News, No signs Washington to come to Detroit's rescue (Dearborn: violent crime, house)

[Zippyman]

Originally Posted by Andy

Failed progressivism. 51 straight years of one party/union rule. It's a shame certain extreme partisans won't admit this fact. Also, calling people who tell the truth about Detroit "undereducated" screams loudly that the Democrats do not want to make the necessary reforms to prevent other Detroits from happening in the future.


All public sector unions should have been abolished yesterday. The Democrats are standing behind their Detroit killing campaign cash cows, and that is a bad thing for America.

Sure, look to Wal-Mart for a staffing model - cops & firefighters working 31 hours a week so you can skip out on paying benefits, worksheets from the city showing employees how to sign up for food stamps, etc.. really sounds like utopia to me!.

[zthatzmanz28]

Originally Posted by Andy

Failed progressivism. 51 straight years of one party/union rule. It's a shame certain extreme partisans won't admit this fact. Also, calling people who tell the truth about Detroit "undereducated" screams loudly that the Democrats do not want to make the necessary reforms to prevent other Detroits from happening in the future.


All public sector unions should have been abolished yesterday. The Democrats are standing behind their Detroit killing campaign cash cows, and that is a bad thing for America.

And that is why the SOUTHERN POVERTY states, 75 years of Republickin rule rank in the top 5 for:

Poverty

Poorest education

Highest welfare rate

Greatest number of teenage births

Greatest discrimination

All thanks to conservative right to be poor governing.

[jonnynonos]

Sad article in the Free Press today about how much of Detroit has "felt bankrupt for years."

It underscores the fact that in spite of the rah rah bull****, a lot of neighborhoods are far WORSE than they were 10 let alone 20 years ago.

All you can say is it is going to be interesting as the neighbohoods empty out to an even more ludicrous degree than they are already. It's safe to say that nothing even close has ever happened in the United States and potentially in world history.

Downtown will continue to revitalize but at this point it is almost impossible to see anything good happening to most of the neighborhoods.

When will population hit 500,000... 10 years max?

You also have to realize that a lot of these neighborhoods are post-war little bungalows. They are pretty much ALL reaching a point of decrepitude, and most of the people living in these houses now have no way to maintain them.

I mean within 20, 30 years its conceivable that 80 percent of the city is just going to start falling to the ground from rot.

[jonnynonos]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

That said, the reason Washington hasn't signaled that it would bailout Detroit is purely for political reasons. Even if Obama wants to bailout Detroit (which I believe he does), Democrats only have a slight majority in the Senate whereas Republicans have a solidy majority in the House. There's no way a bill to bailout Detroit would make it through that type of Congress, which is still at near-gridlock, especially after the country has been convinced (albeit in a half-assed,**** up, not all the facts are straight way) that it bailed out Detroit already when the auto industry was collapsing. Besides that, Republicans can use Detroit's situation as an example of failed liberalism (which is also not true, as Detroit's problems are a lot more complex than that, but their undereducated constituents will eat it up) when the next election comes around in 2014.

That's not why Obama won't do anything. He won't do anything because there are about 1,000 other municipalities out there that are not that far behind Detroit--let alone what things will look like 10 years from now--and it is simply an impossible precdent to set.

When X city files bankrupcty or quasi-bankruptcy 5 years from now he would have to save those pensions as well.

And cities would lose all motivation for making tough calls, knowing the fed is going to swoop in and save them at the last minute anyway.

[malamute]

Originally Posted by jonnynonos

Sad article in the Free Press today about how much of Detroit has "felt bankrupt for years."

It underscores the fact that in spite of the rah rah bull****, a lot of neighborhoods are far WORSE than they were 10 let alone 20 years ago.

All you can say is it is going to be interesting as the neighbohoods empty out to an even more ludicrous degree than they are already. It's safe to say that nothing even close has ever happened in the United States and potentially in world history.

Downtown will continue to revitalize but at this point it is almost impossible to see anything good happening to most of the neighborhoods.

When will population hit 500,000... 10 years max?

You also have to realize that a lot of these neighborhoods are post-war little bungalows. They are pretty much ALL reaching a point of decrepitude, and most of the people living in these houses now have no way to maintain them.

I mean within 20, 30 years its conceivable that 80 percent of the city is just going to start falling to the ground from rot.

What's nice though is to see how quickly nature reclaims things once the people are gone. It's like Chernobyl, it's now a nature refuge and eerily beautiful.

You can see sidewalks in Detroit are almost invisible, where houses have burned, lush green pastures are taking hold. I even wonder if there couldn't be a tourist appeal -- people will travel out west to visit ghost towns but I suppose having people visit some of the abandoned buildings would be too dangerous.

Without jobs, there really isn't anything for people there, the jobs are now outsourced to other countries with near slave wages.

[Bimmerfanboy]

Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28

And that is why the SOUTHERN POVERTY states, 75 years of Republickin rule rank in the top 5 for:

Poverty

Poorest education

Highest welfare rate

Greatest number of teenage births

Greatest discrimination

All thanks to conservative right to be poor governing.

This is an un-factual remark. One could argue that states like Texas have done extremely well all because of Republican leadership. The South's problems pertain more to its demographics and culture. Education is not valued, respect for diversity is not valued, etc. You cannot place all the blame on a political party for that.

The same can be said for Detroit. Democrats have had control of the city for over 50 years; which explains part of the problem, but not all of it. You do have to admit though, that 50 years of rule by one political party is bad for a city, whether it be R or D.

By the way, all of the statistics you listed apply equally to inner-city communities all over this country, where everybody votes for Democrats.

[jonnynonos]

Honestly the political leadership in Detroit has been so **** poor I don't think it's really fair to characterize it as Democratic in any meaningful sense.

It's been so awful that it's sort of in the "other" category.

Most of the elected officials wouldn't be voted to run a Kiwanas club in another major city.

[HarryBTL]

Originally Posted by Andy

Failed progressivism. 51 straight years of one party/union rule. It's a shame certain extreme partisans won't admit this fact. Also, calling people who tell the truth about Detroit "undereducated" screams loudly that the Democrats do not want to make the necessary reforms to prevent other Detroits from happening in the future.


All public sector unions should have been abolished yesterday. The Democrats are standing behind their Detroit killing campaign cash cows, and that is a bad thing for America.

This x1,000

One of the reasons i cannot get behind a bailout. Voters in the city need to smarten up and stop electing the same people that has been killing it because they have a D behind their name. Thus the difference between New Orleans, GM etc.

[michigan83]

A "bailout" of any kind would increase the chances that Detroit would be able to keep the status quo with some of its current practices, contracts, operations, etc. That would be BAD in the long-term.

[Mouldy Old Schmo]

Originally Posted by Seatown1

This is an un-factual remark. One could argue that states like Texas have done extremely well all because of Republican leadership. The South's problems pertain more to its demographics and culture. Education is not valued, respect for diversity is not valued, etc. You cannot place all the blame on a political party for that.

The same can be said for Detroit. Democrats have had control of the city for over 50 years; which explains part of the problem, but not all of it. You do have to admit though, that 50 years of rule by one political party is bad for a city, whether it be R or D.

By the way, all of the statistics you listed apply equally to inner-city communities all over this country, where everybody votes for Democrats.

Also, the South was ruled mostly by Democrats the last 75 years.
One could also say that a lot of "Southern culture" made its way to Detroit.