• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MSNBC Host: Detroit is becoming the most libertarian city in the US

Jack Hays said:
Thank you for making my point. The overwhelming preponderance of that money benefits the US, and the total is about 1.4% of the federal budget.
Click to expand...

The US government is supposed to do things which benefit the US, so your position is a non-starter. Additionally, it's still billions of dollars, and it's still going elsewhere.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Really, ever heard of Pakistan? How much are spending in Afghanistan fighting a stupid pointless war? Even still send money to Egypt.
Click to expand...

The money spent in Afghanistan and Egypt is a much better investment than money sent to Detroit would be.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The US government is supposed to do things which benefit the US, so your position is a non-starter. Additionally, it's still billions of dollars, and it's still going elsewhere.
Click to expand...

The money benefits the US far more than would money sent to Detroit.
 
Jack Hays said:
The money spent in Afghanistan and Egypt is a much better investment than money sent to Detroit would be.
Click to expand...

Then go live in Afghanistan. At least here we could put people in jail that dont oversee the money correctly. Once that money is overseas, its gone and the rulers are laughing all the way to the bank. On our dime.
 
Ewww, looks like more wasted money:

A new bill that would rename and expand formerly failed economic development programs has passed the Michigan Senate nearly unanimously and now moves on to the House of Representatives.

Sponsored by Sen. Virgil Smith, D-Detroit, Senate Bill 271, would "increase maximum amount of state 'community revitalization' grants (formerly 'brownfield' and 'historic preservation' tax credits) that can be awarded to a particular developer, corporation or other special interest from $1 million to $2.5 million; allow four annual loans of up to $20 million each to particular interests for this purpose; and in general, remove various statutory prescriptions and restrictions on how the political appointees on the Michigan Strategic Fund board may spend state revenues allocated to this program," according to MichiganVotes.org.

Further, the legislation says that it will provide capital for "qualified businesses that need additional assistance for deal-closing and for second stage company gap financing." Together, lawmakers think that such measures will spur community revitalization.

While the bill promises to fulfill such claims, the history and economics behind such subsidies reveals a more complicated picture.

At the heart of the legislation is the Michigan Strategic Fund, which is governed by a board of politicians, with certain restrictions. The board consists of lawmakers making subjective evaluations regarding such criteria as "whether the project addresses underserved markets of commerce" and the "extent of reuse of vacant buildings, reuse of historical buildings, and redevelopment of blighted property."

This puts Lansing legislators in the driver's seat regarding questions that the market solves on a regular basis — a reality that results in the business community courting politicians.

The reward for this persistence? Financial benefits, known as "brownfield subsidies" that serve as pecuniary rewards for the politically and economically well connected. A gaze into the past efficiency of these "investments" reveals a trail of waste. Large and well-connected green energy firms such as GlobalWatt and Mascoma were approved millions of dollars from taxpayers, resulting in anemic job growth and little long-term success.

A review of past Michigan Strategic Fund programs showed mass failure for the program.

Waste and poor results aren't the only side effects of such corporate handouts. Companies that normally would not engage in seeking benefits and favors spend time and resources to capture the free giveaways provided by politicians, known as "economic rent-seeking."

James Hohman, assistant fiscal policy director at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, argues that such programs are driven by the question of "what can you give?" Hohman said he thinks this outlook among politicians "costs taxpayers money and gives special favors to companies," which he said is an economic reality that is "fundamentally, at its core, unnecessary."

Yet, such corporate welfare serves as the spark for the hallowed bipartisanship so desired among Republicans and Democrats.

Nearly the entirety of the senate supported the bill adding $1.5 million for "community revitalization," with the measure passing 36–2. Only Sen. Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison Township, and Sen. Bruce Caswell, R-Hillsdale, voted against the bill.

Sen. Smith did not respond to a request for comment.

The bill sits in the House Commerce Committee. MichiganVotes: Senate Bill Aims to Bolster Corporate Welfare [Michigan Capitol Confidential]
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Ewww, looks like more wasted money:

A new bill that would rename and expand formerly failed economic development programs has passed the Michigan Senate nearly unanimously and now moves on to the House of Representatives.

Sponsored by Sen. Virgil Smith, D-Detroit, Senate Bill 271, would "increase maximum amount of state 'community revitalization' grants (formerly 'brownfield' and 'historic preservation' tax credits) that can be awarded to a particular developer, corporation or other special interest from $1 million to $2.5 million; allow four annual loans of up to $20 million each to particular interests for this purpose; and in general, remove various statutory prescriptions and restrictions on how the political appointees on the Michigan Strategic Fund board may spend state revenues allocated to this program," according to MichiganVotes.org.

