• 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

I have no idea why you keep making this point. It's dumb. We all know there were lots of factors that put Detroit in its current spot. But Detroit is a city in a state. And it's well being is not reflective of the well being of the entire metro area. No doubt MI as a state is not in good shape. But Detroit's issues make Michigan's status look nirvana. That's the reason I posted so many stats about Detroit vs. Michigan generally. And no matter how much you want to pretend the political climate in Detroit didn't play a big roll in Detroit's problems, the facts bear out otherwise. Leaders set policies and policies have consequences. And the policies of Detroit's leaders, over a period of decades, played a very large roll in Detroit's current stature.

Detroit reached a tipping point along the way. The policies of raising taxes higher and higher, borrowing more and more and doing nothing to encourage investment in the city so that it would have a tax base which could provide basic services and support the safety of its citizens has led us to the Detroit of today relative to the broader metro area. Coleman Young led Detroit to junk bond status. The citizens who paid the bills voted with their feet. They fled to the suburbs or out of the state. And now what remains is a shell of a city that 60 years ago had the highest per capita income in the nation. Bankrupt, vacant, ridiculous levels of poverty and unemployment, horrible schools, little social structure, no social services, little public safety.

And you probably should read up on some of those "leaders". I'd start here courtesy of the Washington Post.

And less you drone on further about manufacturing. There are LOTS of auto plants that have been built in the United States over the last 40 years. Almost all of them were built in right to work states.

I'll leave it to others to tell you the last time Detroit has a republican mayor. I wonder if it ever did.

"The finger-pointing for Detroit’s decades of decline usually starts with the 1967 race riots. High pensions for unionized workers get its share of the blame, as does the global economic trends that upended the auto industry. Meanwhile, racial politics and white flight to the suburbs rightly earn a place as a driver of the city’s blight.

But so much focus on what happened can leave behind the “who.” Yes, a confluence of economic and cultural forces unquestionably led to Detroit‘s decline and its filing, on Thursday, for the largest municipal bankruptcy in the history of the United States. But Detroit also failed as a city because of the leaders who failed Detroit.

Some names are obvious. There is former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who could face 20 years in prison after being convicted for crimes such as extortion, bribery and racketeering. Obviously, decades of decline preceded the “hip-hop mayor,” but the corruption of his tenure certainly didn’t help. While Kilpatrick was in office, Detroit’s credit ratings returned to junk status.

There is Coleman Young, the combative five-term mayor who led the city for what Daniel Okrent has called, in Time, a “corrosive two-decade rule of a black politician who cared more about retribution than about resurrection.” Though Young’s tenure is caught up in racial divisiveness that some believe make him misunderstood, it’s clear he stayed in office for far too long, did little to try and mend fences broken down along racial lines, and led the city when its debt rating first reached junk status.

But it would be simplistic to point only to two elected officials. This is a city where, for decades, delusional auto industry executives ignored global economic forces, attempts at regulation, and consumer needs and tastes, refusing to evolve their business until it was far too late. It’s a city where union leaders have long held unrealistic and short-sighted goals which, combined with their unparalleled power, exacerbated the industry’s problems and the city’s employment prospects.

It’s a city where some of the region’s representatives in Washington have historically been so defending of those industries and their unions that they failed to diversify its economic base. Here’s Okrent again, admitting other politicians have done the same but reserving a special enmity for the country’s longest-serving Congressman, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.): “By so ably satisfying the wishes of the auto industry–by encouraging southeastern Michigan’s reliance on this single, lumbering mastodon–Dingell has in fact played a signal role in destroying Detroit.”
More recently, this is a city where there have been five police chiefs in five years. Where a report by the city’s emergency manager called Detroit’s operations “dysfunctional and wasteful after years of budgetary restrictions, mismanagement, crippling operational practices, and, in some cases, indifference or corruption.” Where one city council member walked away from his mortgage, mailing in his keys and abandoning yet another home in Detroit, while another was stripped of the council’s presidency after disappearing amid allegations of an inappropriate relationship with a teenager. (No charges have been filed, and the teen’s family has asked the police to suspend its investigation, but the former council president’s accounts are being audited.)

This is a city where leaders have failed it time and time again. One can only hope that its extraordinarily powerful emergency financial manager, Kevyn Orr; the next mayor of Detroit (its current one gets credit for some of his efforts, but has already said he won’t run for reelection); and any more of the Motor City’s other leaders do not in this time of great need."

You win. Detroit sucks. The politics of democratic mayors have had a much larger impact than technological developments or transitioning into a global economy.
 
Last edited:
The rising costs of trans oceanic shipping? LOL. Putting aside any merits that might exist in said statement, it still doesn't explain why in picking locations to build plants (and many have been set up in the last 30 years) automakers have selected places other than Detroit.

Other than the fact it's nearly landlocked, takes more money to ship and receive materials than Charleston, and frozen half the year?
 
And most of our national debt was created by Republican POTUS. No non-war POTUS multiplied the national debt by as large a percentage as Ronald Reagan.

Clinton turned the Reagan/Bush deficits into a surplus. Obama has cut the deficit left him by 50%.
 
Other than the fact it's nearly landlocked, takes more money to ship and receive materials than Charleston, and frozen half the year?

By this logic no one would ever build a car plant in say, Kansas City, but lo and behold both Ford and GM have done so.

Never mind the port authority of Detroit begs to differ with you. From their web site.

OCEAN SHIPPING SERVICE
Detroit is directly linked by water to all world markets through the international port located on the Detroit and Rouge Rivers, 618 miles from the entrance to the Saint Lawrence Seaway. The Port of Detroit handles more than 20 million tons of cargo annually, and ranks at the third largest steel handling port in the U.S. landlocked and yet there's a world class port in the city. Wonder how that happened?
 
