The city of Detroit has filed for bankruptcy,unable to pay salaries,maintain municipal parks and street lighting,but mainly my guess would be the pensions of retirees if it's anything like Stockton,California which went broke awhile back. No part of the country is immune it seems. Whilst Mitt Romney talked about getting tough on China whilst making a $200 million fortune backing just such workers at the expense of ordinary Americans it's time for tough choices in every Western country. The Eurozone recently dipped into private bank accounts taking money from those whose savings were over €100,000:harsh measures indeed which you can read about here:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/banking/9959656/We-have-200000-stuck-in-Cyprus.html There seems to be no choice but to renege on pension agreements for the wealthy,whilst people in Detroit who bought foreign cars might want to look wistfully at the consequences of their actions.http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/18/detroit-prepares-bankruptcy-filing-friday/2552819/

My own city Cleveland, filed for bankruptcy in 1977...during a time when Cleveland lost complete value and being the Butt of America, after seeing their river catch fire and the mayor's head be set on fire.

Will Detroit be joked upon more?

My own city Cleveland, filed for bankruptcy in 1977...during a time when Cleveland lost complete value and being the Butt of America, after seeing their river catch fire and the mayor's head be set on fire.

Will Detroit be joked upon more?
It's part of the deindustrialisation of the Western world. I would have thought those places in California would have attracted people though.

They had big plans for my city,there was a really nice sub-division with over 2 thousand homes and the people were forced to move and their houses were tore down so these developers could extend the airport runway.They were going to form a partnership with china and St.louis was going to be a major hub for importing/exporting but I guess the Chinese took one look around here and figured it was too much of a dump because nothing ever came of it. They never extended the runway, the area where they tore down the homes has become a dumping site. A few of the weasels made a fortune.

Detroit, Michigan is a last-place city right now, just like the NBC network is currently in last place. The city has hundreds of vacant structures, a high crime ratre, and the city has lost over 60% of its 1950 population. The bankruptcy filing just had to happen because of the heavy debt.

It's sad and scary, but shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Unfortunately, most of the Rust Belt is in a similar situation.

Trust the lawyers to get in on the act,and send the bill to the taxpayer.http://rt.com/usa/judge-halts-detroit-bankruptcy-342/

My area of the country has had a similar situation of run down housing where nobody really would choose to live,flight to better areas and all the problems deindustrialization brings. Better to demolish the ruins,grass the area over and start again where possible. I don't like the race to the bottom where employers can get away with paying people the lowest wage possible.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/21/detroit-emergency-manager-defends-bankruptcy-says-city-dug-this-hole/

My own city Cleveland, filed for bankruptcy in 1977...during a time when Cleveland lost complete value and being the Butt of America, after seeing their river catch fire and the mayor's head be set on fire.

Will Detroit be joked upon more?
Actually, that happened in December of 1978. Cleveland's mayor at the time was none other than Mr. Dennis Kucinich!!!!

June 22, 1969 was when the Cuyahoga River caught fire, and Mayor Ralph Perk became the subject of national ridicule on October 16, 1972, when he accidentally set his hair on fire while he attempted to use a welder's torch for a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a convention in Cleveland. (I have no idea where he got that idea. :rolleyes:)

Anyway, here's the report of the Cleveland default:

Hz4SwsoW8m0

June 22, 1969 was when the Cuyahoga River caught fire, and Mayor Ralph Perk became the subject of national ridicule on October 16, 1972, when he accidentally set his hair on fire while he attempted to use a welder's torch for a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a convention in Cleveland. (I have no idea where he got that idea. :rolleyes:)

Anyway, here's the report of the Cleveland default:

Hz4SwsoW8m0

I apologize...I thought it was 1977, but I was a year off.

But God, Kucinich is such a mule! And the city is STILL being the butt of America...but not as much as it was in the 80's! But then again...

ysmLA5TqbIY
oZzgAjjuqZM

You HAVE to watch the other vid on YouTube...I sooooo hate that!:mad: :mad: :mad:

I'm sure there are many hardworking well-intentioned people in Detroit who regard the place as their home and I don't want to run it down. I wonder whether the same situation pertains in some of those Californian towns which have gone belly-up and the reason why some people left..

Kucinich was elected mayor in 1977. Off by a year, no biggie. A recall vote was organized to get him out of office, but he kept his job by a mere 236 votes!!

http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=RE1

I found a vid about Detroit that's 45 years old....

RNnh9ws8Apg

This comment from a YouTuber sums it up for me:

How truly tragic! Such a bright, positive outlook only to be completely destroyed! Over 40 years of Black Power, Affirmative Action, Civil Rights legislation and black mayors have resulted in what Detroit is today!

That guy in Cleveland looks kind of young to be a mayor. The mayor of my city could never set his hair on fire, he's bald.

Dennis Kucinich had just turned 31 when he was elected mayor of Cleveland in 1977, and among his nicknames were "The Boy Mayor" and "Dennis the Menace". :lol: His predecessor, Mayor Perk, who burned his hair with the blowtorch, also faced humiliation when he was ridiculed for banning the sale of Playboy magazine in Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, and his wife turned down a White House visit because it was her bowling night.

Mind you, this was all before I was born. Thank goodness!! :eek: :crazy: :lol:

We have a mayor now who's still in his 20s. I have to say he had balls to run at that age, knowing that he was sure to get the job (they could have run a chimp and retained their party's rule of the office). But his overall life inexperience keeps showing through.

Federal government interference, in my opinion, is one of the main things that's hurting recovery efforts in blighted urban areas. For example, just to knock down a burnt-out, abandoned house, significant money has to be come up with for asbestos abatement. In actuality, all the demo contractor needs to do is keep the area wet to prevent fibres from going into the air (with no one in direct contact, of course). Instead, an expensive space-age routine is mandated.

Dennis Kucinich had just turned 31 when he was elected mayor of Cleveland in 1977, and among his nicknames were "The Boy Mayor" and "Dennis the Menace". :lol: His predecessor, Mayor Perk, who burned his hair with the blowtorch, also faced humiliation when he was ridiculed for banning the sale of Playboy magazine in Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, and his wife turned down a White House visit because it was her bowling night.

Mind you, this was all before I was born. Thank goodness!! :eek: :crazy: :lol:

Maybe I should run for mayor, since I'll be 31 by Election Day. Frank Jackson is okay, but our city just keeps running at the same wall it has for years.

But I would run for the Libertarian Ticket!

At the time, Kucinich was the youngest mayor serving in a major city.

Detroit has so much history in that city. I find the whole situation, and the decline of Detroit very sad. Talk about an American tragedy. This will probably have negative affects on the city, and the economy. :(

The way I see it, you need to hit rock-bottom in order to see that something is very wrong. And Detroit going bankrupt should be the solution.

I bet Detroit will have plenty of company before too long,all I see in North St.louis are old empty buildings and weeds 10 feet high growing thru the sidewalks.

At the time, Kucinich was the youngest mayor serving in a major city.

I've always been much more interested in Dennis' wife than in him:
http://www.super-hair.net/kucinich5.JPG

I've always been much more interested in Dennis' wife than in him:
http://www.super-hair.net/kucinich5.JPG

Yup, a lot of people are. :lol: She looks a bit like Julianne Moore in that pic.

The wealthiest should take a pay cut,we should get well-paid manufacturing jobs back in our industrial heartlands and not ship them off to China:then maybe the next 20 cities in America and Europe will not face the uncertain future which awaits.http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/cities-bankruptcy-after-detroit/2013/08/06/id/519081?promo_code=F492-1&utm_source=Test_Newsmax_Feed&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

It looks like Greece is heading for a new crisis with a "We Won't Pay" group of 10,000 refusing to pay electricity bills.http://rt.com/news/dont-pay-movement-austerity-212/

Argentina is in a similar position,it's $95 billion debt having rolled over since 2001 and since a South Manhattan ruling by Judge Thomas Griesa last December has nowhere to go but the American Supreme Court,whose ruling is due on 26 August.http://rt.com/op-edge/money-mass-slavery-debt-223/

