# Detroit files for bankruptcy



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/us/detroit-files-for-bankruptcy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

ironically, unions are listed as creditors..
The petition seeks protection from unions and creditors who are renegotiating $18.5 billion in debt and liabilities, according to the Detroit Free Press.

I think if they start taxing criminals they will pull out of it in no time.. 

really too bad.. I hope GM, Ford, Chrysler kick in and pay their fair share, for they used Detroit..


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Surely you aren't suggesting that corporations pay more in taxes?

These sorts of suggestions will label you as a communist in some circles. Careful


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Scary! RobCop was prophetic. Wow!


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Okay then I fully blame the unions for pricing themselves in to this corner by
Having the host go into bankruptcy to keep them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> Okay then I fully blame the unions for pricing themselves in to this corner by
> Having the host go into bankruptcy to keep them.


Most of the problem is the cost of union benefits. This is only the first of many US cities that will go this route to avoid the legacy of excess they negotiated with unions.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Scary! RobCop was prophetic. Wow!


Apparently it's the union's fault :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No, they are but a portion of the problem, but a problem indeed.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

They were offered a % but unions said no
Now they have nothing LOL
Always going for broke with them.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Apparently it's the union's fault :lmao:


everything is to some. they probably blame unions for cancer and the weather.

as usual with this type of scenario private capital will make out like bandits as they buy assets for pennies on the dollar and regular folk will bear all the losses.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> everything is to some. *they probably blame unions for cancer and the weather.*
> 
> as usual with this type of scenario private capital will make out like bandits as they buy assets for pennies on the dollar and regular folk will bear all the losses.


:lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> everything is to some. they probably blame unions for cancer and the weather.
> 
> as usual with this type of scenario private capital will make out like bandits as they buy assets for pennies on the dollar and regular folk will bear all the losses.


In this case, the fault was not the unions, but the municipal government giving in to the unions.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

it had nothing to do with public sector unions. half of the population moved from the city to the burbs, leaving mostly low income residents, and then the auto industry left. the city was left with little tax revenue and has been struggling ever since.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> it had nothing to do with public sector unions. half of the population moved from the city to the burbs, leaving mostly low income residents, and then the auto industry left. the city was left with little tax revenue and has been struggling ever since.


That trend is unfortunate, but hasn't flattened other cities or forced them into bankruptcy. More than $14 billion of the $18 billion owed is related to paying off legacy union employee costs. 

Is the Problem In Detroit Really A Lack Of Revenue? [Michigan Capitol Confidential]



> But a report released this month by the Citizens Research Council of Michigan suggests that Detroit gets more than its fair share of state money when measured per capita and compared to what other cities are receiving. And the city's revenue per person has changed little over the past decade.
> 
> "They get a lot of money on a per capita basis. *They just can't control their spending*," Bettie Buss, the report's author, told Reuters.


Michigan public service employees receive on average almost $12,000 more annually in retirement benefits than their private sector counterparts:

Helpful Facts About Michigan's Public Sector [Michigan Capitol Confidential]

If you take just that amount and multiply it by the 30,000 retired public service employees Detroit is bankrolling, the current account deficit of about $380 million is virtually eliminated. Subtract an additional fatty $7,000 per employee in extra insurance benefits vs. the private sector and the city is solvent. 

Likewise, while private sector layoffs have accelerated, public sector workers have retained their jobs.

So, while Detroit's falling population has impacted its revenue, it could have balanced its books long ago by paying public sector workers wages and benefits that lined up with the private sector--and by keeping public service employee numbers in line with the number of people paying their salaries through taxes.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

There was a time ... before Reagan ... when a city would find itself in trouble and the country would rally to help. NYC springs to mind (Gerry Ford nonwithstanding). Its awfully disheartening to see America turn its back on Detroit just because its "only" black people there. Nawlins all over again.

Once again, I'm glad I moved to Canada. We joke about cities/regions/provinces we don't need, but when people really need help, the country responds.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> it had nothing to do with public sector unions. half of the population moved from the city to the burbs, leaving mostly low income residents, and then the auto industry left. the city was left with little tax revenue and has been struggling ever since.


OMG it was the union that took out an entire US city! Detroit! WHo's next?

The communists I mean unionists are gonna bankrupt another city if we don't start paying minimum wages and yanking their benefits. They're coming for you!

Has anyone here been to detroit? I don't mean across the border go tot eh casino and high-tail it go to detroit. If you haven't, I suggest a good road trip sometime, it's a real eye opener trust me. And go stay downtown. Really explore downtown, talk to the locals for a while.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

groovetube said:


> OMG it was the union that took out an entire US city! Detroit! WHo's next?
> 
> The communists I mean unionists are gonna bankrupt another city if we don't start paying minimum wages and yanking their benefits. They're coming for you!
> 
> Has anyone here been to detroit? I don't mean across the border go tot eh casino and high-tail it go to detroit. If you haven't, I suggest a good road trip sometime, it's a real eye opener trust me. And go stay downtown. Really explore downtown, talk to the locals for a while.


aside from your sarcasm, Yes I have been to Detroit about 7 years ago.. nasty place, minus the GM buildings that stand in Ah, as the emperors palace.. 

I also know a few that live in Detroit, It is amazing the major difference between Detroit and one of its burbs like Troy.. There is a lovely Mall called Somerset Collection like its out of vegas..

I have also driven through Gary Indiana, which I was told 8 times not to proceed by the pay toll agents.. :yikes:

Even when you cross the Peace Bridge to enter Buffalo - it is a pure waste land.

I will never understand how Americans let situations get to that point..
The worst we have is Regent Park, Parkdale and Jane / Finch also the dundas street exit of Eaton's Centre.. still no where to compare.. You really appreciate what we have including our low impact criminals..


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes it is a nasty place. I've played detroit countless times. And I know Gary Indiana very well, and I also know other places in the US that would make Gary look posh.

Over the peace bridge, I don't recall it being 'wasteland', certainly not in the class that downtown detroit or gary would be.

Putting blame on the unions in that place once you get to know is is about as ludicrous as it gets. Amazing that this thread focuses mostly on unions.

Not much on the other, main causes. Typical.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> There was a time ... before Reagan ... when a city would find itself in trouble and the country would rally to help. NYC springs to mind (Gerry Ford nonwithstanding).


That's a bit of hilarious revisionism. Most of the country was disdainful of New York's self-engineered crisis in 1975. It was the city *unions* who bankrolled the NYC bail out from their deep pockets. Some of the companies of NYC's financial district refinanced loans at lower rates--where is Detroit's powerful financial sector? Oh yeah, they don't have one.

Finally, the US federal government handed out loan *guarantees*, fearing that the bankruptcy of America's largest city might lead to a widening financial crisis. Which loans will the federal government guarantee now?



chas_m said:


> Its awfully disheartening to see America turn its back on Detroit just because its "only" black people there. Nawlins all over again.


It's awfully disheartening to see this crisis reduced to race-baiting. Was it the black populations of San Bernardino, CA, Stockton, CA and Central Falls, RI that saw them file for bankruptcy without the country "rally(ing) to help"? If the U.S. cities who have filed for bankruptcy have anything in common, it would be a long history of local rule by Democrats.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> I will never understand how Americans let situations get to that point.


While a failing industrial base is the key consideration, these cities continued to spend like they were still in business. No amount of union concessions could bring about a return to the golden era. However, bringing public sector salary and benefit packages in line with the private sector would at least allow these cities to remain solvent.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

groovetube said:


> yes it is a nasty place. I've played detroit countless times. And I know Gary Indiana very well, and I also know other places in the US that would make Gary look posh.
> 
> Over the peace bridge, I don't recall it being 'wasteland', certainly not in the class that downtown detroit or gary would be.
> 
> ...


okay I concur that over the peace bridge is no where to compare but it is mini waste land, posers you can call them compared to gary and detorit .

