The last 51 years Detroit has had Democrat mayors.. duh?

[kaz]

Yep. Turn your city - your state - over to liberals and you have Detroit or Flint or Chicago or anywhere in Kalifornia.

If that doesn't tell you all you need to know.........then there is no hope.

Or elect Reagan and slowly kill the manufacturing field. Why is it the 80s we started to see the decline of Detroit?

Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's all the republicans fault.

Wow, Louisa's post is a hoot. Talk about a post completely devoid of knowledge of Detroit and how it got where it is.

 

[Luissa]

Yep. Turn your city - your state - over to liberals and you have Detroit or Flint or Chicago or anywhere in Kalifornia.

If that doesn't tell you all you need to know.........then there is no hope.

Or elect Reagan and slowly kill the manufacturing field. Why is it the 80s we started to see the decline of Detroit?

Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's all the republicans fault.

But it is all the liberals fault?
Did you call out the OP?
Liberals might have helped but it was the electing of Reagan that slowly killed Detroit.

 

[Luissa]

Or elect Reagan and slowly kill the manufacturing field. Why is it the 80s we started to see the decline of Detroit?

Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's all the republicans fault.

Wow, Louisa's post is a hoot. Talk about a post completely devoid of knowledge of Detroit and how it got where it is.

It's Luissa. Why is so hard for people like you to spell it right?

As for your other statement, I am guessing you think the OP is 100% true. Which would mean you know very little about anything.

 

[Redfish]

Most of the wealthiest cities in America are run by Democrats,

so the OP is pointless.

Yes, they are. Which ones have sound fiscal policy? Which ones have low crime rates?

If you want to change the subject, first admit that the OP is in fact pointless and idiotic.

you changed the subject, not me.

the OP is totally accurate. Democrats, liberal policies, and greedy corrupt unions destroyed Detroit, those same factors are destroying Chicago, Philly, Atlanta, Los Angeles, San Fran, Cleveland, Miami, Oakland, and Newark.

But lets ignore reality----------just blame Bush.

 

[Redfish]

Or elect Reagan and slowly kill the manufacturing field. Why is it the 80s we started to see the decline of Detroit?

Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's all the republicans fault.

But it is all the liberals fault?
Did you call out the OP?
Liberals might have helped but it was the electing of Reagan that slowly killed Detroit.

Oh, Geez, here's a new one-----Reagan killed Detroit .

 

[healthmyths]

Most of the wealthiest cities in America are run by Democrats,

so the OP is pointless.

Yes, they are. Which ones have sound fiscal policy? Which ones have low crime rates?

If you want to change the subject, first admit that the OP is in fact pointless and idiotic.

I was making an observation that Democrats/unions/Obama all have the same agenda and Detroit is following the agenda.. i.e.
Demise.. Destruction... Bankruptcy!

And you can't disagree with the direct quotes from the anti-capitalist when he said:
Obama said:"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program"
Barack Obama on single payer in 2003 | Physicians for a National Health Program

What this community organizer didn't consider, what happens to the 1,300 insurance companies that pay $100 billion a year in taxes?
Where will that tax money come from? Or the 400,000 people employed where would they go after the $12 billion in unemployment runs out? If you own property in cities where insurance companies paid property taxes you will have to pay more in taxes.

Obama: " I'd like higher gas prices, just not so quickly"
LiveLeak.com - Obama: Id like higher gas prices, just not so quickly
The only rationale was to supplant gas with alternative ... but AT A HUGE market cost which obviously this community organizer DID NOT understand!.
Reality, Price of a gallon of gas
Bush Jan 05, 2009 $1.672
Obama May 20,2013 $3.682 131% Increase...
Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update - Energy Information Administration

Obama: “Under my plan....electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"
In one interview he said, "If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted." ..., he actually planned to declare war on the coal industry.
Source: To Save America, by Newt Gingrich, p. 63 , May 17, 2010

These are not constructive remarks as ANY logical rational common sense person would agree!
These are destructive remarks wanting to destroy 1,300 insurance companies as he prefers "single payer"!
Wanting higher gas prices. That helpful?
Wanting businesses go bankrupt? How can that be good!

 

[RandallFlagg]

Or elect Reagan and slowly kill the manufacturing field. Why is it the 80s we started to see the decline of Detroit?

Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's all the republicans fault.

But it is all the liberals fault?
Did you call out the OP?
Liberals might have helped but it was the electing of Reagan that slowly killed Detroit.

Why call out the OP? What was stated was the truth. Liberals have been "in charge" for the last 40 or so years. From Mayor to Dog Catcher.

