$2 trillion debt crisis threatens to bring down 100 US cities.

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The cities are in trouble because the economy tanked under Bush and the rs.

The cities and states are in trouble, troll, because they overspent and made promises they couldn't keep. For example, Illinois has been spending twice as much money as it's been taking in. California is spending more on public sector pensions than on the state university system.

The recession only brought the "Day of Reckoning" to them quicker than it would have come, but it was coming nonetheless.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The cities are in trouble because the economy tanked under Bush and the rs.

It don't get much better than this!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Its not up to the Fed Govt to avert anything that goes on in a city.

Its up to those running the city.

Wonder how many of those Cites were and are run by Dems??

Are you sure about that. The job of the feds is to 'promote the general welfare'. Having states and cities go belly up doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the 'general welfare' of the nation.

Promoting the general welfare does not constitute the aiding and abetting of city and state mismanagement.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Its not up to the Fed Govt to avert anything that goes on in a city.

Its up to those running the city.

Wonder how many of those Cites were and are run by Dems??

Are you sure about that. The job of the feds is to 'promote the general welfare'. Having states and cities go belly up doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the 'general welfare' of the nation.

Promoting the general welfare does not constitute the aiding and abetting of city and state mismanagement.

More to the point, "promoting the general welfare" doesn't mean havin everyone on some sort of welfare.

 

[Sallow]

Let's see. No massive crop failures. Very few natural disasters. The US worker is the most productive, per capita, in the world. Companies are reporting record profits. And we have a "debt crisis"..

Look no further than the ongoing and ever-increasing public entitlement debts that are out there. The dems, since they took power in 2006 have thrown more money at people than Bush threw at 2 wars and the bank bailouts. Meanwhile, people spent the better part of 10 years buying houses they couldn't afford and the government decided to save the day again by paying for the fools' mistakes with other people's money.

As for the cities - I live near Chicago and the problem here is simply greed, mismanagement, graft, nepotism, and entrenched "machine" politics that is sucking the coffers dry and setting up an untenable situation for the future.

No.

I will look no further then 2 unfunded wars, "synergy" by rich CEOs, off-shoring, near shoring, sweet heart corporate/government contracts, deregulation, tax cuts for the rich and the de-funding of SEC.

That's where the real money is..

 

[Sallow]

Its not up to the Fed Govt to avert anything that goes on in a city.

Its up to those running the city.

Wonder how many of those Cites were and are run by Dems??

Are you sure about that. The job of the feds is to 'promote the general welfare'. Having states and cities go belly up doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the 'general welfare' of the nation.

Promoting the general welfare does not constitute the aiding and abetting of city and state mismanagement.

Nor does it mean the flow of tax payer dollars into private coffers via government contracts and grants.

 

[Jarhead]

They held all the levors of power in this country while this mess developed.

They did nothing to avert it

Its not up to the Fed Govt to avert anything that goes on in a city.

Its up to those running the city.

Wonder how many of those Cites were and are run by Dems??

Are you sure about that. The job of the feds is to 'promote the general welfare'. Having states and cities go belly up doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the 'general welfare' of the nation.

Who are the ones that elect the officials of the state and city? Who are the ones that elect such officials based on the promises of better services?

So what you are saying is that we, the people, should elect whoever promises the most goodies despite the cost becuase if the state or city runs out of cash, the federal government will tap intoi federal tac revenue to make things all OK?

How well do you think that will work out?

And what about the citizen in Hicktown USA who gets very little "goodies" from the state as the state is very smart with its tax revenue compared to the citizen who gets all kinds of goodies in another state because that state knows dam well uncle sam will bail them out?

Do you really think, in the long run, ANY STATE would look to balance the budget?

 

[Jarhead]

Are you sure about that. The job of the feds is to 'promote the general welfare'. Having states and cities go belly up doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the 'general welfare' of the nation.

Promoting the general welfare does not constitute the aiding and abetting of city and state mismanagement.

Nor does it mean the flow of tax payer dollars into private coffers via government contracts and grants.

You mean as was quite evident in the...ahem...."recovery act"?