The reason it is focused on unions, the city has / our should I say at this point other than the mayor had over 10 000 civil employees [ which are covered and backed by the unions ] so they take the biggest cause and effect for the issue.. They were offered a % on the amount owed / benefits etc.. but refused in whole.. so if you call that negotiations I am blown away by those skills.. seems that unions are always all or nothing.. 

so that is your answer.. I am still waiting for it to happen in Toronto, as the $100K + club is now a common issue at city of Toronto as well.. soon we will be studied in the economic history books too [ but at least we have many 300 sq ft condos to cover our base for now. ]


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> That trend is unfortunate, but hasn't flattened other cities or forced them into bankruptcy. More than $14 billion of the $18 billion owed is related to paying off legacy union employee costs.
> 
> Is the Problem In Detroit Really A Lack Of Revenue? [Michigan Capitol Confidential]
> 
> ...


the link you posted was from a anti-union website, so it's no surprise on how they spun the data. if you actually look at the report it focuses on the lost tax revenue of the city. it does not pile blame on unions. yes those legacy costs are a burden, but only because the city has been gutted and can no longer support them.

city services are already woefully inadequate, the idea that you could cut them further is ludicrous. the city is large, it requires a certain level of service. you're confusing a symptom of the problem (not enough revenue to support legacy costs) with the root of the problem (no revenue). if Detroit wins the eventual lawsuit with the unions it still will not fix it's problem. it has to attract more residents and industry to the city or it will become a ghost town.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

macintosh doctor said:


> okay I concur that over the peace bridge is no where to compare but it is mini waste land, posers you can call them compared to gary and detorit .
> 
> The reason it is focused on unions, the city has / our should I say at this point other than the mayor had over 10 000 civil employees [ which are covered and backed by the unions ] so they take the biggest cause and effect for the issue.. They were offered a % on the amount owed / benefits etc.. but refused in whole.. so if you call that negotiations I am blown away by those skills.. seems that unions are always all or nothing..
> 
> so that is your answer.. I am still waiting for it to happen in Toronto, as the $100K + club is now a common issue at city of Toronto as well.. soon we will be studied in the economic history books too [ but at least we have many 300 sq ft condos to cover our base for now. ]


perhaps you've missed the part about city 'services' having been scaled back in a serious way.

Perhaps it'd make the excited anti-union people happier if it were cut in half so even more of the city can fall into a near Orwellian state of decay.

Thinking this is a simple case of overpaid union workers is beyond simplistic if not ludicrous.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> the link you posted was from a anti-union website, so it's no surprise on how they spun the data. if you actually look at the report it focuses on the lost tax revenue of the city. it does not pile blame on unions. yes those legacy costs are a burden, but only because the city has been gutted and can no longer support them.
> 
> city services are already woefully inadequate, the idea that you could cut them further is ludicrous. the city is large, it requires a certain level of service. you're confusing a symptom of the problem (not enough revenue to support legacy costs) with the root of the problem (no revenue). if Detroit wins the eventual lawsuit with the unions it still will not fix it's problem. it has to attract more residents and industry to the city or it will become a ghost town.


+1

What is it with hard right people who think the solution is to pay city workers less or cut them entirely affecting city services immensely?

Incredibly short sighted and completely misses the boat.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> the link you posted was from a anti-union website, so it's no surprise on how they spun the data. if you actually look at the report it focuses on the lost tax revenue of the city. it does not pile blame on unions. yes those legacy costs are a burden, but only because the city has been gutted and can no longer support them.
> 
> city services are already woefully inadequate, the idea that you could cut them further is ludicrous. the city is large, it requires a certain level of service. you're confusing a symptom of the problem (not enough revenue to support legacy costs) with the root of the problem (no revenue). if Detroit wins the eventual lawsuit with the unions it still will not fix it's problem. it has to attract more residents and industry to the city or it will become a ghost town.


Again, I'm not blaming the unions. I said that the gold plated union compensation packages alone represent the difference between Detroit having a current account deficit and not having one.

Although it has less revenue, Detroit does have revenue, and enough to cover its current needs. 

It does not have the revenue to cover the gold-plated retirement benefits packages. This was not a surprise. Economists were warning such cities years ago that they would reach this point sooner rather than later if they continued to award such generous compensation to their workers.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Most of the problem is the cost of union benefits. This is only the first of many US cities that will go this route to avoid the legacy of excess they negotiated with unions.


Much of the problem relates to an overextended infra structure for the cities current size. This city was dependent on the auto industry. A lot fewer jobs means a much smaller tax base as the people get out of Dodge.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Much of the problem relates to an overextended infra structure for the cities current size. This city was dependent on the auto industry. A lot fewer jobs means a much smaller tax base as the people get out of Dodge.


Yes, but the current account shortfall is only $360 million, including the cost of servicing the debt. If legacy retirement benefits were brought into line with the private sector, the shortfall would be eliminated.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And what group do you suppose was the prime factor in the depletion of the auto industry in Detroit? 

Yep, that's right.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> And what group do you suppose was the prime factor in the depletion of the auto industry in Detroit?
> 
> Yep, that's right.


Shhh, SINC--that's a secret!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> While a failing industrial base is the key consideration, these cities continued to spend like they were still in business. No amount of union concessions could bring about a return to the golden era. However, bringing public sector salary and benefit packages in line with the private sector would at least allow these cities to remain solvent.


I agree completely with this. And it's worth emphasizing that, while the demands of the unions and public employees may have dealt the killing blow to the city's economy, it's not like they could've saved the city by making concessions. The city was clearly doomed, so the unions did what they could to get the most for their membership, just like a corporation like Apple will squeeze whatever profit it can from a dying market like the iPod. You can't blame them for looking out for their interests.

You also can't expect the unions to be promoting new alternatives to drive the economy (although it certainly would be nice if they did). What Detroit needed (and now needs even more desperately) are innovators; the auto industry is gone... Detroit needs 21st century industries - Biotech, Green energy, IT, recycling, etc. - to replace the 19th century industry it's been relying on. Unfortunately, due to the cuts in education and healthcare, they now lack the bright, innovative population of citizens needed to found these sorts of things, so I'm afraid they're screwed, at least in the short term. They might make an attractive investment for long-term real estate speculators.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> And what group do you suppose was the prime factor in the depletion of the auto industry in Detroit?


Making huge, gas guzzling, crappy cars. The Japanese ate their lunch not by paying their workers less, but by doing much better engineering.

Oh yeah, and also by paying their C-suite executives massive salaries for failing.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Most of the problem is the cost of union benefits. This is only the first of many US cities that will go this route to avoid the legacy of excess they negotiated with unions.


Yeah right! See this is the stupidity that hides all of management's blunders. Management tells the public a bunch of myths and the public eats it up. I think Detroit's problems have been shown to be the mis-management of the Automotive Industry. Heck, those companies were living off of loan after loan. All the management team makes millions. 

But no, blame the worker who's making 30 or 40 dollars an hour. Not the management team who makes hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour.

Same thing happened to NorTel, management drove it into the ground, except that no-one stepped in. Who came out of it with money, management.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> And what group do you suppose was the prime factor in the depletion of the auto industry in Detroit?
> 
> Yep, that's right.


After having spent the night in a hotel at GM Renaissance Center and have seen the sheer opulence of spending I have no doubt how those companies got into trouble.

Blaming it on the unions is once again, ludicrous, and course, nothing to back it up except a bunch of useless forum posts.

The number of pandering corporate shilling posts going on here blaming it on the workers and their unions is enough to make anyone sick.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> And what group do you suppose was the prime factor in the depletion of the auto industry in Detroit?


*EXECUTIVE OFFICERS of AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES!*



> Yep, that's right.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> *EXECUTIVE OFFICERS of AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES!*


That's something that could never dawn on corporate shills dl.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Making huge, gas guzzling, crappy cars. The Japanese ate their lunch not by paying their workers less, but by doing much better engineering.
> 
> Oh yeah, and also by paying their C-suite executives massive salaries for failing.


Let's be fair to NA Auto Companies. They chose to compete against Japan's offerings and cheaped out on minor parts to produce abominations like the Vega (the first disposable car used 1 owner throw away) or the Pinto (where in the hell of a fiery rear end collision)

No production Union members (the ones being blamed here) were in charge of design, parts acquisition, scheduling, marketing or recalls, now were they?

As far as Detroit the Public Sector Unions didn't authorize the size or kind infrastructure, they didn't escort citizens out of town nor did they authorize the shut down of industries.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> That's something that could never dawn on corporate shills dl.


*No Union, No Problem: Tennessee Auto Industry Thrives*

Right-To-Work Tennessee's Auto Industry Growing Rapidly With U.S., Foreign Companies gm - Investors.com


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Let's be fair to NA Auto Companies. They chose to compete against Japan's offerings and cheaped out on minor parts to produce abominations like the Vega (the first disposable car used 1 owner throw away) or the Pinto (where in the hell of a fiery rear end collision)
> 
> No production Union members (the ones being blamed here) were in charge of design, parts acquisition, scheduling, marketing or recalls, now were they?
> 
> As far as Detroit the Public Sector Unions didn't authorize the size or kind infrastructure, they didn't escort citizens out of town nor did they authorize the shut down of industries.