Now, you want to blame from Eisenhower all the way to Gerorge Bush - that's your prerogative. But it's nonsense. Try blaming the auto unions, the public sector unions, the unfunded pensions, the want ant disregard for infrastructure and the unbearable tax burden on the people.

 

[Luissa]

Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's all the republicans fault.

But it is all the liberals fault?
Did you call out the OP?
Liberals might have helped but it was the electing of Reagan that slowly killed Detroit.

Oh, Geez, here's a new one-----Reagan killed Detroit .

It's actually not new. If you watched anything other than Fox News you would realize that.

 

[kaz]

But it is all the liberals fault?
Did you call out the OP?
Liberals might have helped but it was the electing of Reagan that slowly killed Detroit.

Oh, Geez, here's a new one-----Reagan killed Detroit .

It's actually not new. If you watched anything other than Fox News you would realize that.

Yes, it's biased to present multiple viewpoints. And you know that because you only watch MS-NBC, the network where the show anchors do ads for the Democratic party.

 

[Luissa]

Yeah, you're absolutely right. It's all the republicans fault.

But it is all the liberals fault?
Did you call out the OP?
Liberals might have helped but it was the electing of Reagan that slowly killed Detroit.

Why call out the OP? What was stated was the truth. Liberals have been "in charge" for the last 40 or so years. From Mayor to Dog Catcher.

Now, you want to blame from Eisenhower all the way to Gerorge Bush - that's your prerogative. But it's nonsense. Try blaming the auto unions, the public sector unions, the unfunded pensions, the want ant disregard for infrastructure and the unbearable tax burden on the people.

Or the executives who couldn't fund pensions while flying around in their private jets. You would have a point if unions had never taken pay cuts or pension cuts while executives salaries were on the the rise.
In reality the middle class union worker has been on the decline while the CEO watched his salary rise on his back.

I do love how cons attack union workers but never put any of the Blame on the people running the company.

 

[RandallFlagg]

But it is all the liberals fault?
Did you call out the OP?
Liberals might have helped but it was the electing of Reagan that slowly killed Detroit.

Why call out the OP? What was stated was the truth. Liberals have been "in charge" for the last 40 or so years. From Mayor to Dog Catcher.

Now, you want to blame from Eisenhower all the way to Gerorge Bush - that's your prerogative. But it's nonsense. Try blaming the auto unions, the public sector unions, the unfunded pensions, the want ant disregard for infrastructure and the unbearable tax burden on the people.

Or the executives who couldn't fund pensions while flying around in their private jets. You would have a point if unions had never taken pay cuts or pension cuts while executives salaries were on the the rise.
In reality the middle class union worker has been on the decline while the CEO watched his salary rise on his back.

I do love how cons attack union workers but never put any of the Blame on the people running the company.

I knew that we would come to this : The "rich" against the "poor". Never fails with you libs, does it?

Here's a little news for you. I retired from the US Army - THEN retired from the Teamsters Union. You're full of crap.

 

[kaz]

Or the executives who couldn't fund pensions while flying around in their private jets. You would have a point if unions had never taken pay cuts or pension cuts while executives salaries were on the the rise.
In reality the middle class union worker has been on the decline while the CEO watched his salary rise on his back.

I do love how cons attack union workers but never put any of the Blame on the people running the company.

Liberals using the term "in reality" always makes me laugh.

BTW, what you're doing is called "deflection."

 

[kaz]

Why call out the OP? What was stated was the truth. Liberals have been "in charge" for the last 40 or so years. From Mayor to Dog Catcher.

Now, you want to blame from Eisenhower all the way to Gerorge Bush - that's your prerogative. But it's nonsense. Try blaming the auto unions, the public sector unions, the unfunded pensions, the want ant disregard for infrastructure and the unbearable tax burden on the people.

Or the executives who couldn't fund pensions while flying around in their private jets. You would have a point if unions had never taken pay cuts or pension cuts while executives salaries were on the the rise.
In reality the middle class union worker has been on the decline while the CEO watched his salary rise on his back.

I do love how cons attack union workers but never put any of the Blame on the people running the company.

I knew that we would come to this : The "rich" against the "poor". Never fails with you libs, does it?

Here's a little news for you. I retired from the US Army - THEN retired from the Teamsters Union. You're full of crap.

Liberals don't know the difference between executives, who if they fail take the money of people who made a choice to invest in them and didn't adequately oversee them, and politicians, who take money at the point of a gun and are overseen by no one. Other then that, sure, it's the same...

 

[RandallFlagg]

Or the executives who couldn't fund pensions while flying around in their private jets. You would have a point if unions had never taken pay cuts or pension cuts while executives salaries were on the the rise.
In reality the middle class union worker has been on the decline while the CEO watched his salary rise on his back.