Well, yeah, but Charleston has a democrat mayor. A Detroit-like fate surely awaits.

And to be clear, I'm not arguing jmhd's line that it is just a Democratic leadership issue. But anyone who thinks a lack of leadership played no part in Detroit's demise is just obtuse. It is a poster child for refusing to adapt, reaching a tipping point and being left for dead.
 
And to be clear, I'm not arguing jmhd's line that it is just a Democratic leadership issue. But anyone who thinks a lack of leadership played no part in Detroit's demise is just obtuse. It is a poster child for refusing to adapt, reaching a tipping point and being left for dead.

Which had far more to do with the business leaders than with the mayor or city council.
 
And to be clear, I'm not arguing jmhd's line that it is just a Democratic leadership issue. But anyone who thinks a lack of leadership played no part in Detroit's demise is just obtuse. It is a poster child for refusing to adapt, reaching a tipping point and being left for dead.

You're not arguing jhmd's straw man. You're arguing your own against people who essentially agree that poor leadership wasn't the only factor and Detroit sucks.

Bold move, Cotton.
 
The US Auto Industry in Detroit is a relic of a more prosperous time for the middle class in the US. These companies were built and promises were made to the workers during a time when the international competition that was driving wages was pretty much non-existent.

Now there is huge international labor competition which impacts the overall labor market in manufacturing and automation and other efficiencies have hurt manufacturing wage levels. Many of these legacy promises were made at a time when they were reasonable to stay competitive in the marketplace, but they are now anchors against new companies that aren't burdened with these legacy costs.
 
I think a Democratic local government in a red state is actually the best way to succeed as a city
 
Many of you blame the unions for the management's failures. Is it the union's fault that the Big 3 didn't change over to smaller, more efficient cars in the 70s? Is it the union's fault that management didn't make quality cars for a quarter of a century?

My bad, it's all the terrible hourly wage earners' fault they were mean to the million dollar earners in the corner suites.

It's also the unions' fault that money didn't trickle down to to start new businesses in Detroit like it did in Pittsburgh and Boston among other places.

It's never management's fault. It's always on the union.
 
You're not arguing jhmd's straw man. You're arguing your own against people who essentially agree that poor leadership wasn't the only factor and Detroit sucks.

Bold move, Cotton.

LOL. I'm not as obtuse as a few of you are here trying to argue that Detroit's leadership didn't sow many of the seeds that has left the city a wasteland. You want to pretend that a city that loses 60% of its population, has the highest tax rates allowed by law, has the worst schools in the nation (despite paying its teachers well above the national and its own state averages), can't provide basic services and has an atrocious safety record is only in that condition because of the auto industry. Crap, ONW is trying to pontificate about Detroit being landlocked (it has a world class port that lets ships get to the ocean) and being in a cold climate. I especially find that last one funny as I sit here within the Minneapolis city boundaries tapping away on my keyboard in my living room.

Since nothing else seems to sink in - the metro area of Detroit has over 4 million people. The unemployment rate of the metro area a year ago was 9.9 percent. The unemployment rate in Detroit is by some estimates over 50%. Pull Detroit out of that equation and the metro area is probably not all that far off the national average. In 1950 the metro area population was 3 million and in Detroit it was close to 2 million. Today the metro area is over 4 million and Detroit has 700,000.

The people who paid the bills in Detroit voted. They all moved and it doesn't look like most of them left the state.
 
rj actually spits out a pretty strong point

Yeah, I think that is fair. So is his point about the big 3 having far worse legacy costs than new companies moving to the states. But that doesn't excuse the roll unions have played not only in Detroit but elsewhere when it comes to manufacturing jobs. They too wanted to hang on to things that were not sustainable. And their presence would keep new businesses with lower skilled jobs from moving to areas like Detroit.

His point about starting new businesses though is total bullshit. Capital will flow to good ideas. Hell, capital and investment flows to lots of crummy ideas. No one starts businesses in Detroit proper because the burdens are too damn high relative to the services received. Far easier to set up shop a few miles outside the city limits.
 
Last edited:
The reason the suburbs grew is that people made enough money to move out of the city. This happens in almost every city when there is a boom for workers. But don't let the reality of middle class success in American society get in the way of your rant.

Business leaders in Detroit were lazy and myopic. Rather than looking to the future and investing in new technologies and businesses, leaders in Detroit were arrogant and slow. They thought they knew everything. They didn't modernize until it was too late and didn't think about investing in any other types of businesses.

blaming this on the unions is like blaming an airplane crash on the check-in desk.
 
You win. Detroit sucks. The politics of democratic mayors have had a much larger impact than technological developments or transitioning into a global economy.

For your theory to be valid, you'd have to admit that Detroit was out-flanked in globalization by Alabama and Mississippi. Are you ready to do that?
 
I think we can all agree that the suburbs are evil and a retirement home for people who are dead inside, right?
 
The reason the suburbs grew is that people made enough money to move out of the city. This happens in almost every city when there is a boom for workers. But don't let the reality of middle class success in American society get in the way of your rant.

Business leaders in Detroit were lazy and myopic. Rather than looking to the future and investing in new technologies and businesses, leaders in Detroit were arrogant and slow. They thought they knew everything. They didn't modernize until it was too late and didn't think about investing in any other types of businesses.

blaming this on the unions is like blaming an airplane crash on the check-in desk.

Are their unfunded obligations to business executives exceeding $10B? Perhaps we shouldn't rush to subscribe to your theory that business leaders negotiated against their own financial interests to make promises to unions that drove the companies into bailout.
 
Back
Top