*"GM is in deep trouble mostly because the United Auto Workers have festooned the company with rigid work rules and extravagant costs."*

Auto union drove GM to trouble | Marketplace.org


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Let's be fair to NA Auto Companies. They chose to compete against Japan's offerings and cheaped out on minor parts to produce abominations like the Vega (the first disposable car used 1 owner throw away) or the Pinto (where in the hell of a fiery rear end collision)
> 
> No production Union members (the ones being blamed here) were in charge of design, parts acquisition, scheduling, marketing or recalls, now were they?
> 
> As far as Detroit the Public Sector Unions didn't authorize the size or kind infrastructure, they didn't escort citizens out of town nor did they authorize the shut down of industries.


exactly. No mention of this from the corp shills. None whatsoever.

But I guess since Michigan has become a 'right to work' state as well recently, we'll see how well it works out for them.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> *"GM is in deep trouble mostly because the United Auto Workers have festooned the company with rigid work rules and extravagant costs."*
> 
> Auto union drove GM to trouble | Marketplace.org


Nonsense. GM drove itself into the ground with crappy products and overspending of it's own.

Investors however will tell you a different story. :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Unions destroyed U.S. Auto Industry*



> One major hurdle facing the Big 3 is the simple fact that they pay nearly 3 times as much in wages to their employees than the foreign automakers. Because all Big 3 autoworkers are members of the union rackets, the Big 3 had no choice but to continue paying off the collectors from the unions “for protection” from strikes and shutdowns.


Unions destroyed U.S. Auto Industry - Grand Rapids Conservative | Examiner.com


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*Detroit Gave Unions Keys To The City, And Now Nothing Is Left*



> Union bosses insisted the DWSD (average compensation: $86,000) needs more, not fewer, such unionized employees, a view associated with a broad spectrum of thinkers from Jimmy Hoffa to the Keynesians running the United States.


Detroit Gave Unions Keys To The City, And Now Nothing Is Left - Forbes


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh said:


> Yeah right! See this is the stupidity that hides all of management's blunders. Management tells the public a bunch of myths and the public eats it up. I think Detroit's problems have been shown to be the mis-management of the Automotive Industry. Heck, those companies were living off of loan after loan. All the management team makes millions.
> 
> But no, blame the worker who's making 30 or 40 dollars an hour. Not the management team who makes hundreds or thousands of dollars an hour.
> 
> Same thing happened to NorTel, management drove it into the ground, except that no-one stepped in. Who came out of it with money, management.


Sure, and that mis-management included acceding to union demands. I have never seen it as appropriate for a government to loan money to a private company, but there you have it--government made the problem worse.

But if you want focus on management salaries, just imagine you took it all back and kept it in the company instead. Would the city of Detroit or the automotive industry be in any measurably better shape today?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

*The Big Three's real union problem*



> As is now clear, when the UAW exposed the Big Three to insurmountable competitive disadvantages, it cut its own throat.


The Big Three's real union problem - Los Angeles Times


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I agree completely with this. And it's worth emphasizing that, while the demands of the unions and public employees may have dealt the killing blow to the city's economy, it's not like they could've saved the city by making concessions.


Yes, all this would have done would be to postpone bankruptcy and ensure the city could meet its current obligations for the next few years--perhaps a decade. It still needs to develop a new revenue base.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

that's an awful lotta googled 'spin' articles.

It still doesn't change the fact that the auto makers were the ones who ran their own companies down. Of course, everyone needs a scapegoat, so this is all just pandering to it.

Still complete rubbish.

Still no mention of the inferior products to much of the foreign cars.

Unions aren't to blame for that. Not to mention the companies lavish spending without the union's help.

Oh but it's the union's fault :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Forbes and the LA Times hardly write 'rubbish', unlike some internet posters who spout it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Forbes and the LA Times hardly write 'rubbish', unlike some internet posters who spout it.


There's always cribbing notes from rabble.ca, SINC. Don't tell me that isn't quality material.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ooooh because Forbes says it's so, it's so! Do you believe everything you read? It appears so! Well I guess if it fits what you want to hear!

Let's see, if everybody begins googling for items that say what their position is, and then post it, maybe that'll make it so!!!!

Yeah the US automakers making crappy products and spending themselves like crazy, yeah that wouldn't have anything to do with it naaaaaawwww... :lmao::lmao:


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Forbes and the LA Times hardly write 'rubbish', unlike some internet posters who spout it.


:lmao::lmao: That statement right there, *is too funny* for words. :lmao::lmao:

Remember when you point your finger, three more fingers are pointing right back at you.:clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The most emoticons wins. Oh wait... no it doesn't.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> :lmao::lmao: That statement right there, *is too funny* for words. :lmao::lmao:
> 
> Remember when you point your finger, three more fingers are pointing right back at you.:clap:


googling for headlines hardly makes for any kind of factual debate.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> Forbes and the LA Times hardly write 'rubbish', unlike some internet posters who spout it.


SINC did I ever tell you I tootled a saxophone in Detroit and that I spoke to some "good people" there? This is why my argument is superior.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Funny, since Forbes is one the few 'acceptable' googled destinations, I found this.

General Motors Is Headed For Bankruptcy -- Again - Forbes

The entire article talking about GM's inferior products to the foreign companies superior better selling vehicles.

Only one side mention of the UAW at the very end of 4 pages. If anyone actually -reads them beyond the headlines and a cherry picked line that is...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> SINC did I ever tell you I tootled a saxophone in Detroit and that I spoke to some "good people" there? This is why my argument is superior.


I suspect that might just be the case.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you know you've won when someone can't win or get any attention and just gets personal. It's really all a troll has left I guess.

Pathetic.

Same as it ever was! No wonder most of us have 'it' on ignore now.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

SINC said:


> *Detroit Gave Unions Keys To The City, And Now Nothing Is Left*
> 
> 
> 
> Detroit Gave Unions Keys To The City, And Now Nothing Is Left - Forbes


And just what is stopping the city from laying off employees??? Management can lay off people any time with proper notification (usually 2 weeks). I'd say this is management sleeping on the job.

I got a kick out of the mention of the horseshoer. I wonder what the real story is there. Too bad journalists don't dig enough. One article mentions that the horseshoer actually does other tasks like weld, and fix metal parts. I'm wondering if it's just a case that the job name hasn't changed with the job, or he's actually changed jobs, but not officially. Another management problem - hire the guy under the wrong job. Then again, if they moved him to the proper job, they'd probably have to pay him more, so this way management can under-pay him. I've seen that way too often.

_edit: Another thing that the plumbing incident this article brings up is the rules that management sets. Management always sets up all these stupid rules that add red tape to workers getting work done, then they complain about them. Well, hypocrites, you set the rules, we're just following them. Reminds me of the last few months around work. Management sets up a bunch of higher level approvals during our busiest time of the year and then complains when they get a bunch of emails for approvals, and things being approved late. Well, you asked for these approvals, what did you think was going to happen. And they're approved late because you weren't around to approve them._


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> you know you've won when someone can't win or get any attention and just gets personal. It's really all a troll has left I guess.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> Same as it ever was! No wonder most of us have 'it' on ignore now.


It descended into trolling quite a while back. They of course see it as debate, well until they go on vacation and then whine and wail about injustice.

But you are right, it has now become personal.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> It descended into trolling quite a while back. They of course see it as debate, well until they go on vacation and then whine and wail about injustice.
> 
> But you are right, it has now become personal.


Well 'it's' on ignore except for the odd one that gets through on quotes, I know he is on ignore for most here. I guess there isn't enough attention so it got personal. Just isn't worth the time of day really.

Yeah all I see are googled headlines. No analysis, no real comments or balance. 

It's a dead horse a wile back. What have we learned? Someone hates unions. Quite the revelation eh?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

SINC said:


> *The Big Three's real union problem*
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Three's real union problem - Los Angeles Times


 
One guy's opinion. Of course he forgets that Ford didn't receive any bailout money. They were involved in the bailout talks, but never received money. They also didn't get any compromises from the union. Ford had to pay more for their union employees. And surprising, Ford made it through the Financial Crisis, because they were better managed. So how can you blame the union. Ford, who actually had to pay their union members more, survived and actually came out of the financial crisis better.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh said:


> And just what is stopping the city from laying off employees???


The city has been run by Democrats since the early 1960s. While this doesn't stop them from laying off workers, it's usually considered a move that undermines the voter base.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh said:


> One guy's opinion. Of course he forgets that Ford didn't receive any bailout money.


No. It borrowed $5,9 billion from the government just before GM went bankrupt. That's why it could afford to take the high ground in refusing government aid a few weeks later.

Automakers' Report Card: Who Still Owes Taxpayers Money? The Answer Might Surprise You - Forbes


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Yeah all I see are googled headlines. No analysis, no real comments or balance.
> 
> It's a dead horse a wile back. What have we learned? Someone hates unions. Quite the revelation eh?


Hmmm, one person makes unsubstantiated comments that they believe, not based on any evidence, that it is the company's fault, not the union that the auto industry failed. That theory based on once visiting Detroit from what I could tell.

I counter with proof from well established media complete with links to those stories that unions are indeed to blame.

And I am a troll?

Better look that one up. I used fact to back my position, not a past visit to Detroit.

So, back to you unsubstantiated position.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

apparently you missed -my- Forbes link... or even bothered to read it.

Much less respond to Kosh's reasonable posts.

My comments regarding being to detroit clearly, had nothing to do with the debate on the auto unions in detroit and more to do with the conversation on the incredibly decrepit state of the city. If you read the posts that is.

So, obviously you're not interested in discussion, just belly aching about unions it seems. Waste of time.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Kosh said:


> One guy's opinion. Of course he forgets that Ford didn't receive any bailout money. They were involved in the bailout talks, but never received money. They also didn't get any compromises from the union. Ford had to pay more for their union employees. And surprising, Ford made it through the Financial Crisis, because they were better managed. So how can you blame the union. Ford, who actually had to pay their union members more, survived and actually came out of the financial crisis better.


Let's not forget about Toyota.

At the time when GM and Chrysler were going into the ditch, Toyota wanted to replace GM, they did.

Toyota posted huge losses. Toyata had run away cars, fires and lawsuits just like mentor GM. Toyota couldn't blame North American workers and their Unions like GM and Chrysler did, the only difference.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

If there is a problem with unions it is the city promising pensions but failing to fund them. This is a problem with many municipal union agreements. We'll just shove that expense onto later generations. Of course if the local economy takes a nosedive those union members who are counting on the pensions negotiated in good faith are down the tubes as well.

With companies the tendency is to "invest" pension plans into the company. Again leaving retirees SOL should the company suffer a major reversal.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Let's not forget about Toyota.
> 
> At the time when GM and Chrysler were going into the ditch, Toyota wanted to replace GM, they did.
> 
> Toyota posted huge losses. Toyata had run away cars, fires and lawsuits just like mentor GM. Toyota couldn't blame North American workers and their Unions like GM and Chrysler did, the only difference.


Toyota? They're posting record earnings!

Toyota: Huge Profit And Impressive Earnings Forecast From Weak Yen - Forbes


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Let's not forget about Toyota.
> 
> At the time when GM and Chrysler were going into the ditch, Toyota wanted to replace GM, they did.
> 
> Toyota posted huge losses. Toyata had run away cars, fires and lawsuits just like mentor GM. Toyota couldn't blame North American workers and their Unions like GM and Chrysler did, the only difference.


Yes. Despite having posted huge losses a few years ago, they've made quite a comeback now!


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Yes. Despite having posted huge losses a few years ago, they've made quite a comeback now!


Yes they did and good for them. However when Toyota emulated GM's style and goals they ended up with GM's results. Sans Union.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

BigDL said:


> Yes they did and good for them. However when Toyota emulated GM's style and goals they ended up with GM's results. Sans Union.


funny that. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Yes they did and good for them. However when Toyota emulated GM's style and goals they ended up with GM's results. Sans Union.


There's no indication that they followed any particular plan to emulate GM. This is where the analogy breaks down--right at the beginning.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> If there is a problem with unions it is the city promising pensions but failing to fund them. This is a problem with many municipal union agreements.


It's not as if though these agreements were not entered into by parties who knew that the whole machine would fall apart eventually. They were just hoping they'd cross the finish line before the wheels fell off the cart.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> It's not as if though these agreements were not entered into by parties who knew that the whole machine would fall apart eventually. They were just hoping they'd cross the finish line before the wheels fell off the cart.


Typical union tactic. Negotiate salaries far above market value for unskilled labour, get gold plated benefits, raise dues for their efforts and watch as members in their retirement years suffer. Then do it over again with the next generation of members. Nice.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It's not as if though these agreements were not entered into by parties who knew that the whole machine would fall apart eventually. They were just hoping they'd cross the finish line before the wheels fell off the cart.


are you referring to pensions or the economy, because that pretty much applies to both...



SINC said:


> Typical union tactic. Negotiate salaries far above market value for unskilled labour, get gold plated benefits, raise dues for their efforts and watch as members in their retirement years suffer. Then do it over again with the next generation of members. Nice.


wait... so the unions negotiated salaries far above the market value for their members, and got them gold plated pensions, and then are watching as their members "suffer" in their retirement? imagine how much more they'd be suffering if they weren't able to accumulate whatever wealth they have from their "above market value" salaries and "gold plated" benefits??.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

i-rui said:


> are you referring to pensions or the economy, because that pretty much applies to both...
> 
> 
> 
> wait... so the unions negotiated salaries far above the market value for their members, and got them gold plated pensions, and then are watching as their members "suffer" in their retirement? imagine how much more they'd be suffering if they weren't able to accumulate whatever wealth they have from their "above market value" salaries and "gold plated" benefits??.


are they really still belly aching about unions with all this unsubstantiated crap? Really?

Gawd the farting just won't stop will it!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> wait... so the unions negotiated salaries far above the market value for their members, and got them gold plated pensions, and then are watching as their members "suffer" in their retirement? imagine how much more they'd be suffering if they weren't able to accumulate whatever wealth they have from their "above market value" salaries and "gold plated" benefits??.


According to the story, way back then, the guy pounding two hub caps on the left side of a vehicle every day as it went by on the line (or whatever he did) got an average salary of $86,000 plus benefits per year, plus a pension. That certainly seems like good value for skilled labour. I bet not many union members make that kind of scratch today.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

i'm not sure which story you're referring to. If you're suggesting union members of the past were better served then i would agree with you. But any decline in workers wages are not the fault of unions, but of corporations who are only interested in profit.

I though this was a smart piece on the larger issue of where capitalism is taking us :

How Capitalism's Great Relocation Pauperized America's 'Middle Class' | Professor Richard D. Wolff


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

i-rui said:


> i'm not sure which story you're referring to. If you're suggesting union members of the past were better served then i would agree with you. But any decline in workers wages are not the fault of unions, but of corporations who are only interested in profit.
> 
> I though this was a smart piece on the larger issue of where capitalism is taking us :
> 
> How Capitalism's Great Relocation Pauperized America's 'Middle Class' | Professor Richard D. Wolff


I was referring to this story:



SINC said:


> *Detroit Gave Unions Keys To The City, And Now Nothing Is Left*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

ok, i think there's some confusion. i thought you were referring to an autoworker making $86,000 years ago , the article you posted refers to a city worker making that amount last year.

i wouldn't consider that article very objective, especially since it sites an anti-union website. there are always going to be easy targets, and i would agree that given Detroit's current state those workers are overpaid, but it's really just a distraction to the root problem. there simply isn't enough revenue to collect from the residents and business left in the city. trimming the payroll on city plumbers won't change that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> are you referring to pensions or the economy, because that pretty much applies to both...


They knew they couldn't pay the pensions, even in a steady economy.



i-rui said:


> wait... so the unions negotiated salaries far above the market value for their members,and got them gold plated pensions, and then are watching as their members "suffer" in their retirement? imagine how much more they'd be suffering if they weren't able to accumulate whatever wealth they have from their "above market value" salaries and "gold plated" benefits??.


Did I accuse anyone of letting pensioners suffer? I'm concerned about the people of Detroit, not the city workers who sunk them.



i-rui said:


> ...there simply isn't enough revenue to collect from the residents and business left in the city. trimming the payroll on city plumbers won't change that.


Actually, there* is *enough revenue left to run the city, provided the necessary cuts are made to bring benefits in line with the private sector. The shortfall is only $360 million and that can be achieved entirely by this method.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> i'm not sure which story you're referring to. If you're suggesting union members of the past were better served then i would agree with you. But any decline in workers wages are not the fault of unions, but of corporations who are only interested in profit.
> 
> I though this was a smart piece on the larger issue of where capitalism is taking us :
> 
> How Capitalism's Great Relocation Pauperized America's 'Middle Class' | Professor Richard D. Wolff


This isn't simply "capitalism." Post WWII, North America had pretty much the only intact infrastructure left in the entire world. Most countries had no shipping ports, reliable power or communications systems. Guess what? They do now and they are trouncing us. The left grows misty-eyed over that period where North American goods were the only game in town and wages were high, simply because the workers were living where the automakers' machines were located. We're never going back to that magic time.

Do you want to force manufacturers to make alkaline batteries in Cleveland and sell them at twice their market value? What would be next? Forcing consumers to buy them?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

From this morning's Globe:

Detroit: A lose-lose situation for all involved - The Globe and Mail



> What are the most important factors that contributed to Detroit’s current mess?
> 
> The first is long-term disinvestment from the city, meaning the flight of capital and jobs from Detroit beginning in the 1950s. It is employers and employees that provide the bulk of the funds for a city’s tax base. Secondly, intense hostility between the city and the rest of the state, which has a very strong racial dimension. Detroit has a long and painful history of racial conflict in local and state politics. That has contributed to the third major factor: the collapse of state and federal support for the city, which was crucial to its survival – and indeed to other cities’ survival – for a lot of the difficult times from the 1950s on forward. As a quick aside, when New York went through its fiscal crisis in the 1970s, it was bailed out by the federal government. There’s no bailout in place for Detroit today.
> 
> ...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> From this morning's Globe:
> 
> Detroit: A lose-lose situation for all involved - The Globe and Mail


Waaaaahhh! The state and federal government needed to prop this city up for the past 60 years!!!


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

SINC said:


> Typical union tactic. Negotiate salaries far above market value for unskilled labour, get gold plated benefits, raise dues for their efforts and watch as members in their retirement years suffer. Then do it over again with the next generation of members. Nice.


Just read a Toronto Star article, which said "...The unions did manage to get a restraining order from the judge to stop further actions to cut pension benefits, the Detroit Free Press reports..."

Where do these greedy unions think the city will get any more money?
The judge who ruled in favor of the unions is an embarrassment.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I believe this is only the first of many municipalities who would rather take the cowardly way out rather than pay what they owe. It's the part of the American Dream where you finally wake up.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

macintosh doctor said:


> Just read a Toronto Star article, which said "...The unions did manage to get a restraining order from the judge to stop further actions to cut pension benefits, the Detroit Free Press reports..."
> 
> Where do these greedy unions think the city will get any more money?
> The judge who ruled in favor of the unions is an embarrassment.


An embarrassment to whom, those who believe in the sanctity of a contract? Those who spent their working years believing they had some level of financial security in retirement? Those who likely may not have an alternative plan once their benefits have been stripped away?

You may not like unions, but put yourself in these worker's shoes. Imagine having the rug pulled out from under you in retirement. If you want to dismantle pension plans, do so with new hires, not with those who have a contract and expectations and likely now no means of getting back on their feet.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> I believe this is only the first of many municipalities who would rather take the cowardly way out rather than pay what they owe.


Where are they going to get the money, fjn? Sell the place and make a final pay-out?

And no, they're the eight city to file.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> Where do these greedy unions think the city will get any more money?


I expect that Detroit's destitute are expected to step up to the plate. Or as the _Globe and Mail_ article suggested, they could get it it from the county, who could get it from the state, who can get it from the feds, who can print the money.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Where are they going to get the money, fjn? Sell the place and make a final pay-out?
> 
> And no, they're the eight city to file.


Well, there's not much they can do NOW. The point is that there were likely hundreds of warning signs that led to this moment, just like there were hundreds of warning signs that led to the big dot com bubble or the recession of 2008. But people and governments don't like to face reality.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Well, there's not much they can do NOW. The point is that there were likely hundreds of warning signs that led to this moment..


People pointed this out _as the union contracts were being signed_, noting that the accumulated liability would cripple future municipal governments.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Macfury said:


> I expect that Detroit's destitute are expected to step up to the plate. Or as the _Globe and Mail_ article suggested, they could get it it from the county, who could get it from the state, who can get it from the feds, who can print the money.


as I mentioned way earlier on.. tax the criminals because that is who is left and street walkers..


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Detroit bankruptcy filing unconstitutional, judge rules | Toronto Star


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

macintosh doctor said:


> Just read a Toronto Star article, which said "...The unions did manage to get a restraining order from the judge to stop further actions to cut pension benefits, the Detroit Free Press reports..."
> 
> Where do these greedy unions think the city will get any more money?
> The judge who ruled in favor of the unions is an embarrassment.


A restraining order is not a final disposition. A restraining order is a way to restrain, slow down or to delay, if you will, the final disposition of assets.

Unions acting in a manner to assist its members with the best possible outcome in any situation, is a duty to represent for the Union. 

Unions receive dues from all members in the bargaining unit for bargaining wages and benefits and for protecting these provisions over time. This an instance of that duty to represent.

If you are not satisfied because you would have to look after yourself, well there is always insurance, but I think any insurance purchased would be cost prohibitive, unlike Union dues.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> They knew they couldn't pay the pensions, even in a steady economy.


if they still had the same tax base from the 50's then they could. but my point was more to the larger issue of the economic reality that our current economic system of boom & bust will eventually fall apart (again) because it's based on debt, where only those who have enough capital to buy discounted assets after the bust make out like bandits.



Macfury said:


> Did I accuse anyone of letting pensioners suffer? I'm concerned about the people of Detroit, not the city workers who sunk them.


you didn't, but SINC seemed to suggest that the unions were happy to see their members "suffer" in retirement after they had negotiated there contracts. This clearly isn't the case as the unions are fighting the bankruptcy and are doing the best to look after their interests.



Macfury said:


> Actually, there* is *enough revenue left to run the city, provided the necessary cuts are made to bring benefits in line with the private sector. The shortfall is only $360 million and that can be achieved entirely by this method.


this is fantasy land stuff. Detroit was not a properly functioning city even with their current staff & situation (which some called bloated). less than half the population is spread across the same area of the city at it's peak. it was simply an unsustainable situation. at best renegotiating would simply buy a few years. in fact i think someone said as much earlier in the thread :



Macfury said:


> Yes, all this would have done would be to postpone bankruptcy and ensure the city could meet its current obligations for the next few years--perhaps a decade. It still needs to develop a new revenue base.


..oh yea....it was you.



Macfury said:


> This isn't simply "capitalism." Post WWII, North America had pretty much the only intact infrastructure left in the entire world. Most countries had no shipping ports, reliable power or communications systems. Guess what? They do now and they are trouncing us. The left grows misty-eyed over that period where North American goods were the only game in town and wages were high, simply because the workers were living where the automakers' machines were located. We're never going back to that magic time.
> 
> Do you want to force manufacturers to make alkaline batteries in Cleveland and sell them at twice their market value? What would be next? Forcing consumers to buy them?


the article i posted wasn't just limited to north america. the point is the nature of unfettered capitalism is to seek the cheapest labour. this is a fact. so most people have to rethink their love for unfettered capitalism and realize that unless we redefine how it works then it no longer serves the middle class.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

BigDL said:


> If you are not satisfied because you would have to look after yourself, well there is always insurance, but I think any insurance purchased would be cost prohibitive, unlike Union dues.


I pay about $140/month for 'aflak' type insurance.. which covers 50% of income and rehab etc, so about the same as union dues if not cheaper.. and every 7 years I get $7500 payment back for not using it.

proud to say union free since '91


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Incomplete post some strange server error ???? See next.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

macintosh doctor said:


> I pay about $140/month for 'aflak' type insurance.. which covers 50% of income and rehab etc, so about the same as union dues if not cheaper.. and every 7 years I get $7500 payment back for not using it.
> 
> proud to say union free since '91


I was speaking of an Insurance program that would pay for litigation and solicitor services to cover the costs of taking to task a financial services company or "Aflack" (in your case) Health and Medical Service provider that fails to live up to the provisions of your contract.

I understand your confusion, as I was being rhetorical, as I doubt any such litigation insurance exists. 

The point I was making that Unions not only negotiate group plans for benefits and pensions (which many here believe provide, excellent value for its members,) but also provide litigation services to protect its member's interests when required. 

That is the value and cost benefit ratio of Union dues for working people.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> i...the point is the nature of unfettered capitalism is to seek the cheapest labour. this is a fact. so most people have to rethink their love for unfettered capitalism and realize that unless we redefine how it works then it no longer serves the middle class.


It's human nature to look for the best price for the job. It's no surprise that companies do the same. Eventually, there will be no cheaper labour to find and that phase of the world economy will have ended. After extensive international development, the price of labour will be similar all over the world.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Eventually, there will be no cheaper labour to find and that phase of the world economy will have ended. After extensive international development, the price of labour will be similar all over the world.


If we consider the analogy of water flowing downhill, and the fact that free trade has removed barriers to the flow of capital, so it is now flowing offshore to find cheaper labour (and less environmental/labour regulation, etc.), then your argument is that we should not use dams, levies, etc, to protect low-lying areas or prevent erosion; we should just let the market take its course and to hell with the consequences.

In principle, I agree that ultimately we will have to work towards a global economy, in which many types of labour have essentially the same value everywhere (obviously certain types of labour will be more valuable in certain places; miners will be more valuable where the mineral deposits are found, and soldiers will be more valuable where armed conflict occurs). But I disagree that we should allow this to happen as rapidly as possible; planned, regulated and carefully monitored flow is highly preferable over flooding.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

BigDL said:


> I was speaking of an Insurance program that would pay for litigation and solicitor services to cover the costs of taking to task a financial services company or "Aflack" (in your case) Health and Medical Service provider that fails to live up to the provisions of your contract.
> 
> I understand your confusion, as I was being rhetorical, as I doubt any such litigation insurance exists.
> 
> ...


if that is the case i would hire a lawyer that only gets paid, if I get paid simple.. no need to pay monthly to an union who I may or may not get the same results..


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> If we consider the analogy of water flowing downhill, and the fact that free trade has removed barriers to the flow of capital, so it is now flowing offshore to find cheaper labour (and less environmental/labour regulation, etc.), then your argument is that we should not use dams, levies, etc, to protect low-lying areas or prevent erosion; we should just let the market take its course and to hell with the consequences.
> 
> In principle, I agree that ultimately we will have to work towards a global economy, in which many types of labour have essentially the same value everywhere (obviously certain types of labour will be more valuable in certain places; miners will be more valuable where the mineral deposits are found, and soldiers will be more valuable where armed conflict occurs). But I disagree that we should allow this to happen as rapidly as possible; planned, regulated and carefully monitored flow is highly preferable over flooding.


You can keep the rest of the world poor for a little longer that way, while ensuring that U.S. citizens pay higher prices for their goods, and ensuring fewer exports for high-priced American goods.

Perhaps you could completely shut down immigration and raise the price of labour in Canada. Anyone here like that idea?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

macintosh doctor said:


> if that is the case i would hire a lawyer that only gets paid, if I get paid simple.. no need to pay monthly to an union who I may or may not get the same results..


...assuming you could find a lawyer who would take on the case or you're cheated & SOL.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

To each their own I guess. If someone wants to go after a company with huge resources on their own dime with a lawyer, Godspeed!


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

BigDL said:


> ...assuming you could find a lawyer who would take on the case or you're cheated & SOL.


No different than an union. 
Every person I have known who was wronged had no issue finding a lawyer..


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

macintosh doctor said:


> No different than an union.
> Every person I have known who was wronged had no issue finding a lawyer..


...that is if the client is paying. 

On a conditional or contingency basis, the Lawyer decides if he/she will accept the case, pay the up front costs with no costs to you, if you are not successful.

A conditional or contingency fee basis was your premise of you not incurring cost. On that basis it is up to the lawyer not you. So if a lawyer doesn't see his end in the beginning they won't accept your case. 



Wikipedia said:


> Contingency fees do not guarantee civil justice or even access to the courts. Lawyers sometimes "cherry pick" only the strongest claims which are most likely to succeed. Not all cases are immediately transparent. Some require extensive investigation before the chances of success can be properly assessed. Such cases might be turned away because even the initial assessment of their strength is costly and risky.


Contingent fee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really I think you know all this and are just being a contrarian because of your anti-union animus. As this has little to do or nothing to do with the insolvency of Detroit, it is just union bashing on your part, from now on have fun with yourself.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

macintosh doctor said:


> No different than an union.
> Every person I have known who was wronged had no issue finding a lawyer..


sure. You can swing your arm and find a lawyer.

That part, is easy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> No different than an union.
> Every person I have known who was wronged had no issue finding a lawyer..


I think you've pretty much been told that only a fool goes through life without a union to hold his hand.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

I think he can determine on his own what he's been told.

No need for you to embellish words already typed, with your own interpretation.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

This photo-essay on Detroit gives a pretty compelling account of why it declared bankruptcy. Reminds me of the film 12 Monkeys.
http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.ca/2013/07/the-ruins-of-detroit.html?spref=fb&m=1


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMouse said:


> I think he can determine on his own what he's been told.
> 
> No need for you to embellish words already typed, with your own interpretation.


Yes, but I'm hoping he'll find my version somewhat amusing. Next?


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

I didn't get that at all, but I did pick-up some passive-aggressive.

Nice.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMouse said:


> I didn't get that at all, but I did pick-up some passive-aggressive.
> 
> Nice.


Slow day for you?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> This photo-essay on Detroit gives a pretty compelling account of why it declared bankruptcy. Reminds me of the film 12 Monkeys.
> Predictable History, Unpredictable Past: The Destruction of Detroit (Photo Essay)


I've seen this photo essay before. It makes me wish I could rescue at least one of the buildings. 

From the bottom of the page on the site:



> The one good thing that could come out of bankruptcy is if those public-sector pensions are cut and government workers forced to learn what happens when, as National Review’s Kevin Williamson puts it, a parasite outgrows its host. But, pending an appeal, that’s “unconstitutional,” no matter how dead the host is. Beyond that, Detroit needs urgently both to make it non-insane for talented people to live in the city, and to cease subjecting its present population to a public “education” system that’s little more than unionized child abuse. Otherwise, Windsor, Ontario, might as well annex it for a War of 1812 theme park — except if General Brock and the Royal Newfoundland Fencibles had done to Detroit what the Democratic party did they’d be on trial for war crimes at The Hague.
> 
> - Mark Steyn


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Slow day for you?


Me?? 

You shall henceforth be referred to by me as MacLastWord.

:lmao:


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

iMouse said:


> Me??
> 
> You shall henceforth be referred to by me as MacLastWord.
> 
> :lmao:


If only there was hope of a last word.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

macintosh doctor said:


> if that is the case i would hire a lawyer that only gets paid, if I get paid simple.. no need to pay monthly to an union who I may or may not get the same results..


Yes, because all lawyers are created equal and you are sure to find a really good one who works on a contingency basis.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Interesting that people tend to only view half of the equation.

Great we cheated all those awful union guys out of the pensions we promised. 

No one stops to think that with the local economy on the ropes, that many of the people remaining in Detroit are those union pensioners. Reduce their incomes to Social Security payments and I promise you they will not be making the frivolous purchases that help to strengthen a local economy. In particular they will not be buying any new cars.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

fjnmusic said:


> This photo-essay on Detroit gives a pretty compelling account of why it declared bankruptcy. Reminds me of the film 12 Monkeys.
> Predictable History, Unpredictable Past: The Destruction of Detroit (Photo Essay)


Maybe they can repurpose the city as a filming location. Distopian themes are big right now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Interesting that people tend to only view half of the equation.
> 
> Great we cheated all those awful union guys out of the pensions we promised.
> 
> No one stops to think that with the local economy on the ropes, that many of the people remaining in Detroit are those union pensioners. Reduce their incomes to Social Security payments and I promise you they will not be making the frivolous purchases that help to strengthen a local economy. In particular they will not be buying any new cars.


I think those pensioners have fled for the burbs a long time ago. Likewise, what good is it to simply hand out $25,000 to a pensioner, so that they can stimulate the economy? The $25,000 at this point is best spent preventing Detroit from burning down entirely or having its entire water supply filling basements of abandoned homes.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

What's really sad is that the workers usually lived for the day, when wages were quite high compared to other careers.

And of course the auto giants made is easy for them to give some of that money back every year for a new car.

I don't know where I am going with this, but I keep thinking something along the lines of eating their young.

Where they too naive as a group? Thoughts?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

iMouse said:


> Where they too naive as a group? Thoughts?


Couple of thoughts.

1) It's easy to see now, or at least over the last (say) 10 years or so that the auto industry is dying. But 20 years ago? 30? Many of those now-pensioned workers thought they were going in to a secure industry.

2) On that note of secure industry... It wasn't that long ago that people believed that you got a good, steady job once... and that was it. Even though that hasn't been true for some time, many people were/are still raised with that idea. We still ask children what they want to be when they grow up, as if this is a decision you make once.

So naive, perhaps, but not without reason.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMouse said:


> What's really sad is that the workers usually lived for the day, when wages were quite high compared to other careers.
> 
> And of course the auto giants made is easy for them to give some of that money back every year for a new car.
> 
> ...


But that's the autoworkers, not the Detroit municipal workers.