I do love how cons attack union workers but never put any of the Blame on the people running the company.

I knew that we would come to this : The "rich" against the "poor". Never fails with you libs, does it?

Here's a little news for you. I retired from the US Army - THEN retired from the Teamsters Union. You're full of crap.

Liberals don't know the difference between executives, who if they fail take the money of people who made a choice to invest in them and didn't adequately oversee them, and politicians, who take money at the point of a gun and are overseen by no one. Other then that, sure, it's the same...

Exactly. But it's still the republicans fault....... I don't know about some of these posters....

 

[auditor0007]

Yup. They've done a hell of a job for Detroit.

Thats why the city is bankrupt.

Unfortunately, Detroit politics drove out almost all of the whites and, with them, all of the money. Coleman Young once said that Detroit didn't need white money for Detroit to be a great city. Well, he was wrong. The fact is money is what makes cities viable, and the other fact is that blacks as a whole do not generate the kind of income necessary to support a city of two million people. Of course, today, the population is under one million, but the city must still service a city that should be supported by tax dollars from two million people.

There is an answer but it involves bulldozing entire neighborhoods and giving the land away to developers. The biggest obstacle is that politicians are having a difficult time with the idea of forcing people out of their homes. The answer is harsh and simple. Just cut off all public services to those areas if the people do not leave on their own accord. The bottom line is that the only way to make Detroit a viable vibrant city again is to bring whites back to Detroit. This has nothing to do with race but everything to do with reality.

The problem, at least in Detroit, is flight by both white AND black. I saw on the news last night that there are currently 76 THOUSAND empty structures in Detroit. It would take an Army to raze that amount of buildings. Money that Detroit doesn't have.

Whites will never go "back" to Detroit. The numbers needed to affect any sort of change would be astronomical and, quite frankly, I'm black and there is no way on Gods green earth that I would ever live in that hell hole.

No, unfortunately, looking at Detroit or Flint, it's easy to see what happens when liberals have free reign over a city for decades. The only viable answer for Detroit is to eventually tear it all down and turn it into farmland. The stigma, at least in my opinion, is too great to ever bring that once great city back.

Once it is turned into farmland, it then becomes viable to be rebuilt from scratch. That is my whole point. It doesn't even necessarily have to be Detroit. It could be annexed as part of existing suburbs or entire new towns. The key is to bulldozing it all so they can start over. To say nobody would ever move back to Detroit is very short sighted. In many cities, entire neighborhoods are renovated and brought back from the dead. In Chicago, on the near north side, my ex-wife grew up in a neighborhood that has become mostly Hispanic, and over time, it became a pretty lousy neighborhood. Granted it was nothing like some of the neighborhoods you would find in Detroit, but it was in bad shape and property values were abysmal. Today, her parents house, under 1000 square feet, is values at nearly $500,000. The neighborhood is thriving and has become upscale. Things can change over time. Just as they change for the worse in some cases, they can also change for the better.

 

[kaz]

Unfortunately, Detroit politics drove out almost all of the whites and, with them, all of the money. Coleman Young once said that Detroit didn't need white money for Detroit to be a great city. Well, he was wrong. The fact is money is what makes cities viable, and the other fact is that blacks as a whole do not generate the kind of income necessary to support a city of two million people. Of course, today, the population is under one million, but the city must still service a city that should be supported by tax dollars from two million people.

There is an answer but it involves bulldozing entire neighborhoods and giving the land away to developers. The biggest obstacle is that politicians are having a difficult time with the idea of forcing people out of their homes. The answer is harsh and simple. Just cut off all public services to those areas if the people do not leave on their own accord. The bottom line is that the only way to make Detroit a viable vibrant city again is to bring whites back to Detroit. This has nothing to do with race but everything to do with reality.

The problem, at least in Detroit, is flight by both white AND black. I saw on the news last night that there are currently 76 THOUSAND empty structures in Detroit. It would take an Army to raze that amount of buildings. Money that Detroit doesn't have.

Whites will never go "back" to Detroit. The numbers needed to affect any sort of change would be astronomical and, quite frankly, I'm black and there is no way on Gods green earth that I would ever live in that hell hole.

No, unfortunately, looking at Detroit or Flint, it's easy to see what happens when liberals have free reign over a city for decades. The only viable answer for Detroit is to eventually tear it all down and turn it into farmland. The stigma, at least in my opinion, is too great to ever bring that once great city back.

Once it is turned into farmland, it then becomes viable to be rebuilt from scratch. That is my whole point. It doesn't even necessarily have to be Detroit. It could be annexed as part of existing suburbs or entire new towns. The key is to bulldozing it all so they can start over. To say nobody would ever move back to Detroit is very short sighted. In many cities, entire neighborhoods are renovated and brought back from the dead. In Chicago, on the near north side, my ex-wife grew up in a neighborhood that has become mostly Hispanic, and over time, it became a pretty lousy neighborhood. Granted it was nothing like some of the neighborhoods you would find in Detroit, but it was in bad shape and property values were abysmal. Today, her parents house, under 1000 square feet, is values at nearly $500,000. The neighborhood is thriving and has become upscale. Things can change over time. Just as they change for the worse in some cases, they can also change for the better.

Detroit is actually mostly a ghost town already. You go through neighborhood after neighborhood with mostly abandoned houses. There are tires in the yard. Other then downtown, most of it's pretty open already. And the land is cheap. You can buy a house for a few thousand. The problem is it's run down and not safe and you're subject to the Detroit government. Even downtown is kind of creepy as there are so fewer people then you would expect in a city. There are some exceptions, like the Renaissance center. But bulldozing most of it wouldn't actually be a very big logistical issue.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Unfortunately, Detroit politics drove out almost all of the whites and, with them, all of the money. Coleman Young once said that Detroit didn't need white money for Detroit to be a great city. Well, he was wrong. The fact is money is what makes cities viable, and the other fact is that blacks as a whole do not generate the kind of income necessary to support a city of two million people. Of course, today, the population is under one million, but the city must still service a city that should be supported by tax dollars from two million people.

There is an answer but it involves bulldozing entire neighborhoods and giving the land away to developers. The biggest obstacle is that politicians are having a difficult time with the idea of forcing people out of their homes. The answer is harsh and simple. Just cut off all public services to those areas if the people do not leave on their own accord. The bottom line is that the only way to make Detroit a viable vibrant city again is to bring whites back to Detroit. This has nothing to do with race but everything to do with reality.

The problem, at least in Detroit, is flight by both white AND black. I saw on the news last night that there are currently 76 THOUSAND empty structures in Detroit. It would take an Army to raze that amount of buildings. Money that Detroit doesn't have.

Whites will never go "back" to Detroit. The numbers needed to affect any sort of change would be astronomical and, quite frankly, I'm black and there is no way on Gods green earth that I would ever live in that hell hole.

No, unfortunately, looking at Detroit or Flint, it's easy to see what happens when liberals have free reign over a city for decades. The only viable answer for Detroit is to eventually tear it all down and turn it into farmland. The stigma, at least in my opinion, is too great to ever bring that once great city back.

Once it is turned into farmland, it then becomes viable to be rebuilt from scratch. That is my whole point. It doesn't even necessarily have to be Detroit. It could be annexed as part of existing suburbs or entire new towns. The key is to bulldozing it all so they can start over. To say nobody would ever move back to Detroit is very short sighted. In many cities, entire neighborhoods are renovated and brought back from the dead. In Chicago, on the near north side, my ex-wife grew up in a neighborhood that has become mostly Hispanic, and over time, it became a pretty lousy neighborhood. Granted it was nothing like some of the neighborhoods you would find in Detroit, but it was in bad shape and property values were abysmal. Today, her parents house, under 1000 square feet, is values at nearly $500,000. The neighborhood is thriving and has become upscale. Things can change over time. Just as they change for the worse in some cases, they can also change for the better.

I understand your point. That part of my response was tongue-in-cheek. I still feel, however, that the idea that the stigma of Detroit will remain for several generations. Hell, it would most likely take three or four generations to "tear it all down" and start over.

So, basically, we are probably looking at 40 years down the line (conservatively speaking).

As of now, they are counting on OBarry to "bail them out" to the tune of (probably) 20-30 Billion dollars. Money that we simply do not have. Once again, Liberals LOUSE things up and beg for help from the rest of us.

 

[RoadVirus]

The bottom line is that the only way to make Detroit a viable vibrant city again is to bring whites back to Detroit. This has nothing to do with race but everything to do with reality.

YOu won't get Whites back into Detroit until you give them a reason to come back.

 

[kaz]

The bottom line is that the only way to make Detroit a viable vibrant city again is to bring whites back to Detroit. This has nothing to do with race but everything to do with reality.

YOu won't get Whites back into Detroit until you give them a reason to come back.

The issue isn't "whites." The black middle class hightailed it as well.

What I point out to my mother, who still lives in Michigan, is that unfortunately stopping doing the things you did to drive business out doesn't bring back the business who left. They aren't sitting there waiting to come back, they've moved on. So you're in a hole, you just stop digging it deeper at that point. You still need a strategy to rebuild.

 

[francoHFW]

Also lost all its heavy manufacturing and 2/3 of its population... The usual Pub dupe deep thinking...LOL!Their hate and racism also on display.