Further, the legislation says that it will provide capital for "qualified businesses that need additional assistance for deal-closing and for second stage company gap financing." Together, lawmakers think that such measures will spur community revitalization.

While the bill promises to fulfill such claims, the history and economics behind such subsidies reveals a more complicated picture.

At the heart of the legislation is the Michigan Strategic Fund, which is governed by a board of politicians, with certain restrictions. The board consists of lawmakers making subjective evaluations regarding such criteria as "whether the project addresses underserved markets of commerce" and the "extent of reuse of vacant buildings, reuse of historical buildings, and redevelopment of blighted property."

This puts Lansing legislators in the driver's seat regarding questions that the market solves on a regular basis — a reality that results in the business community courting politicians.

The reward for this persistence? Financial benefits, known as "brownfield subsidies" that serve as pecuniary rewards for the politically and economically well connected. A gaze into the past efficiency of these "investments" reveals a trail of waste. Large and well-connected green energy firms such as GlobalWatt and Mascoma were approved millions of dollars from taxpayers, resulting in anemic job growth and little long-term success.

A review of past Michigan Strategic Fund programs showed mass failure for the program.

Waste and poor results aren't the only side effects of such corporate handouts. Companies that normally would not engage in seeking benefits and favors spend time and resources to capture the free giveaways provided by politicians, known as "economic rent-seeking."

James Hohman, assistant fiscal policy director at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, argues that such programs are driven by the question of "what can you give?" Hohman said he thinks this outlook among politicians "costs taxpayers money and gives special favors to companies," which he said is an economic reality that is "fundamentally, at its core, unnecessary."

Yet, such corporate welfare serves as the spark for the hallowed bipartisanship so desired among Republicans and Democrats.

Nearly the entirety of the senate supported the bill adding $1.5 million for "community revitalization," with the measure passing 36–2. Only Sen. Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison Township, and Sen. Bruce Caswell, R-Hillsdale, voted against the bill.

Sen. Smith did not respond to a request for comment.

The bill sits in the House Commerce Committee. MichiganVotes: Senate Bill Aims to Bolster Corporate Welfare [Michigan Capitol Confidential]
Click to expand...

Detroit better wrap their heads around the fact that they will have to court business and industry... they probably have to bend over, kiss their ass, and beg them to come and set up shop.

they can stand by and say " No!" to "corporate welfare" and relaxing taxes , regulations an such.. but they'll only be putting more nails in Detroit's coffin.

more than anything, Detroit needs industry...the political leaders need to get some vision and figure out how their overall regulatory scheme works in regards to this need.
they'll need to compete with other , more attractive, locations...

whatever happens, it's gonna be a long slog... fixing 5 or 6 decades of ****-up is tough work... it'll be made harder, if not impossible, if they want to stick to the anti-business mindset.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Then go live in Afghanistan. At least here we could put people in jail that dont oversee the money correctly. Once that money is overseas, its gone and the rulers are laughing all the way to the bank. On our dime.
Click to expand...

The US derives large benefits from those expenditures.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
That's a whole other argument. The point is that it isn't being spent here on domestic problems, which when we're talking about tax dollars is a legitimate gripe.
Click to expand...

It should not be spent here. It should be spent there. That's the greater benefit to the US. And the amount is a pittance in any case.
 
Jack Hays said:
In Afghanistan, the destruction of Al Qaeda's safe haven. In Egypt, decades of Middle East peace.
Click to expand...
Oh boy, those are real benefits to the US. Paying people to keep the peace? Nice.
Those are pathetic reasons by the way.
 
CRUE CAB said:
So those billions going all over the world while US cities fail and fall is ok with you?
Click to expand...

THAT had nothing to do with Detroits failure...

Detroit's spent about a 100 million more a year than they took in for several years. It was run exclusively by corrupt Liberal Democrats.....into the ground.

They chose not to change with the times, not to evolve and held onto the archaic principles that have buried and will continue to bury cities like Detroit for years to come.
 
Thrilla said:
Detroit better wrap their heads around the fact that they will have to court business and industry... they probably have to bend over, kiss their ass, and beg them to come and set up shop.

they can stand by and say " No!" to "corporate welfare" and relaxing taxes , regulations an such.. but they'll only be putting more nails in Detroit's coffin.

more than anything, Detroit needs industry...the political leaders need to get some vision and figure out how their overall regulatory scheme works in regards to this need.
they'll need to compete with other , more attractive, locations...

whatever happens, it's gonna be a long slog... fixing 5 or 6 decades of ****-up is tough work... it'll be made harder, if not impossible, if they want to stick to the anti-business mindset.
Click to expand...

Um, they won't be relaxing taxes to the taxpayer. The taxpayer pays toward corporate welfare and what they have found is: A review of past Michigan Strategic Fund programs showed mass failure for the program.

Waste and poor results aren't the only side effects of such corporate handouts. Companies that normally would not engage in seeking benefits and favors spend time and resources to capture the free giveaways provided by politicians, known as "economic rent-seeking."

James Hohman, assistant fiscal policy director at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, argues that such programs are driven by the question of "what can you give?" Hohman said he thinks this outlook among politicians "costs taxpayers money and gives special favors to companies," which he said is an economic reality that is "fundamentally, at its core, unnecessary."
 
haymarket said:
get your facts straight.

From 1950 through 61 two different republicans were mayor of detroit. And it was during that time that detroit began its slide and lost 10% of its 1.8 million population. So if it partisan blame you want to hand out - start with the start of your 60 year arbitrary time period and start with two republicans.

The other thing you may want to learn about is that detroit races for mayor are non partisan. Nobody runs on a party designation. Its not hard to know which party a person affiliates with - but its been that way for almost a century now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_mayors_of_detroit

read and learn
Click to expand...

this is ridiculous. You going to say that the problem here is republican to, and they started this whole thing?

over 52 years of democrat rule of the city means nothing.........?

Detroit was not stating to falling apart in 1950

this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard.

And by the way.....your own link shows what party each mayor gets his political ideology from.

Please stop with the magic show, and trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat on this story, detroit was not in trouble in the 50's or even early 60's

Following World War II, the auto industry boomed and the metropolitan area became one of the largest in the United States.

In economic terms, the postwar years 1945-70 brought high levels of prosperity as the automobile industry had its most prosperous quarter-century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Detroit,_Michigan
 
Last edited:
rabbitcaebannog said:
Um, they won't be relaxing taxes to the taxpayer. The taxpayer pays toward corporate welfare and what they have found is: A review of past Michigan Strategic Fund programs showed mass failure for the program.

Waste and poor results aren't the only side effects of such corporate handouts. Companies that normally would not engage in seeking benefits and favors spend time and resources to capture the free giveaways provided by politicians, known as "economic rent-seeking."

James Hohman, assistant fiscal policy director at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, argues that such programs are driven by the question of "what can you give?" Hohman said he thinks this outlook among politicians "costs taxpayers money and gives special favors to companies," which he said is an economic reality that is "fundamentally, at its core, unnecessary."
Click to expand...

they'll also have to make it attractive for people to live there and pay local taxes.. so yeah, relaxing taxpayer burdens will have to be part of the bargain.


but go ahead and relax tax burdens on the taxpayers while remaining anti-business...I'm sure that will work, despite 50+ years of failure.
 
Jack Hays said:
It should not be spent here. It should be spent there. That's the greater benefit to the US.
Click to expand...

Again, a whole other argument. You asked for more information on the billions, I provided it.

Jack Hays said:
And the amount is a pittance in any case.
Click to expand...

Billions spent year after year are anything but a pittance. I would certainly agree that cutting them wouldn't, for example, solve our deficit problem, but we could get some serious mileage out of them here at home.
 
Jack Hays said:
So . . . for 52 years no Repub has been mayor, and you think this problem is bi-partisan? Too funny!!!:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo
Click to expand...

the great slide downward began under two Republicans from 1950 - 61 where Detroit - FOR THE FIRST TIME - lost population - 10% of it.

If you think that is funny - you have a very perverse sense of humor.

Of course trying to deny responsibility is like the guy who pushes somebody off the top of the Empire State Building only to claim that he only pushed him the first five feet. Gravity is responsible for the rest.
 
haymarket said:
the great slide downward began under two Republicans from 1950 - 61 where Detroit - FOR THE FIRST TIME - lost population - 10% of it.

If you think that is funny - you have a very perverse sense of humor.

Of course trying to deny responsibility is like the guy who pushes somebody off the top of the Empire State Building only to claim that he only pushed him the first five feet. Gravity is responsible for the rest.
Click to expand...

hehe.. and here's Haymarket.. still trying to blame Republicans and deny responsibility for 50+ years of Democratic rule. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom