Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The mayor for the City of Detroit is paid $176K a year.. If Detroit goes bankrupt, why would the guy hired to come in and fix the damages be paid less than the mayor who screwed things up?
The comparison between CEO's is because often times they are the same individuals. I think far too often we elect people who simply dont know what they are doing, and it might take someone with more qualifications to fix the damages caused.
Democrats have been putting EFM's in place for a very long time now.. you only are outraged now that a Governor is discussing it..
The guy hired to come in and fix the damages wouldn't be paid less. The proposed salary cap was at $177,000. Last I checked, that's more than $176,000.
And please point out where I am outraged. I'm so sick and tired of people who disagree with me trying to assert that I'm "outraged" or need to "calm down." My posts are really quite calm, and I strive to be balanced in my assessments. I have not even commented on the governor, or even on the need for emergency financial managers, BECAUSE I am studying their use in the past and what changes the new legislation entails, BEFORE I make up my mind. My only comment was that a salary cap was appropriate given that emergency financial managers are appointed to address a city's financial distress. You don't add someone to the payroll who's going to make that distress even more acute.
When a big government purposely bankrupts your city and then a czar or corporation takes over your town and makes all the decisions, I will check back to see if you still delude yourself into thinking this is the same thing.
Sad how many people are bamboozled by political power grabs to break the opposition rather than build a state that works. Big government thrives under Republicans and, evidently, they support it. Thanks for the insight, happytexan.
How did big government do Detroit in ?
The Dem big government spent the last 2 years doling out money to keep cities/states floating.
There is no more money. Would you rather see bankruptcies occur ?
This exact same thing happened back in 1991 to Chelsea, Massachusetts. The city went into receivership.
The receiver was given broad powers and responsibilities in lieu of the elected mayor and aldermen and other officials. Appointed by the governor and advised by a broad spectrum of public and private leaders.
Seven years later in 1998 Chelsea received an All-America City Award. Since then Chelsea has attracted business and and a young urban professional crowd which has resurrected the city.
New Michigan Republican Governor Rick Snyder wants to have authority to make major cuts in aid and then declare any town or school district to be in a financial emergency at his discretion; put someone or some company of his choosing in charge of that town; reject, modify or terminate any contracts the town may have entered; suspend or dismiss elected officials; absorb school districts into others at will; disincorporate / dissolve entire city governments; and allow corporations to make these decisions and be placed in charge of these jurisdictions.
This bill has already passed the Michigan House. If Democrats proposed such an idea it would be seen as a criminal intrusion by big government.
Can anyone who supports Republicans explain to me how this bill aligns with the principles of keeping government small and out of people's lives? I find the hypocrisy appalling.
This exact same thing happened back in 1991 to Chelsea, Massachusetts. The city went into receivership.
The receiver was given broad powers and responsibilities in lieu of the elected mayor and aldermen and other officials. Appointed by the governor and advised by a broad spectrum of public and private leaders.
Seven years later in 1998 Chelsea received an All-America City Award. Since then Chelsea has attracted business and and a young urban professional crowd which has resurrected the city.
Should I alert Rachel?
Thank you for proving my point.
I'm happy to support either side of this argument myself. This particular law goes WAY beyond what is normally included in such situations, and purposely forces cities into receivership to oust opposing viewpoints for the sake of power, but my question remains why Republicans support this type of big government intrusion in local matters yet cry when, for example, Obama had government take temporary control of GM and helped turn it around in the same manner as Chelsea in less than 2 years?
I will ask you the same question: Is failure of a company and 2 milllion jobs lost better than temporary big government control to help make it profitable? I see great hypocrisy in the rhetoric and opposition to this principle at work in some situations, and support of it in others. I'm simply looking for an explanation that doesn't contradict conservative ideology.
There is already a precedence set in history for this.
Lincoln replace the legislatures of the Confederate states after the Civil War. So that make it perfectly legal.
It makes sense that Lincoln would support it since he was part of the liberal party during that era, but why does the conservative party today support and advocate this contradiction to their principles?
By extrapolation of your logic, would you support a proposal by President Obama to place a czar in control of Mississippi, a state with a failing school system and high unemployment, and let that appointed individual (or sock making company) replace the officials elected by the residents of Mississippi with whomever that appointee wishes?
Do you think Republicans would celebrate such a takeover on the premise that big, distant government knows better than local citizens?
How about a CEO?
The federal government has Constitutional restrictions that do not apply to the states and powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people (see Tenth Amendment).
Here in Michigan we have loads of cities, townships, school districts and the like which have failed to cut their budget deficits. By pro-actively addressing the bail outs these entities will expect and which Michigan cannot afford, Gov Snider has put the impetus where it needs to be.
The federal government has Constitutional restrictions that do not apply to the states and powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people (see Tenth Amendment).
Here in Michigan we have loads of cities, townships, school districts and the like which have failed to cut their budget deficits. By pro-actively addressing the bail outs these entities will expect and which Michigan cannot afford, Gov Snider has put the impetus where it needs to be.
I was providing a hypothetical. Conservatives go nuts whenever the federal government does anything progressive or intrusive and this bill seems to be extremely progressive and intrusive.
I'm still looking for someone to explain how it aligns with stated Republican ideology to reduce government interference and let markets dictate winners and losers.
New Michigan Republican Governor Rick Snyder wants to have authority to make major cuts in aid and then declare any town or school district to be in a financial emergency at his discretion; put someone or some company of his choosing in charge of that town; reject, modify or terminate any contracts the town may have entered; suspend or dismiss elected officials; absorb school districts into others at will; disincorporate / dissolve entire city governments; and allow corporations to make these decisions and be placed in charge of these jurisdictions.
This bill has already passed the Michigan House. If Democrats proposed such an idea it would be seen as a criminal intrusion by big government.
Can anyone who supports Republicans explain to me how this bill aligns with the principles of keeping government small and out of people's lives? I find the hypocrisy appalling.
Conservatives are always referring to the federal government when speaking to "big government". For the most part, the states have the power to do what they want to within their own borders.
This sounds pretty drastic to me, but since it comes from Maddow, I'll assume we are not getting the truth, and she is purposely distorting and misleading her audience.
I was providing a hypothetical. Conservatives go nuts whenever the federal government does anything progressive or intrusive and this bill seems to be extremely progressive and intrusive.
I'm still looking for someone to explain how it aligns with stated Republican ideology to reduce government interference and let markets dictate winners and losers.
You are putting that ideology in the wrong light.
If they have to do this to reduce spending, then that is what they have to do. When the budgets are under control they will let the cities govern themselves.
You are confusing state vs federal. State government is there to serve the people and has a responsibility to step in if cities are not balancing their budgets.
This has nothing to do with capitalism and free markets..go toot that horn at the Federal level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