Sadly, I remember visiting my father's workplace at the GM diesel plant and the parking lot was filled with Fords, Toyotas, VWs and other competitor cars, even with extreme employee discounts--and this was when the domestic car industry was still relatively healthy. They couldn't even be bothered to buy the least objectionable vehicle made by their own company.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Point taken, but does that not also apply at arms-length, considering the Detroit is basically a one-industry city?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMouse said:


> Point taken, but does that not also apply at arms-length, considering the Detroit is basically a one-industry city?


It's a one-industry city verging on a no-industry city. Many of the retirees left the city long ago or never lived there to begin with. At this point, I don't think it matters much to the Detroit economy or any of the former Big Three whether local retirees buy their cars locally--if they buy domestic at all.

The city has to choose between paying retirees reduced rates, or letting the city cave in on itself. The city may be able to re-invent itself if smart people are willing to move back and take advantage of very cheap property prices. If the city implodes physically, everyone is screwed--from the retirees, to the remaining citizens.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It's a one-industry city verging on a no-industry city. Many of the retirees left the city long ago or never lived there to begin with. At this point, I don't think it matter much to the Detroit economy or any of the former Big Three whether local retirees buy their cars locally--if they buy domestic at all.
> 
> The city has to choose between paying retirees reduced rate, or letting the city cave in on itself. The city may be able to re-invent itself if smart people are willing to move back and take advantage of very cheap property prices. If the city implodes physically, everyone is screwed--from the retirees, to the remaining citizens.


It is the retirees who remain. When the Bush/Bankster gangsters announced they were crashing the economy, housing prices fell quickly. Older folks have much of their savings invested in their homes and could not afford the loss which was tied to a move. 

Younger folks needed to be able to make a living and had little or none of their own money in their homes. These are the people who could and did move away as the auto industry languished.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I remember visiting my father's workplace at the GM diesel plant and the parking lot was filled with Fords, Toyotas, VWs and other competitor cars, even with extreme employee discounts--and this was when the domestic car industry was still relatively healthy. They couldn't even be bothered to buy the least objectionable vehicle made by their own company.


This, right here, is the root cause of Detroit's collapse. I'm not saying the Unions and the Banks didn't hasten the fall (they most certainly did), but the fact that Detroit was a one-industry town and the 'Captains' of that industry went decades without making a good car was what killed Detroit; it's just taken a few decades for that mortal wound to kill the beast.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> This, right here, is the root cause of Detroit's collapse. I'm not saying the Unions and the Banks didn't hasten the fall (they most certainly did), but the fact that Detroit was a one-industry town and the 'Captains' of that industry went decades without making a good car was what killed Detroit; it's just taken a few decades for that mortal wound to kill the beast.


yes. Very little is mentioned about the crappy products put out by the big 3. That isn't the union's fault...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

iMouse said:


> I think he can determine on his own what he's been told.
> 
> *No need for you to embellish words already typed, with your own interpretation*.


Really??!! 

You were quite good at doing that yourself when you actually "quoted" one of my posts and then edited it with your own words effectively putting words in my mouth. Seems there is one standard of behavior for iMouse and another standard for everyone else.

You are smart enough to know what that is called...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I think there was a vicious cycle at work here; the big three had a captive market in the U.S. for a few decades, and they made great profits selling what were increasingly poorly-made cars, but because there was essentially no competition, the profits kept going up. During the 1970's the Japanese manufacturer's started exporting very competitive vehicles (small, efficient cars, during the first 'oil crisis' to hit the U.S.... perfect timing) into the American market, and the big three started to feel the pinch. In order to keep their profits up, they started squeezing their labour (who, to be fair, were probably over-paid, but then so were the management at these companies, so I have no trouble understanding why the assembly line workers felt they were being asked to bear a disproportionate share of this new challenge). The domestic automakers, having grown fat-and-lazy, didn't respond well to the Asian challenge, and they got their a$$es handed to them over the next four decades; with each quarterly loss of profit, they'd try to find ways to cut costs, and squeeze their labour harder, and with each squeeze, the unions would fight harder and view their relationship with management in more adversarial terms. The resulting feedback made the companies even less efficient and their products even less competitive, leading ultimately to their collapse. The real tragedy is that the government stepped in and saved these dinosaurs, rather than letting them fail and something more innovative and competitive emerge from their ashes.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> But that's the autoworkers, not the Detroit municipal workers.
> 
> Sadly, I remember visiting my father's workplace at the GM diesel plant and the parking lot was filled with Fords, Toyotas, VWs and other competitor cars, even with extreme employee discounts--and this was when the domestic car industry was still relatively healthy. They couldn't even be bothered to buy the least objectionable vehicle made by their own company.





bryanc said:


> This, right here, is the root cause of Detroit's collapse. I'm not saying the Unions and the Banks didn't hasten the fall (they most certainly did), but the fact that Detroit was a one-industry town and the 'Captains' of that industry went decades without making a good car was what killed Detroit; it's just taken a few decades for that mortal wound to kill the beast.


My last GM car was purchased in 1971. More than a few blown engines over GMs refusal to fix a metal wiring clamp that chafed a heater hose. A fix that would have taken under a minute and needed less than 10¢ in parts. I discovered the problem but did not lose an engine. Even so the dealer would not even put a splice in the damaged hose, claiming it had outlasted the 4000 mile warranty on belts and hoses. Passed the info along to the service manager at the other dealer in town. He initiated a recall on the cars his dealer had sold and they did not lose a single engine. Even so he was unable to get GM to issue a general recall. 

The Chrysler mini-van was overall fairly well built, but even so Chrysler continued to run that awful 4-speed auto for nearly 20 years even though it seemed to be designed to fail, at least in that application.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The real tragedy is that the government stepped in and saved these dinosaurs, rather than letting them fail and something more innovative and competitive emerge from their ashes.


Amen.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I think there was a vicious cycle at work here; the big three had a captive market in the U.S. for a few decades, and they made great profits selling what were increasingly poorly-made cars, but because there was essentially no competition, the profits kept going up. During the 1970's the Japanese manufacturer's started exporting very competitive vehicles (small, efficient cars, during the first 'oil crisis' to hit the U.S.... perfect timing) into the American market, and the big three started to feel the pinch. In order to keep their profits up, they started squeezing their labour (who, to be fair, were probably over-paid, but then so were the management at these companies, so I have no trouble understanding why the assembly line workers felt they were being asked to bear a disproportionate share of this new challenge). The domestic automakers, having grown fat-and-lazy, didn't respond well to the Asian challenge, and they got their a$$es handed to them over the next four decades; with each quarterly loss of profit, they'd try to find ways to cut costs, and squeeze their labour harder, and with each squeeze, the unions would fight harder and view their relationship with management in more adversarial terms. The resulting feedback made the companies even less efficient and their products even less competitive, leading ultimately to their collapse. *The real tragedy is that the government stepped in and saved these dinosaurs, rather than letting them fail and something more innovative and competitive emerge from their ashes.*


I had a different opinion at one point. But I wonder if I was wrong.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I think the main arguments in favour of the govt. stepping in to save the domestic auto industries were that there were hundreds of thousands of pensions depending on the ongoing viability of those companies, and that those companies were such major employers that their collapse would devastate an already depressed economy. In hindsight, it seems obvious that the trillions used to bail these companies out could've sustained those pensions, and subsidized the emergence of new companies who would employ similar numbers of people.

At the very least, that bail-out money should've been contingent on firing all the upper management who presided over the failure of the businesses, the confiscation of all of their bonuses, and the provision of the U.S. Government with appropriate shares of the stock, such that the citizens of the U.S. would get fair returns on their investment when the companies recovered. The same should've been true for the banks.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I think the main arguments in favour of the govt. stepping in to save the domestic auto industries were that there were hundreds of thousands of pensions depending on the ongoing viability of those companies, and that those companies were such major employers that their collapse would devastate an already depressed economy. In hindsight, it seems obvious that the trillions used to bail these companies out could've sustained those pensions, and subsidized the emergence of new companies who would employ similar numbers of people.
> 
> At the very least, that bail-out money should've been contingent on firing all the upper management who presided over the failure of the businesses, the confiscation of all of their bonuses, and the provision of the U.S. Government with appropriate shares of the stock, such that the citizens of the U.S. would get fair returns on their investment when the companies recovered. The same should've been true for the banks.


