• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Gingrich Detonates Inconvenient Truth re War on Poverty

During the 70s and 80s, it was all about "white flight". Then later (during the time Detroit was falling apart), people started moving back into cities and gentrification happened.

Detroit also had most of the plants in the suburbs.

Something else is that the elite built the shopping centers, malls ,etc., far from downtown. Further if you look at any other city, there was great diversification already there. No so in Detroit.

The rich in Detroit didn't want to be anywhere near their employees. Unlike Philly, Boston, Chicago which had an explosion of restaurants and events in the 70s and 80s, this didn't happen in the Motor City. In fact, their biggest entertainment company moved in the 70s.

Painting with broad brushes is lazy and disingenuous.
 
DEACMAN still hasn't refuted my point that the cost for importing cars has played a major part in foreign car companies building plants in America. Anyone who believes that Alabama or Georgia simply lured those foreign plants here with state tax cuts is ludicrous. Those tax cuts just decided which states got which plants. Take out the variable of shipping costs and never in a million years does Nissan or Toyota build plants in the US.

Sent from my C6606 using Tapatalk
 
And before any dipshit brings it up, no, those companies would not put a plant in Detroit.

Sent from my C6606 using Tapatalk
 
DeacMan, do you know what a straw man is?

Pretty much everybody here believes poor leadership is at some fault. That's why nobody patting you on the back for posting obvious stats to make an obvious point. The question posed in this thread (which you didn't read before you joined in) is if Democratic mayors breed poverty.
 
I wouldn't drive an icecream truck in Detroit.

Sent from my C6606 using Tapatalk
 
RJKarl said:
During the 70s and 80s, it was all about "white flight". Then later (during the time Detroit was falling apart), people started moving back into cities and gentrification happened.

Detroit also had most of the plants in the suburbs.

Something else is that the elite built the shopping centers, malls ,etc., far from downtown. Further if you look at any other city, there was great diversification already there. No so in Detroit.

The rich in Detroit didn't want to be anywhere near their employees. Unlike Philly, Boston, Chicago which had an explosion of restaurants and events in the 70s and 80s, this didn't happen in the Motor City. In fact, their biggest entertainment company moved in the 70s.

Painting with broad brushes is lazy and disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't want to do that.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
DEACMAN still hasn't refuted my point that the cost for importing cars has played a major part in foreign car companies building plants in America. Anyone who believes that Alabama or Georgia simply lured those foreign plants here with state tax cuts is ludicrous. Those tax cuts just decided which states got which plants. Take out the variable of shipping costs and never in a million years does Nissan or Toyota build plants in the US.

Sent from my C6606 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Who gives a shit why they decided to build plants. They built them. And they didn't build them in Detroit. And it wasn't just foreign car makers who didn't build in Detroit either. GM and Ford built in places like Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana and Tennessee as well. Why? Cost.
 
RJKarl said:
During the 70s and 80s, it was all about "white flight". Then later (during the time Detroit was falling apart), people started moving back into cities and gentrification happened.

Detroit also had most of the plants in the suburbs.

Something else is that the elite built the shopping centers, malls ,etc., far from downtown. Further if you look at any other city, there was great diversification already there. No so in Detroit.

The rich in Detroit didn't want to be anywhere near their employees. Unlike Philly, Boston, Chicago which had an explosion of restaurants and events in the 70s and 80s, this didn't happen in the Motor City. In fact, their biggest entertainment company moved in the 70s.

Painting with broad brushes is lazy and disingenuous.
Click to expand...

This is really funny:

- Over 1,000,000 people left Detroit. That's a lot of "elites" there RJ.
- You are presuming people in Detroit had some aversion to workers gene that doesn't exist elsewhere - never mind 1,000,000 people apparently had this aversion gene.
- Detroit had no diversity. Good one. America's 4th largest city had no diversity. LOL.

Who needs lazy when you can just make shit up.
 
DeacMan said:
Who gives a shit why they decided to build plants. They built them. And they didn't build them in Detroit. And it wasn't just foreign car makers who didn't build in Detroit either. GM and Ford built in places like Missouri, Kentucky, Indiana and Tennessee as well. Why? Cost.
Click to expand...

I would counter with "Who gives a shit about Detroit?" Someone tried to use the existence of foreign car plants in the US South as proof of their economic strategy being successful. I think I've effectively countered that point. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that lowered taxes and a cheap labor force are attractive to low skilled manufacturing companies, but the negative cost of those regressive tax credits/cuts, could certainly outweigh the benefits of a few thousand low salary go-nowhere jobs. It shouldn't surprise that me that the same people that label all personal government assistance as "entitlement programs" have no problem bribing companies and corporations to move to their state.

Sent from my C6606 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
I would counter with "Who gives a shit about Detroit?" Someone tried to use the existence of foreign car plants in the US South as proof of their economic strategy being successful. I think I've effectively countered that point. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that lowered taxes and a cheap labor force are attractive to low skilled manufacturing companies, but the negative cost of those regressive tax credits/cuts, could certainly outweigh the benefits of a few thousand low salary go-nowhere jobs. It shouldn't surprise that me that the same people that label all personal government assistance as "entitlement programs" have no problem bribing companies and corporations to move to their state.

Sent from my C6606 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This is such a strange post. I think we should all "give a shit" about Detroit and try to learn from it. The beacon of american industrialism is on life support. Would be wise to observe and deduce the cause.

A few thousand jobs don't matter? In the canton, ms Nissan plant alone they have over 5k employees and have invested over 2b dollars. That is one plant. You don't think that is important? What happens when that number is multiplied by 20? By 50? I think Detroit would beg to differ on the insignificance of those jobs.

Go nowhere jobs put bread in the table. Detroit is a perfect example of what happens when "go nowhere jobs" leave a community. And I love that lowering taxes is now seem as bribing. Unreal.
 
If you're banking on manufacturing as the savior of the American economy, I have sad news for you. There will always be a need to have some domestic production, but that's not going to be a driver of the economy ever again.
 
Wrangor said:
This is such a strange post. I think we should all "give a shit" about Detroit and try to learn from it. The beacon of american industrialism is on life support. Would be wise to observe and deduce the cause.

A few thousand jobs don't matter? In the canton, ms Nissan plant alone they have over 5k employees and have invested over 2b dollars. That is one plant. You don't think that is important? What happens when that number is multiplied by 20? By 50? I think Detroit would beg to differ on the insignificance of those jobs.

Go nowhere jobs put bread in the table. Detroit is a perfect example of what happens when "go nowhere jobs" leave a community. And I love that lowering taxes is now seem as bribing. Unreal.
Click to expand...
Ok, I've got a lot of responses to this post.

1. How do all these tax credits and exceptions affect the millions of other citizens who don't work for the plant? How do these exceptions and credits affect the social services (teacher pay) that are dependent upon tax revenue?
2. What happens in 10 years when the plant has to make cut backs and can't/won't raise its wages with inflation, and cuts benefits and pensions?
3. So southern states are willing to make tax exceptions for businesses to migrate there; Are they willing to make exceptions to their homosexual marriage bans and let gay CEOs marry their partners there?

4. Do we want all the states simply outbidding/low-bidding each other for industry and cannibalizing ourselves at the cost of the American labor force? How about we try to get workers paid what they deserve and need, vs the lowest wage they're willing to work for. Destroying the labor forces negotiation power can't possibly be seen as good for the country or Middle class

Sent from my C6606 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
I would counter with "Who gives a shit about Detroit?" Someone tried to use the existence of foreign car plants in the US South as proof of their economic strategy being successful. I think I've effectively countered that point. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that lowered taxes and a cheap labor force are attractive to low skilled manufacturing companies, but the negative cost of those regressive tax credits/cuts, could certainly outweigh the benefits of a few thousand low salary go-nowhere jobs. It shouldn't surprise that me that the same people that label all personal government assistance as "entitlement programs" have no problem bribing companies and corporations to move to their state.

Sent from my C6606 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You don't give a shit about this? You're bizarre. We should all give a shit about this. This is what happens when you don't recalibrate and attract investment to your city as it goes through decline. What happened to Detroit is Exhibit A of what happens when your tax base erodes. When you watch the videos below consider that right up until its bankruptcy (and presumably still to this day), Detroit was placing a 2.5% earnings tax on residents. It charges those who work in the city but live elsewhere 1.5% of their earnings. No wonder no one in the metro area was looking to move into Detroit or set up a business there. They got to pay a subsidy that will deliver them no services in return while living in a war zone. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinq...actor-in-detroits-taxpayer-exodus-bankruptcy/ Far easier to set up shop in the burbs where you aren't paying that added tax and you actually get your trash picked up.

But hey, who would want to attract new investment and capital into the city. Everything was going so well for so long.

The biggest irony is that by going into bankruptcy the city now (a) is no longer effectively run by elected officials, and (b) has a chance to restructure and improve. That will, of course, come at a huge price to its creditors (including its retired workers). But it now has a chance.



- This one is just scary. Look at this poor woman. Look at her street.