Richmond California is involved in a legal fight to assist homeowners with their mortgages which may help to keep them in their homes.http://rt.com/usa/california-city-eminent-domain-mortgages-507/

I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans put some flesh on the bones of Mitt Romney's "get tough on China" policy next time round,as the chickens of the Reagan and Thatcher era come home to roost..http://rt.com/op-edge/detroit-bankruptcy-usa-economy-405/

I say use eminent domain to evict everyone still living in Detroit, then sic Frank Luiazzo on the town an demolish every building in the city, then start over from scratch. :lol:

I say use eminent domain to evict everyone still living in Detroit, then sic Frank Luiazzo on the town an demolish every building in the city, then start over from scratch. :lol:
Who is Frank Luiazzo?

Who is Frank Luiazzo?

He's the CEO of Controlled Demolition Incorporated. He and his merry men travel the World looking for Skyscrapers to BLOW UP!!! :lol:

I probably mispelled his last name. :doh:


186330

Isn't this the logical conclusion to Reaganomics and Thatcherism:you will have a small number of handsome winners such as Mitt Romney and Donald Trump,but for those at the bottom their pay has scarcely improved,even if they have managed to hang onto their job. Others have had to leave their communities in Detroit or in Liverpool or Manchester in my country. It's quite sad,really.

The wealthiest should take a pay cut,we should get well-paid manufacturing jobs back in our industrial heartlands and not ship them off to China:then maybe the next 20 cities in America and Europe will not face the uncertain future which awaits.http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/cities-bankruptcy-after-detroit/2013/08/06/id/519081?promo_code=F492-1&utm_source=Test_Newsmax_Feed&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1
Punishing the wealthy is not the answer.

Punishing the wealthy is not the answer.
You can pay more tax,as Warren Buffett says you should.http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/aug/15/warren-buffett-higher-taxes-super-rich

You can pay more tax,as Warren Buffett says you should.http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/aug/15/warren-buffett-higher-taxes-super-rich
The top 1% of wage earners already pay 37% of the taxes collected by the government. And the top 25% pay 86% of the taxes collected.

I wonder how many leftists voluntarily pay more than they owe in taxes to the government?

The top 1% of wage earners already pay 37% of the taxes collected by the government. And the top 25% pay 86% of the taxes collected.

I wonder how many leftists voluntarily pay more than they owe in taxes to the government?
Please Fleet change the record-it's got stuck.http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/economics/2012/09/20-wealth-tax-mega-rich-would-raise-800bn

Please Fleet change the record-it's got stuck.http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/economics/2012/09/20-wealth-tax-mega-rich-would-raise-800bn
Why should I "change the record?" It's more like you don't want to accept facts!

Again, punishing the wealthy (raising their taxes) ends up hurting the middle class. I suppose you are one of those who think the wealthy should have a 60, 70 or 80% tax rate.

This letter is a good example of why increasing the already over-taxed rich doesn't help...

Why should I "change the record?" It's more like you don't want to accept facts!

Again, punishing the wealthy (raising their taxes) ends up hurting the middle class. I suppose you are one of those who think the wealthy should have a 60, 70 or 80% tax rate.

This letter is a good example of why increasing the already over-taxed rich doesn't help...
Your arguments are outdated. We're not arguing for higher income taxes,but other forms of tax which would hit the rich on their spending.

Your arguments are outdated. We're not arguing for higher income taxes,but other forms of tax which would hit the rich on their spending.
Economics is never outdated. Neither is common sense.

You hit the rich on their spending and they will spend less and put more of their wealth into tax-free investments. As I said, it ends up hurting the middle class and small businesses. Maybe you should read that letter again?

Economics is never outdated. Neither is common sense.

You hit the rich on their spending and they will spend less and put more of their wealth into tax-free investments. As I said, it ends up hurting the middle class and small businesses. Maybe you should read that letter again?
The rich are far richer than they have ever been in history due to the Reagan and Thatcher era. We should look at tax holistically to plug these tax loopholes which now amount to $32 trillion worldwide. Only when the rich are seen to be hit will those lower down the income scale accept their social responsibility with corresponding cuts across the board.http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/30/taxh-m30.html

The rich are far richer than they have ever been in history due to the Reagan and Thatcher era. We should look at tax holistically to plug these tax loopholes which now amount to $32 trillion worldwide. Only when the rich are seen to be hit will those lower down the income scale accept their social responsibility with corresponding cuts across the board.http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/30/taxh-m30.html
The rich got richer because their companies prospered during the 1980s... not a bad thing except with socialists. Reagan was not anti-business or anti-capitalism; socialists are.

I am glad that happened because I have never worked for a poor person.

After the 1981 and 1983 Reagan tax cuts, not only did government revenue increase, but the wealthy were actually paying more, by percent, in taxes than they were before the tax cuts...

The rich got richer because their companies prospered during the 1980s... not a bad thing except with socialists. Reagan was not anti-business or anti-capitalism; socialists are.

I am glad that happened because I have never worked for a poor person.

After the 1981 and 1983 Reagan tax cuts, not only did government revenue increase, but the wealthy were actually paying more, by percent, in taxes than they were before the tax cuts...
The rich were paying more whilst lining their own pockets in the process. The poor were paying less because of their miserably low wages in the first place. What do you say to the McDonald's workers flipping burgers in the searing heat of a large kitchen in an American summer who don't even earn $10.50 per hour and who have to be subsidized with food stamps from the state because their private employers won't share some of the profits these low paid workers are making for the company in the first place? No wonder they're on strike. I could also discuss the horrendous crime levels the socio-economic policies of the Reagan and Thatcher era has engendered but this is to be expected. Of course all the social costs are thrown onto general taxation whilst wealthy individuals with their snouts in the trough and who give the orders demand increased productivity from those at the bottom,then stash their ill-gotten gains in the Cayman Islands.http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/25/poll-wealth-distribution-similar-sweden/

The rich were paying more whilst lining their own pockets in the process. The poor were paying less because of their miserably low wages in the first place. What do you say to the McDonald's workers flipping burgers in the searing heat of a large kitchen in an American summer who don't even earn $10.50 per hour and who have to be subsidized with food stamps from the state because their private employers won't share some of the profits these low paid workers are making for the company in the first place? No wonder they're on strike. I could also discuss the horrendous crime levels the socio-economic policies of the Reagan and Thatcher era has engendered but this is to be expected. Of course all the social costs are thrown onto general taxation whilst wealthy individuals with their snouts in the trough and who give the orders demand increased productivity from those at the bottom,then stash their ill-gotten gains in the Cayman Islands.http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/25/poll-wealth-distribution-similar-sweden/
The crime rate during the '80s was not due to Reagan (or Thatcher)... far from it. It was because of the general decay of society which began in the late-1960s and early-1970s.

During the Reagan years, EVERY income group benefited, not just "the rich." Also, a large number of 18 million jobs created during the Reagan years were not the low-paying ones. There were LESS low income workers in 1989 compared to 1981.

Also, the poverty rate was LOWER by the end of Reagan's 2nd term than it was when he took office.

You really should do some research about Reaganomics... but not from some wacko left-wing site!

The crime rate during the '80s was not due to Reagan (or Thatcher)... far from it. It was because of the general decay of society which began in the late-1960s and early-1970s.

During the Reagan years, EVERY income group benefited, not just "the rich." Also, a large number of 18 million jobs created during the Reagan years were not the low-paying ones. There were LESS low income workers in 1989 compared to 1981.

Also, the poverty rate was LOWER by the end of Reagan's 2nd term than it was when he took office.

You really should do some research about Reaganomics... but not from some wacko left-wing site!
All I can see at the end there is the poorest workers' incomes having decreased by 5%. You certainly don't get any gold medals for your incarceration rates.http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2002/olympic/indicators.htm

All I can see at the end there is the poorest workers' incomes having decreased by 5%. You certainly don't get any gold medals for your incarceration rates.http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2002/olympic/indicators.htm
You are spinning and going all over the place.

Your link has nothing to do with the economy under Reagan.

And I think you misunderstood the data I posted. It shows that there were less people in low-paying jobs during the Reagan era and more medium- and high-paying jobs... this is good, not bad!