A Complete Waste of Space

callmeslick wrote:you want me to provide facts to show that Detroit dramatically lost market share from 1980 to the present? Seriously? You all don't get out much, huh?
And, you are aware that the loss was to international car makers, right? Look, I'm not making some sort of radical claim here, merely an obvious observation. Much as has happened with a few smaller cities and towns, Detroit was a city of over 2 million built, economically, upon one industry: automotive manufacturing. When Ford, GM and Chrysler lost market share, and AMC and other smaller firms died out altogether, massive numbers of middle-class jobs were lost. Over 2/3 of the population left the city, and, in doing so, destroyed the tax base which any city, state or whatever needs to provide even basic services to it's population. Were management decisions for the city made that were ill-advised? Sure. But anyone who thinks some political philosophy, or some ideal of a social safety net is what dragged Detroit into insolvency is simply uninformed.

Detroit has been run/run down by Democrats for the last fifty years. They had a choice to cut back on expenses when they lost their tax base. They "Democrats",didn't. The fault/blame is owned by all of them. Detroit was in serious financial difficulty in the early 70's, when they laid off a fourth of their police dept. They had 40 years to fix the problem and kept right on spending. They deserve to fold.
Everybody who stuck around for the ending? Deserves what they ain't gonna get. Obama don't give a damn about them, he can't. He is doing the same thing, federally.

There are a dozen other major American cities on the verge of bankruptcy.
Anyone who thinks that this is simply a Democrat vs Republican issue is delusional.

RD, you are forgiven, we see you as inept at best, more likely just a common moron.
You fail to mention spefic cities, but
like Detroit, those cities are likely long term Democratic party social economic experiments.

HH

worth noting is that no city owes its finances to just itself. The state plays a role in every city I'm aware of. Res is right, making urban finance a GOP/Dem thing is simpleminded, or simplistic, depending on how one wishes to look at those making the claim.

callmeslick wrote:worth noting is that no city owes its finances to just itself. The state plays a role in every city I'm aware of. Res is right, making urban finance a GOP/Dem thing is simpleminded, or simplistic, depending on how one wishes to look at those making the claim.

Slick, for the record, you're an F'ing idiot. The "state" don't spend the city monies/revenue.(period)
What I find so laughable? You don't blame any person(s) for these fiascos, instead you choose to blame something, non-defined, intangible. In essence, nobody, certainly not, a democrat. Then to justify that idiotic train of thought, you feebly attempt to make it non-political. In the case of Detroit? It sure as hell is factual that the Dem's ran it and ran it in the ground. Were there other factors that influenced the revenue that ran the city? Sure, there were and it's true of all cities/municipalities. Collection is one thing, spending is another. It's the simple math that you simpletons choose to ignore, leaving the good folks to pay or suffer the consequences, that you chose to "stick" them with.

Funny thing about liberals (well, maybe not), you folks is real spendy with other folks money and damned tight with your own. You liberals are all about yer "theories" and making other folks jump the hoops...In short, you Dem's is about the Government Controlling People...Where as Conservative's are about controlling the Government. Maybe, you can throw me yer definition of what is the "Government" here? Then, perhaps, maybe, I could "si" yer point?

Pudfark wrote:

callmeslick wrote:worth noting is that no city owes its finances to just itself. The state plays a role in every city I'm aware of. Res is right, making urban finance a GOP/Dem thing is simpleminded, or simplistic, depending on how one wishes to look at those making the claim.

Slick, for the record, you're an F'ing idiot. The "state" don't spend the city monies/revenue.(period)

every city I'm aware of has a budget which depends on money from the state budget. Doesn't work that way down there? The State of Texas doesn't provide funds to Houston, to Dallas, etc? They sure as hell do to Philly, Pittsburgh, Newark, Wilmington, Harrisburg, NYC, etc, up this way. And, when the State messes with that funding, it affects cities.

What I find so laughable? You don't blame any person(s) for these fiascos, instead you choose to blame something, non-defined, intangible. In essence, nobody, certainly not, a democrat. Then to justify that idiotic train of thought, you feebly attempt to make it non-political. In the case of Detroit? It sure as hell is factual that the Dem's ran it and ran it in the ground. Were there other factors that influenced the revenue that ran the city? Sure, there were and it's true of all cities/municipalities. Collection is one thing, spending is another. It's the simple math that you simpletons choose to ignore, leaving the good folks to pay or suffer the consequences, that you chose to "stick" them with.

sometimes, oftentimes, events dictate outcomes. The constant search for people to 'blame' is a great part of what has gone wrong with political discourse in this country, IMHO. Fingerpointing or assigning 'blame' do nothing to address a problem. I am quite sure that humans made errors in judgement, we all do, all the time. All I have been saying, which Res understood, is that Detroit is an example of various potential threats to city finances, but NOT SO SIMPLE as saying, 'look what the Democrats did' or 'this is the fault of welfare benefits'. Life is seldom simple, yet you consistently seem to want simple answers. Once again, symbolic of all that is wrong with the US today.....far too many people want simple answers to an economy, a world order and social issues that are complex.

Funny thing about liberals (well, maybe not), you folks is real spendy with other folks money and damned tight with your own. You liberals are all about yer "theories" and making other folks jump the hoops...In short, you Dem's is about the Government Controlling People...Where as Conservative's are about controlling the Government. Maybe, you can throw me yer definition of what is the "Government" here? Then, perhaps, maybe, I could "si" yer point?

the government is about the entity charged with the welfare of the people and the state(city, nation, whatever). I can't say where or when I have ever espoused Government 'controlling' people, but good government should 'regulate' what it's citizens do, for the sake of the common good. You speak of controlling the government, and that should always be the goal of the public, but 'controlling' and 'dismantling' are two different things. The former speaks to maintaining the public will for the common good, the latter seems to be the goal of far too many so-called conservatives and has been shown to consistently hurt the most vulnerable members of the society. Every time. What you fail to see, or at least acknowledge, Pud, is that we live in a complex time, in a very pluralistic society, and no longer can operate government as we did in 1790 or so. Luckily, our founders forsaw that, gave us a rather malleable system with very few concrete limitations, to provide for constant re-assessment and change. Read Jefferson's writings on the subject; he was of the opinion that progress would likely dictate complete Constitutional re-writes every generation. Fortunately, he and his compatriots managed to create a framework that could evolve in a way that such radical change hasn't been needed.

callmeslick wrote:

Pudfark wrote:

callmeslick wrote:worth noting is that no city owes its finances to just itself. The state plays a role in every city I'm aware of. Res is right, making urban finance a GOP/Dem thing is simpleminded, or simplistic, depending on how one wishes to look at those making the claim.

Slick, for the record, you're an F'ing idiot. The "state" don't spend the city monies/revenue.(period)

every city I'm aware of has a budget which depends on money from the state budget. Doesn't work that way down there? The State of Texas doesn't provide funds to Houston, to Dallas, etc? They sure as hell do to Philly, Pittsburgh, Newark, Wilmington, Harrisburg, NYC, etc, up this way. And, when the State messes with that funding, it affects cities.

What I find so laughable? You don't blame any person(s) for these fiascos, instead you choose to blame something, non-defined, intangible. In essence, nobody, certainly not, a democrat. Then to justify that idiotic train of thought, you feebly attempt to make it non-political. In the case of Detroit? It sure as hell is factual that the Dem's ran it and ran it in the ground. Were there other factors that influenced the revenue that ran the city? Sure, there were and it's true of all cities/municipalities. Collection is one thing, spending is another. It's the simple math that you simpletons choose to ignore, leaving the good folks to pay or suffer the consequences, that you chose to "stick" them with.

sometimes, oftentimes, events dictate outcomes. The constant search for people to 'blame' is a great part of what has gone wrong with political discourse in this country, IMHO. Fingerpointing or assigning 'blame' do nothing to address a problem. I am quite sure that humans made errors in judgement, we all do, all the time. All I have been saying, which Res understood, is that Detroit is an example of various potential threats to city finances, but NOT SO SIMPLE as saying, 'look what the Democrats did' or 'this is the fault of welfare benefits'. Life is seldom simple, yet you consistently seem to want simple answers. Once again, symbolic of all that is wrong with the US today.....far too many people want simple answers to an economy, a world order and social issues that are complex.

Funny thing about liberals (well, maybe not), you folks is real spendy with other folks money and damned tight with your own. You liberals are all about yer "theories" and making other folks jump the hoops...In short, you Dem's is about the Government Controlling People...Where as Conservative's are about controlling the Government. Maybe, you can throw me yer definition of what is the "Government" here? Then, perhaps, maybe, I could "si" yer point?

the government is about the entity charged with the welfare of the people and the state(city, nation, whatever). I can't say where or when I have ever espoused Government 'controlling' people, but good government should 'regulate' what it's citizens do, for the sake of the common good. You speak of controlling the government, and that should always be the goal of the public, but 'controlling' and 'dismantling' are two different things. The former speaks to maintaining the public will for the common good, the latter seems to be the goal of far too many so-called conservatives and has been shown to consistently hurt the most vulnerable members of the society. Every time. What you fail to see, or at least acknowledge, Pud, is that we live in a complex time, in a very pluralistic society, and no longer can operate government as we did in 1790 or so. Luckily, our founders forsaw that, gave us a rather malleable system with very few concrete limitations, to provide for constant re-assessment and change. Read Jefferson's writings on the subject; he was of the opinion that progress would likely dictate complete Constitutional re-writes every generation. Fortunately, he and his compatriots managed to create a framework that could evolve in a way that such radical change hasn't been needed.

Your hero Joseph Goebbles would be rather disappointed.
Long rambling categoric replies tend to muddle your propaganda
resulting in your lies missing the intended recipient / target audience.
In short, your BULLSHIT ain't hitting the mark and it aint worth the read.

Note the evidence of how truthful you are in your comments in my sig.
Above average in population density, second lowest in violent crime.
"for the record" you are a compulsive liar and a failed propagandist.

HH

those incapable of reading tend to belittle those that can write with complexity. No surprise from you, Happy. I didn't expect you to attempt to grasp subtle words, and at least you're honest enough to admit you can't bother to even try.

callmeslick wrote:those incapable of reading tend to belittle those that can write with complexity. No surprise from you, Happy. I didn't expect you to attempt to grasp subtle words, and at least you're honest enough to admit you can't bother to even try.

"Slick, for the record, you're an F'ing idiot. The "state" don't spend the city monies/revenue.(period)"

Seems, you've correctly I.D. yerself.

So, for fifty years straight...No Dem is to blame for "over spending" in Detroit. No Dem is accountable or responsible for "over spending". Seems Obama learned something from that...."if ya don't have a budget, ya can't readily be accused of over spending". And yet....his check book....seems to be missing.


Simple economics seem to evade the simple minded. When ya got ten dollars in yer pocket and the item ya want costs 14 dollars....just because the idiot sales person will take yer down payment of the ten dollars and let you walk out with the item? It only means you possess the item, you don't own it,
until ya pay the other four dollars and interest. This concept seems to evade Slick as the city of Detroit tries to evade the "repo man".

Reservoir_Dog wrote:There are a dozen other major American cities on the verge of bankruptcy.
Anyone who thinks that this is simply a Democrat vs Republican issue is delusional.

All eleven of them are in California and they are run by delusional republicans....