Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WHAT?? MSNBC host Ed Schultz blames Republican policies for bankrupting Detroit.

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
How silly, thats like blaming Republicans for bankrupting California....

Democrats have had a majority and/or supermajority for many...MANY years now...taxes and debt only have one way to go...

I wonder why people want fiscal conservatives only when things are looking so bad? Then when things don't appear to be TOO bad, fiscal conservatives are hated on.




posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


NEWSFLASH Schultzie... Democrats have had control of the city of Detroit for FIFTY-ONE YEARS. What Detroit shows is that the Liberal Progressive utopian dream is a fiscal disaster.


You are aware that REPUBLICAN Govenor Rick Snyder effectively took control of Detroit? He chose and appointed Kevyn Orr as the cities Manager to avoid bankruptcy?



Michigan Governor Rick Snyder appointed Kevyn Orr as emergency manager to oversee Detroit financial operations on March 14, 2013 under Public Act 72. On January 24, 2013 Snyder had signed a revised version of a controversial emergency manager law that was rejected by voters during the November election.[15] The new law, Public Act 436, takes effect on March 28, 2013 and gives the Detroit emergency manager extraordinary control over all Detroit financial matters,[16] and the ability to recommend to the governor and state treasurer that the government enter Chapter 9 bankruptcy.[17][18]

Orr began his expected 18-month term as emergency manager on March 25, 2013.[19]

At Orr's recommendation and with the approval of Governor Snyder, the city of Detroit filed for bankruptcy on July 18, 2013

en.wikipedia.org...

So GOP Govenor Rick Snyder siezed control of Detroits finances 8 months ago, despite the voters rejecting the idea, under the heading he was going to save them from bankruptcy...and then declares bankruptcy...this after cutting city services, busting the unions, scalping earned pensions...There is a case to be made that while Detroit was certainly in the ER, the Republican Govenor fought his way into the room and pulled the plug.

Bankruptcy affords the Govenor limitless opportunity to push his agenda...starting with tossing out all pension obligations to retired auto workers.


Well, it's plainly obvious whatever "agenda" the dems were pursuing in Detroit for decades was slowly turning the city into a cesspool. Promising pension and benefits packages that they KNEW would eventually come back to bite them in the ass.

The unions should share the blame as well, for being fiscally ignorant, and thinking the spigot of money was just going to keep flowing from somewhere, forever and ever.

Reminds me of of the Euro crisis in a way. People promised all manner of ridiculous benefits, with no way to pay them indefinitely. Then they riot.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
How silly, thats like blaming Republicans for bankrupting California....

Democrats have had a majority and/or supermajority for many...MANY years now...taxes and debt only have one way to go...

I wonder why people want fiscal conservatives only when things are looking so bad? Then when things don't appear to be TOO bad, fiscal conservatives are hated on.


Or worse. When people migrate put of horrible situations like California and New York to very attractive states who are doing things right they then don't vote to keep the red state status quo which attracted them in the first place, instead voting for the same Liberal people with the same policies that ruined the economies in the States they migrated from. They did this to Colorado and are trying to do it to Florida and Texas.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
when I think of Detroit I think of unionized monopoly of the american worker driving out the auto industry and crack - there's a unifying force there.............

Oh yeah - the slavery party



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Perhaps I should have been a little more clear with that specific point and you are correct that Democrats have been in a large majority there for the past 50 years.

My larger point I guess was more of a critique of how polarized we are when it comes to politics. Our first instinct nowadays is to blame Democrats or Republicans, or whoever your party isn't. We need to concentrate on the policies themselves to solve the problems and not which party has the better idea. There are great ideas on all sides. We also have to understand that what works in Detroit may not work in Wichita or wherever.

We need to consider ourselves and each other Americans first instead of Democrats or Republicans or whatever. Nothing is getting done and it's hurting everyone of us...with of course the exception of a privileged few.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by acuna
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Perhaps I should have been a little more clear with that specific point and you are correct that Democrats have been in a large majority there for the past 50 years.

My larger point I guess was more of a critique of how polarized we are when it comes to politics. Our first instinct nowadays is to blame Democrats or Republicans, or whoever your party isn't. We need to concentrate on the policies themselves to solve the problems and not which party has the better idea. There are great ideas on all sides. We also have to understand that what works in Detroit may not work in Wichita or wherever.

We need to consider ourselves and each other Americans first instead of Democrats or Republicans or whatever. Nothing is getting done and it's hurting everyone of us...with of course the exception of a privileged few.


In years past there were more moderates and conservatives which carried different ideology but were more closer in agreeing on certain items then were fair apart on.. In today's political spectrum, we are inundated with extremes on both sides. The both are so far left and right, they are finally crossing beams (/ghost buster pun there)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bearack

Originally posted by acuna
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Perhaps I should have been a little more clear with that specific point and you are correct that Democrats have been in a large majority there for the past 50 years.

My larger point I guess was more of a critique of how polarized we are when it comes to politics. Our first instinct nowadays is to blame Democrats or Republicans, or whoever your party isn't. We need to concentrate on the policies themselves to solve the problems and not which party has the better idea. There are great ideas on all sides. We also have to understand that what works in Detroit may not work in Wichita or wherever.

We need to consider ourselves and each other Americans first instead of Democrats or Republicans or whatever. Nothing is getting done and it's hurting everyone of us...with of course the exception of a privileged few.


In years past there were more moderates and conservatives which carried different ideology but were more closer in agreeing on certain items then were fair apart on.. In today's political spectrum, we are inundated with extremes on both sides. The both are so far left and right, they are finally crossing beams (/ghost buster pun there)


Hopefully, eventually, the extreme right and left voices will give way to more moderate, reasonable, reasoned, non-partisan voices. Until then we just have to keep pointing out the ridiculousness of the partisan pundits and politicians. At least they're entertaining



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
How is this different from Fox news blaming Democrat and liberals for regulations against the energy sector and causing prices to sky rocket? Keep in Mind Republicans in the past have controlled both Congress and the presidency , so why didn't they get rid of those regulations.

Also when the Republicans had full control of both Congress and the presidency did they shrink gov't or get rid of any gov't programs? Yet, Foxnews blames the democrats for sky rocking debts and frivolous spending having never cut anything themselves.

Does Foxnews blame our debt solely on the democrats or do they take responsibility for Bush starting the private company bailout programs, becoming the worlds police , and creating more gov't programs like homeland security?

The MSM are owned by the same investors that control our gov't via lobbying. One side of the MSM covers things from a democrat angle that blames the Republicans and the other side does the same thing but from the opposite side. So they control your views from both sides which make up the majority of the populations.

Its all hogwash and its because of lobbyist and our politicians on both sides that we are in the predicament that we are in.

They opened pandoras box with NAFTA like programs that will lower our standard of living while increase profits for the top corporate stake holders.

We received instant gratification by receiving cheaper products from NAFTA and foreign trade policies, but now and in the long run we have discovered that we are not able to compete with those same foreign gov't.

They are not only taking our low to mid income earning jobs overseas but they are also taking our high level income jobs in the US, by bringing in temporary workers from their countries to work with H1 Visas for half price.

You can get rid of all the personal income taxes and corporate taxes that the republicans and foxnews claim to want ( even though they never do when they have the chance) , but you still won't be able to compete with third world countries because of their cost of living.

We need to drop our standard of living in order to compete in the world market and that is what we are experiencing. The only people that will benefit from cheap labor and low overhead cost of operation in the long term are the top executives of the multinational corporations and our elected officials.

This begs the question should we and why do we have to be involved in a world economy, which neither side talks about.

edit on 25-7-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


Dude, GWB wasn't a Conservative. He was a big-government, spending drunk Progressive Republican. Why would he shrink the size and reach of government? Establishment "rhino" Republican's don't view government as the problem, they just think they can better manage big government than the Democrats.

edit on 25-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by interupt42
 


Dude, GWB wasn't a Conservative. He was a big-government, spending drunk Progressive Republican. Why would he shrink the size and reach of government? Establishment "rhino" Republican's don't view government as the problem, they just think they can better manage big government than the Democrats.

edit on 25-7-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)


Dude I never said he was a true conservative and I agree he was was a big-government, spending drunk Progressive Republican , yet he was backed by the RNC. Then they backed another another big-government, spending drunk Progressive Republican Romney to run against another big-government, spending drunk liberal Democrat.

The only true conservative republican they had the RNC smeared themselves. Ron Paul was smeared and put through the mud by his own party and never given his 15 minutes of support by them unlike the rest of the crazies Perry,9-9-9, Preacher Santorum, and the good old House Speaker that got kicked out for unethical or questionable behaviour.


My point is that this any candidate backed by the RNC or the DNC most likely doesn't work for the people. In addition the MSM doesn't work to inform the people of the news but they are there to market us their point of views.
edit on 25-7-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by interupt42
 


Ron Paul will never get elected as an extreme isolationist in foreign affairs. Just won't happen. And the RNC is status quo big-government statists. That's why they attack the Conservatives as much as Democrats do. There hasn't been a Conservative running for President since Regean. Even Bob Dole attacks Conservatives. That's a major reason the TEA Party was formed besides opposition to Obamacare. A growing animosity of Conservative Americans with the mush Progressives which have taken over the RNC.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by interupt42
 


Ron Paul will never get elected as an extreme isolationist in foreign affairs. Just won't happen. And the RNC is status quo big-government statists. That's why they attack the Conservatives as much as Democrats do. There hasn't been a Conservative running for President since Regean. Even Bob Dole attacks Conservatives. That's a major reason the TEA Party was formed besides opposition to Obamacare. A growing animosity of Conservative Americans with the mush Progressives which have taken over the RNC.



Didn't say Ron Paul would get elected, but IMO its not because extreme isolationist in foreign affairs. He will never get elected because he is a threat to the system and his voting records proves it. The biggest threat to a gov't is losing power and becoming smaller and less intrusive. Ron Paul had the voting record that scared them silly.

As for Reagon, he was a front runner for NAFTA. At the time Ross Perot had this view about it.



Independent Presidential candidate Ross Perot famously warned that "You're going to hear a giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out of this country."


As for the Tea Party , Sadly I think the same mush of Progressives that took over the RNC also tried to take over the Tea Party with Sarah Palin.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
since you provide absolutely no other information...nothing failed....warren buffet is not in a union and he makes good money....a little context would be helpful... if not?, what's your point?


OK...I work for a company with no unions and make good money...

The idea that the US would be like China with slave wages without unions is stupid...

Is that better?





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join