
Click to expand...

Good evening, CJ. :2wave:

In our area, there is reciprocity between the two cities. When we file City income tax, the W2 we get from our employer is sent with the City filing, and the two localities share the tax money. I thought that was the norm, but I don't know. :peace:
 
polgara said:
Good evening, CJ. :2wave:

In our area, there is reciprocity between the two cities. When we file City income tax, the W2 we get from our employer is sent with the City filing, and the two localities share the tax money. I thought that was the norm, but I don't know. :peace:
Click to expand...

Good evening to you too Lady P.

In some large cities, this is true - for example, here in Toronto we once had the main city of Toronto plus several burroughs and smaller cities that had their own governments plus an umbrella Metropolitan Toronto government - taxes were pooled at the metropolitan level for large, area wide infrastructure, transit, that kind of thing and the individual entities had their own tax base for local needs, like schools, local roads, etc. Almost 20 years ago, these were all amalgamated into one city government so we only have one tax base and one taxing body.

I don't know what the situation is in Detroit and the surrounding area, but I do believe that many surrounding suburbs of Detroit are doing quite well.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I won't argue the points you've made - you identify the problems, but you don't identify the causes of those problems. I would argue that a well run city with a strong municipal government, responsible and dedicated to the people and the health of their city and not solely to themselves, does not have the exodus of residents and business for no reason - that's just not logical. People and businesses left for two main reasons - because taxes were too high and growing higher and crime was running rampant without any attempts to seriously curtail it.

These people didn't all flee the city for other big cities or other states - in many cases, they moved out of the municipal jurisdiction of the city of Detroit proper to surrounding metropolitan areas with less crime and lower taxes. Many of these, interestingly, are city employees like police officers, firefighters, etc. So they make their living from the city and pay their taxes somewhere else.

That's a recipe for disaster if you don't stop it and the city government seems to have just let the city rot.
Click to expand...
Yes, White flight was a result of taxes.
 
CanadaJohn said:
What I can forecast is that you'll never understand what I'm saying because you seem incapable of accepting that when governments go bankrupt it is the government and the people who elect and keep electing them that are at fault, period. You want to wallow in the results of that mismanagement as if God woke up one day and decide to smite the good city of Detroit. I think there are more earthly, human causes.
Click to expand...
Again, how the frig does a Mayor(s) have an effect on whether the the biggest corporations in the world decide to reduce manufacturing in and around his city?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, how the frig does a Mayor(s) have an effect on whether the the biggest corporations in the world decide to reduce manufacturing in and around his city?
Click to expand...

Not just mayors, the whole city government, and they do it by ensuring that the tax and regulatory burdens are no worse and significantly better than in other similar jurisdictions. They ensure that infrastructure is maintained and enhanced. I could go on and on - point being, you make your city a place where businesses want to invest and remain.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Not just mayors, the whole city government, and they do it by ensuring that the tax and regulatory burdens are no worse and significantly better than in other similar jurisdictions. They ensure that infrastructure is maintained and enhanced. I could go on and on - point being, you make your city a place where businesses want to invest and remain.
Click to expand...
I know....look at all those lousy local govts....


Rust Belt Job Loss.JPG
 
There should have been a fourth option in the poll... Hell No...

If a city runs upon hard times due to no fault of their own (natural disaster, etc.) then yes. But when a city becomes the quintessential display of all that is wrong with unions and progressive liberalism, then Hell No. The same would go for a city that fell upon hard times due to overt hyper-conservative actions that decimate the labor force and kill off industry as well.

There has to be a balance, and in many major cities in the US, the great Progressive experiment, is failing. Don't ask me to help pay the bill. I don't live there and I didn't have a voice in what got them to where they are. Now, if "God" decides to smite them, or "Mother Nature" wants to raze them, or if a terrorist chooses to blow some of them up.... then I'm right there... giving my money willingly.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I know....look at all those lousy local govts....


View attachment 67151504
Click to expand...

Looks like a lot of green in the non-union areas, and a heck of a lot of deep red in the union controlled areas. DC Metro being an exception...

Thanks for the post. Local government, state and municipal, are the only levels of government that can increase industry growth. However the Federal government has the ability to kill it with one-size-fits-all laws, regulations and agencies, such as the NLRB.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Looks like a lot of green in the non-union areas, and a heck of a lot of deep red in the union controlled areas. DC Metro being an exception...

Thanks for the post. Local government, state and municipal, are the only levels of government that can increase industry growth. However the Federal government has the ability to kill it with one-size-fits-all laws, regulations and agencies, such as the NLRB.
Click to expand...
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:

Rust Belt Wages.JPG

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.
 
Beaudreaux said:
....If a city runs upon hard times due to no fault of their own (natural disaster, etc.) then yes. But when a city becomes the quintessential display of all that is wrong with unions and progressive liberalism, then Hell No. The same would go for a city that fell upon hard times due to overt hyper-conservative actions that decimate the labor force and kill off industry as well...
Click to expand...

Gimmesometruth said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unions...Industry...Outsourcing...time for a musical interlude:

 
Last edited:
Gimmesometruth said:
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.
Click to expand...

If the US consumer wanted higher priced "union made in the USA" goods then they would surely buy them.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If the US consumer wanted higher priced "union made in the USA" goods then they would surely buy them.
Click to expand...
Which vehicles are the biggest sellers in the US?

Ford trucks, followed by Chevy trucks.


But of course you miss the point, when you have a lack of industrial policy allowing foreign manufacturers to carve out your market, you will end up cutting the throat of your industries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom