Half Of Detroit Can't Pay Water Bill. UN To The Rescue? (Troy: how much, to buy)

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by detwahDJ

I don't know and you don't either. You are making the emotion-based self-verifying assumption that everything is better under white conservative leadership - and again you deny the existence of a larger picture than what goes on inside city limits. This is what Faux News does - promote assumption as fact. You continue to deny that the industry was regional and things happened outside of city limits which contributed to the problems.

Throughout Detroit's demise, the white suburbs were complicit in keeping Detroiters "in their place". They also staffed those regional auto industry jobs most of which, as has been pointed out, were never in the city of Detroit. Also, it is the uncreative stodgy conservative mentality of industry execs which caused them to become complacent with their captive market, lose market share, and then play catch-up - even requiring a loan in order to survive. This is corporate conservatism.

The uncreative and relatively clueless nature of city government itself has always been highly "conservative". Conservatives don't solve problems, they basically know what they don't like, then beat it to death as a "problem solver". Prime example - your U.S. Congress which can offer nothing new of benefit but knows exactly what initiatives it wants to obstruct or destroy. Now this is all a matter of degree, but progressive ideas, hard to come by in government, are needed to solve problems, but profit-driven shortsighted conservative agendas create those problems.

Bottom line - if government had been progressive and visionary enough to see the handwriting on the wall, things might have been different. Neither you nor I know what they would actually have done. Only when no creative change is needed, or when something needs destroying, can conservatism function in a beneficial manner for the public at large.

No surprise you didn't answer the question.

...you know what the answer is and it hurts.

The white suburbs didn't "keep Detroiters in their place". Detroit kept itself in its place (actually it regressed) because it rejected the concepts that made Detroit great in the first place (i.e. conservatism, capitalism, entrepreneurialism, individualism, self-determination, etc.). Instead it embraced "social justice" (i.e. the white suburbanite owes me), divisiveness (exhibit A: Coleman A. Young), self-pity (alcoholism, drug-addiction), rebellion ('67 riots), self-destruction (crime, substance abuse), socialism (welfare), high taxation (income tax and property taxes 50% higher than the suburbs), public housing (almost all of which was speedily trashed), etc.

I will agree that there was mismanagement by the auto industry execs, but it wasn't the result of conservatism. As I'm sure you will acknowledge, it was the competition from foreign competitors that was detrimental to the American auto industry and the off-shoring of manufacturing jobs that was detrimental to the auto workers. What you may not know is that Free Trade and the elimination of tariffs are liberal/Democratic concepts, not conservative/Republican concepts (Wikipedia: Tariffs, Free Trade).

For you to claim that the city government of Detroit is conservative may be the most ridiculous thing you said and proves beyond reasonable doubt that you are severely misinformed. I challenge you to stand before one of the current or former leaders of Detroit of the past 50 years and call them a conservative.

As for "my" US Congress not being creative enough in solving problems, again you are misinformed. We don't have to be creative. There are long established principles which are conducive to properly run government. The reason this country is in such bad shape is it rejected those prudent tried-and-true methods and engaged in such "creative" progressive boondoggles as deficit spending, fiat money, unlimited social welfare, and rejection of conservative fiscal practices.

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by detwahDJ

The Coleman Young era was the most poisonous and contentious, but the frightened and wealthier suburbs held all the cards. It was a regressive time for Detroit, but other things were going on in industry and markets which people were unaware of.

And if someone else holds all the cards, what is the proper response?...to be antagonistic or to be humble? Coleman Young held his power by symbolizing "Black Power" to Detroit voters. He would have been better off honestly telling Detroiters that the expectation of black Detroiters creating an insular black utopia was a foolish idea and that if they (black Detroiters) wanted Detroit to succeed, they had to be more amicable to whites and white capitalism.

[juppiter]

U.S.A.! We're number 1! We don't have running water! But we're still number 1!

[Retroit]

Originally Posted by juppiter

U.S.A.! We're number 1! We don't have running water! But we're still number 1!

We're number 1 because our water system is based on the principle of people paying for what they use. This is the same principle which detwahDJ rails against. It is called capitalism, government-sponsored capitalism. If we relied on the economic system of the third world, we would have their type of water systems, i.e. none.

[OuttaTheLouBurbs]

Originally Posted by Retroit

We're number 1 because our water system is based on the principle of people paying for what they use. This is the same principle which detwahDJ rails against. It is called capitalism, government-sponsored capitalism. If we relied on the economic system of the third world, we would have their type of water systems, i.e. none.

This makes no sense. So if people of third world nations started paying for their water despite the fact that they can't get it, they will get water?

Nitpicking aside, what about the other capitalist countries that don't have running water? What about the third world countries with bad or no water systems because the corporations bleed the govt and citizens dry? Capitalism works great as long as it doesn't control the basics.

[juppiter]

Originally Posted by Retroit

We're number 1 because our water system is based on the principle of people paying for what they use. This is the same principle which detwahDJ rails against. It is called capitalism, government-sponsored capitalism. If we relied on the economic system of the third world, we would have their type of water systems, i.e. none.

In the third world, they can't get running water. In Detroit, they can't get running water either. I don't see the difference.

[detwahDJ]

Originally Posted by Retroit

We're number 1 because our water system is based on the principle of people paying for what they use. This is the same principle which detwahDJ rails against. It is called capitalism, government-sponsored capitalism. If we relied on the economic system of the third world, we would have their type of water systems, i.e. none.

Get a grip and take a breather on the fainting couch. Nowhere have I railed against capitalism, and you can't even show where I have - so why do you say it?
This whole U.N. crap is dumb, but you chose to inject into the conversation the new hypothetical "given" (in your mind) of "isn't right-wing societal and economic control always better" which I answered - but not to your liking. So now I "hate capitalism". A response like this sounds much like a tantrum.

Why don't you just explain how a right-wing mayor would have been better for Detroit, and what he would specifically have done differently for the good of all the city's residents.
How would he/she have solved unemployment? Loss of manufacturing - what about that? This illustrates what I have been saying - conservatives complain loudly but can only leave solutions to someone else.
You also should not throw out new off-the-cuff terms like "government-sponsored capitalism" which most people never heard of. Did Faux News use such a term? How does government "sponsor" capitalism?

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by juppiter

In the third world, they can't get running water. In Detroit, they can't get running water either. I don't see the difference.

Sure they can get running water.....just pay the bill.

[OuttaTheLouBurbs]

Originally Posted by Driller1

Sure they can get running water.....just pay the bill.

They can't! They don't have the money! Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?!

[juppiter]

Originally Posted by Driller1

Sure they can get running water.....just pay the bill.

U.S.A.! All the way! Pay your bill with money you don't have and you can have basic human necessities like water! We're number 1!