 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
I would counter with "Who gives a shit about Detroit?" Someone tried to use the existence of foreign car plants in the US South as proof of their economic strategy being successful. I think I've effectively countered that point. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that lowered taxes and a cheap labor force are attractive to low skilled manufacturing companies, but the negative cost of those regressive tax credits/cuts, could certainly outweigh the benefits of a few thousand low salary go-nowhere jobs. It shouldn't surprise that me that the same people that label all personal government assistance as "entitlement programs" have no problem bribing companies and corporations to move to their state.

Sent from my C6606 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Wrangor said:
This is such a strange post. I think we should all "give a shit" about Detroit and try to learn from it. The beacon of american industrialism is on life support. Would be wise to observe and deduce the cause.

A few thousand jobs don't matter? In the canton, ms Nissan plant alone they have over 5k employees and have invested over 2b dollars. That is one plant. You don't think that is important? What happens when that number is multiplied by 20? By 50? I think Detroit would beg to differ on the insignificance of those jobs.

Go nowhere jobs put bread in the table. Detroit is a perfect example of what happens when "go nowhere jobs" leave a community. And I love that lowering taxes is now seem as bribing. Unreal.
Click to expand...

DeacMan said:
You don't give a shit about this? You're bizarre. We should all give a shit about this. This is what happens when you don't recalibrate and attract investment to your city as it goes through decline. What happened to Detroit is Exhibit A of what happens when your tax base erodes. When you watch the videos below consider that right up until its bankruptcy (and presumably still to this day), Detroit was placing a 2.5% earnings tax on residents. It charges those who work in the city but live elsewhere 1.5% of their earnings. No wonder no one in the metro area was looking to move into Detroit or set up a business there. They got to pay a subsidy that will deliver them no services in return while living in a war zone. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinq...actor-in-detroits-taxpayer-exodus-bankruptcy/ Far easier to set up shop in the burbs where you aren't paying that added tax and you actually get your trash picked up.

But hey, who would want to attract new investment and capital into the city. Everything was going so well for so long.

The biggest irony is that by going into bankruptcy the city now (a) is no longer effectively run by elected officials, and (b) has a chance to restructure and improve. That will, of course, come at a huge price to its creditors (including its retired workers). But it now has a chance.
Click to expand...

I think these gentlemen have ably answered why we should care about Detroit. Watch those videos. Time to stop pridefully doubling down on failed policies.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Forty percent of the street lights don't work in Detroit (source: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/40-per-cent-street-lights-detroit.html).

But like local tax policy, that's probably not related to local government either. Business leaders strike again!
Click to expand...

Some of the darkness may be by design. In discussing the street-light problem with Bloomberg.com last year, the Wayne State University law professor John Mogk said Detroit has a thinly spread population, with up to twenty city neighborhoods that were less than fifteen-per-cent occupied. Repairing the lights and delivering service to those areas is expensive and inefficient; prioritizing others is one way to congregate the citizens of a new, smaller Detroit.

-----
Read your own links. This one looks like an example of government priorities and efficiency. Just quit with the hyperbole and use reasonable context.
 
PhDeac said:
Some of the darkness may be by design. In discussing the street-light problem with Bloomberg.com last year, the Wayne State University law professor John Mogk said Detroit has a thinly spread population, with up to twenty city neighborhoods that were less than fifteen-per-cent occupied. Repairing the lights and delivering service to those areas is expensive and inefficient; prioritizing others is one way to congregate the citizens of a new, smaller Detroit.

-----
Read your own links. This one looks like an example of government priorities and efficiency. Just quit with the hyperbole and use reasonable context.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is the neighborhoods are 15% occupied. The symptom (the place is so abandoned they literally turned out the lights) is troubling on its face, no? What "context" are you looking to cast that in, ahem, a good light?

Perhaps a different take than yours would be, "The city is being abandoned, why? Could it be that people don't want to live in a place where the local government (or if it would permit some to allow themselves to see the problem, find: "local government", replace: "business leaders") promised to pay $10B dollars it doesn't have? Where the taxes are too high? Where trash piles up in the street?"
 
Last edited:
Pointing out something the government may be doing to save money doesn't strengthen your point.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I think the problem is the neighborhoods are 15% occupied. The symptom (the place is so abandoned they literally turned out the lights) is troubling on its face, no? What "context" are you looking to cast that in, ahem, a good light?

Perhaps a different take than yours would be, "The city is being abandoned, why? Could it be that people don't want to live in a place where the local government (or if it would permit some to allow themselves to see the problem, find: "local government", replace: "business leaders") promised to pay $10B dollars it doesn't have? Where the taxes are too high? Where trash piles up in the street?"
Click to expand...

The answer to the question of why the city is abandoned doesn't exactly support your point all too well. In fact, it sinks all 10,000 of your non-arguments altogether. Just quit while you're behind, man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top