I fully agree with you. The handing out of trillions began with Bush, and Obama still continued it after the Bush massive handouts were done. I suspect though if the kind of conditions we would have liked to see happened, those companies might have folded them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> At the very least, that bail-out money should've been contingent on firing all the upper management who presided over the failure of the businesses, the confiscation of all of their bonuses, and the provision of the U.S. Government with appropriate shares of the stock, such that the citizens of the U.S. would get fair returns on their investment when the companies recovered. The same should've been true for the banks.


The government doesn't really have the capability or wherewithal to cherry pick such an agreement effectively. The businesses and banks should have been allowed to fail. However, I don't believe the government should step in to save autoworker pensions, simply because they happen to be a large group. 

Bail-outs of either people or businesses should occur only if there is precedent in law, with all benefiting equally. Favouring one industry or worker group is anathema to democracy.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The businesses and banks should have been allowed to fail.


This.

From the ashes new businesses would have been born & those with some business sense (unlike the ones that rec'd handouts) would have survived. Instead, the precedent has now been established and a whole new welfare state has been founded. Billion dollar business going under? No problem. Go ask the feds for a handout.

And screw all the small businesses, the ones that employ more people than any other demographic in Canada & the US...


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Absolutely, they should have been allowed to fail. The bailout money could have instead been used to help those hit badly by the failure of those companies--financial assistance through unemployment, job re-training, covering moving expenses, etc.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

What I feel a little strange is that we as Canadians with no vote in the US at any level are passing, judgement/who is right/who is wrong/who is to blame and have not one inkling of what it means to live in Detroit.

Cripes decisions get made at the municipal level here in my small enclave of Aylmer (Gatineau) that I have absolutely no idea about until they come to pass. I could of course keep up with everything that happens in municipal council if I had absolutely nothing else to do, but alas I have a job and a family so I can't do that and even if I did, the backroom deals that are made I could not possibly be privy to...

Anyway it seems a little "arrogant" to me to think that we as Canadian's, non-voting citizens of the US or residents of "Detroit" presume to have any real understanding of the reasons for why Detroit is in the position it is now...

I mean, it is a fun intellectual exercise for some, but in the end, that is all that it is... No matter if you have spent the odd night there passing through or done a tonne of "book reading". 

For any of us here who have not lived in Detroit for an extended period of time and actually had the vote and know who and what we were voting for and the promises made and broken, IMO it is just so much chatter.

That's my 2 cents worth.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> What I feel a little passing strange is that we as Canadians with no vote in the US at any level are passing, judgement/who is right/who is wrong/who is to blame and have not one inkling of what it means to live in Detroit.
> 
> Cripes decisions get made at the municipal level here in my small enclave of Aylmer (Gatineau) that I have absolutely no idea about until they come to pass. I could of course keep up with everything that happens in municipal council if I had absolutely nothing else to do, but alas I have a job and a family so I can't do that and even if I did, the backroom deals that are made I could not possibly be privy to...
> 
> ...


I disagree entirely. There is a detailed historical record of what led to this sad state of affairs. 

However, whether I lived in Detroit or not, it's still all chatter--an interesting way to debate and pass the time. The matter will be resolved in the courts.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I think it's worth looking at what has failed (and succeeded) elsewhere and speculating on what we would've done differently and how that would've worked out. I agree that it's sort of 'arm-chair quarterbacking', but we learn from the mistakes of others, and it's not until you think about these sorts of things that you begin to develop any coherent philosophy on the role of corporations, governments, unions and other organizations in society.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> What I feel a little strange is that we as Canadians with no vote in the US at any level are passing, judgement/who is right/who is wrong/who is to blame and have not one inkling of what it means to live in Detroit.
> 
> Cripes decisions get made at the municipal level here in my small enclave of Aylmer (Gatineau) that I have absolutely no idea about until they come to pass. I could of course keep up with everything that happens in municipal council if I had absolutely nothing else to do, but alas I have a job and a family so I can't do that and even if I did, the backroom deals that are made I could not possibly be privy to...
> 
> ...


I also disagree.

Beyond the value of learning from the errors of others should we be faced with similar issues in our own cities, there's also the fact that issues in the USA affect us as Canadians. So while we don't get a vote, we certainly should be cognizant of what happens there and why.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I've often thought that everyone on earth should get a vote in American elections, given the effect of their government's policies on the global environment, economy and society. However, the American empire does seem to be in remission; I hope they can senesce into being a minor global player with more grace that the UK showed.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I disagree entirely. There is a detailed historical record of what led to this sad state of affairs.
> 
> However, whether I lived in Detroit or not, it's still all chatter--an interesting way to debate and pass the time. The matter will be resolved in the courts.





bryanc said:


> I think it's worth looking at what has failed (and succeeded) elsewhere and speculating on what we would've done differently and how that would've worked out. I agree that it's sort of 'arm-chair quarterbacking', but we learn from the mistakes of others, and it's not until you think about these sorts of things that you begin to develop any coherent philosophy on the role of corporations, governments, unions and other organizations in society.





Sonal said:


> I also disagree.
> 
> Beyond the value of learning from the errors of others should we be faced with similar issues in our own cities, there's also the fact that issues in the USA affect us as Canadians. So while we don't get a vote, we certainly should be cognizant of what happens there and why.


That's fine and that is why you all have been posting and why I have not. I try not to talk about things that I really don't know much about, i.e. have no actual experience with. 

There is only so much "historical fact" that is actual fact, it is always filtered through someone else's eyes, one of the reasons why I do not participate in the American political thread...

Keep on chattering... and enjoy.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't 100% disagree with you screature, especially given where a lot of this thread went, but I agree more with the others. 

Certainly visiting there isn't much, though I did spend a while there, quite a few times, it isn't close to living there. I know a few of us have good friends living there like a couple other members. It's always hard to really know without actually living there for a long time.

But it's a really valuable thing as the others have pointed out to look at what contributed to such a catastrophic decline in other cities like detroit. We might be smug in other cities like toronto, but it could happen to others years down the road should major mismanagement occur along with the collapse of major employment.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Hmmmm...

Michigan defends $284-million fund to help build new arena for Red Wings in bankrupt Detroit

Thoughts?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> Hmmmm...
> 
> Michigan defends $284-million fund to help build new arena for Red Wings in bankrupt Detroit
> 
> Thoughts?


Governments should never help build professional sport facilities. The fact that Detroit is bankrupt is irrelevant.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Governments should never help build professional sport facilities. *The fact that Detroit is bankrupt is irrelevant*.


Well it kind of adds insult to injury.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> *Governments should never help build professional sport facilities.* The fact that Detroit is bankrupt is irrelevant.


The Olympics would never happen then. 

That could be a good thing or a bad thing but despite the questionable monetary return cities around the world keep lining up to be the host city....

Things that make go... Hmmm?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> The Olympics would never happen then.


They would happen, but not be funded by government--a blessing. Cities line up because it represents a glorious feather in the cap of various city VIPs.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> They would happen, but not be funded by government--a blessing.


I'm not so sure... At least in the terms of how they have been for decades...

They could happen without government dollars but on a much smaller scale.

Maybe that is a good thing.

This discussion warrants an new thread IMO.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> I'm not so sure... At least in the terms of how they have been for decades...
> 
> They could happen without government dollars but on a much smaller scale.
> 
> Maybe that is a good thing.


Mayor Drapeau's name is still spoken in hushed tones.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Mayor Drapeau's name is still spoken in hushed tones.


Yes it is.... but then again not actually... in not so hushed tones where I come from.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Mayor Drapeau's name is still spoken in hushed tones.





screature said:


> Yes it is.... but then again not actually... in not so hushed tones where I come from.


Did he ever have that baby?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMouse said:


> Did he ever have that baby?


Yes. It lived until 2006 and cost a billion dollars to raise.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

And so it starts...

US sending bankrupt Detroit $300 million. Think 'stimulus,' not 'bailout.'



> The Obama administration is pledging nearly $300 million in federal dollars to Detroit to help shore up basic infrastructure priorities, such as improving public transit and police and eradicating blight.
> 
> *Just don’t call it a bailout* – a term that's still toxic on Capitol Hill, on both sides of the aisle.


Bold mine.

A turd is a turd, by any other name.

Just wondering out loud... Will this "stimulus" money have a similar effect to all the "stimulus" money pissed away on the entire nation under Obama?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

FeXL said:


> ust wondering out loud... Will this "stimulus" money have a similar effect to all the "stimulus" money pissed away on the entire nation under Obama?


Yes, it will be used to pay the salaries of Democrats---errr.....unionized Detroit workers.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Packard plant headed to auction with $21,000 opening bid

the property is up for sale.. not sure I will be interested in maintaining that land and deal with the vagrants that moved in..


----------

