After watching this: Could you ever vote for a democrat again?

After watching this: Could you ever vote for a Democrat again?

[video=youtube;1hhJ_49leBw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw[/video]

I can't imagine why or how anyone could.

 

HaHaHa,

I voted never for demoncrats!

 

There is a lot of silence from the Dems on this one....

<<crickets>>

 

There is far more to the Detroit problem than a bunch of Dems:

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/tag/detroit

 

Unfortunately for the partisans, Detroit's problems run far deeper than simply blaming Democrats. That's not to say that the Democrats didn't play a part, but if the blame for Detroit's current situation is being given only to them, that's just partisan smoke.

 

When you look at the alternative, and their whackjob support, the only sane vote is Dem.

 

I notice you don't like to put "other" as a choice in your polls. The choices you give are tinged with your obvious bias which means I cannot vote in your polls as it would be meaningless. On this particular subject blaming Dems or "leftists" for all of Detroit's problems is simple-minded. Detroit and other Michigan cities have been given over to "emergency managers" appointed by the governor to impose austerity programs that have made things worse. The mayors no longer have any power to affect positive change. So there is equal blame to go around here which your polls don't allow a choice for.

 

I noticed you did not show the twin towers before and after one could say, you know the rest, its a moot argument.

Recovering republican.

River

 

Do the streets of Detroit reflect the will of Conservatives running amock - or progressives?

 

I notice you didn't mention they (the Blind Shake) first bombed the WTC under Klinton's rule...

Why is that?

 

I've never tasted a blind shake. Does it cause people to forget the letter "c"?

 

My point was it does not take much to find another reason not to vote Dem/Rep, its just nonsense nothing more.

It that picture was enough to convince you never to vote for the Democrats I would suggest that you never have up to now so what is different?


River

 

Why Democrats or Republicans?

Detroit was a one industry town. The executives in that industry became too incompetent to keep that industry afloat. The result was poverty and that 's the problem.

Ideologues supporting one party and cursing the other are snapping at the wind.

 

The Demo-wacko negro leaders destroyed any hope for recovery.

 

How is that?
How is it that when the main industry in a one industry town leaves, that city recovers?
Do you have examples you can cite, of cities that recovered under conservative leadership, when their main industry folded?

 

I have relatives in Detroit and I would vote for a Democrat, especially if I could bring back Coleman A. Young. Detroit's decline was due to the improvidence, neglect and wanton disregard for the cities resident's by people of both political affiliations. Democrats are not the scapegoats and Republicans are not the panacea for Detroit's problems.

 

Turn it over to the GOP and see if they don't at the very least improve Detroit's living standards by a significant margin.

It's probably going to happen on it's own anyway.

Detroit is a good example of why people should not feed bears.

A bear can eat more food than you can carry and if you feed them enough anyway, they eventually stop fending for themselves.

Then comes the day when the bears are REALLY hungry and you don't have anything more to give them.

That's they day they start feeding on you.

 

I have a lot of family in Kalamazoo and my sister's family used to live on the outskirts of Detroit. We had gone to Detroit on a number of occasions and what you see in the video is pretty much how it looks in 75% of the city. There was a portion that was nicknamed "Death Town," due to the look/feel of the place and the rumors of gangs.

Democrats and the UAW are most certainly the cause of Detroit's failings. The auto industry is not the only industry of Detroit, it's just a very large one. If Detroit had policies in place to promote economic growth, the jobs would be there, the people would build there and Detroit would prosper once again. Unfortunately, it does not. Detroit is always looking for a handout from the Fed... which is its' main source of income. If the UAW didn't have a stranglehold on the auto industry, you probably wouldn't see the amount of bankruptcies you see these days. If there weren't so many regulations passed down from the Fed on the auto industry, you'd probably see more profitable cars on the market.

Maybe a Republican isn't the panacea for their problems... but maybe they should try a freedom loving Conservative.

 

The chances of me voting for a Democrat again are about the same as the chances of me voting for a Republican again. Zero.

 

Could you explain what the UAW has to do with Detroit's problems?

What Fed regulations?

What UAW stranglehold?

 

The UAW, the Federal Government and local government are all to blame for Detroit's problems.

The UAW's demand for ridiculously high wages and benefits in a union (non-right-to-work) state is directly responsible for the decline in profit for Ford/GM/Chrysler. These companies can't afford to pay high pensions to all of their retirees... and they can't afford to pay the current wage (which is about $40-50/hr, but unions force their hand by threat of striking. This makes them the highest paid auto workers in the nation (on average $80,000-85,000 per year in salary + insurance & other benefits + pensions. This is directly related to why Toyota, Honda, etc. has increasingly larger profits and the big three continuously go bankrupt. When the big three becomes less profitable, they downsize. Downsizing leads to unemployment. Unemployment, coupled with tyrannical state/local laws leads to an increase in welfare candidates.

The Federal Government has been passing regulations on the auto industry for decades... They're the reason we have plastic cars, instead of steel cars, fuel standards, mileage standards, etc. You can see a big list of their regulations here: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/standards/FMVSS-Regs/pages/TOC.htm

More recently, there are new mileage & emissions standard regulations that will raise the costs of new cars by about $1,000. The Fed has also been pressuring the big three to produce new hybrid and fuel-efficient (green) vehicles. R&D costs millions/billions of dollars per year, the development of these engines costs considerably more than typical combustible engines and they're being pushed to cater to a non-existent market. Not many people are looking for an electric car, due to the many shortcomings they have.

 

First Kevin, I don't agree with the wage figures you are using. If those company can't afford those pensions why did they con workers into spending years working for them? Is it the fault of the workers that management is incompetent?

If there were no government regulations there would be no auto industry by now. Detroit would have kept us in 10mpg, fall apart junkers until foreign competition wiped them out of the business. Because the government insisted, we now have 40mpg cars that can go for hundreds of thousands of miles before they are junked.

Don't forget safety. Without government regulations we wouldn't have seat belts, airbags or crash resistant bodies.

I think you are letting management off the hook for their incompetence by falsely blaming the employees for executive decisions that hurt the industries sustainability.

 

How can you disagree with my wage figures? They're the wage figures... Even the New York Times reported that.

I think you fail to see the foothold that unions have over these companies. The one thing this country was built on was contractual agreements. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were both Contractual agreements... the UAW have a contractual agreement with the State of Michigan and the big three American Auto makers. The UAW has fought for high wages, pensions, benefits, fair work hours, etc... and has won over management at every turn. It would be illegal for the auto makers to hire outside of the unions, in order to save money, just as it would be illegal to not pay the pensions for retired auto workers. They didn't offer the pensions... the unions fought for them. Pensions are and have always been unsustainable and one of the true reasons for the failings of these three companies.

Here's a little history about UAW's fight for pensions (backed by the liberal Federal Government) - in the UAW's own words: http://www.uaw.org/page/battle-fought

Hell, the Federal Government went after Boeing for even trying to build a new facility in a right-to-work state. Remember that? Just think about what they'd do if Ford or GM decided to up and leave Detroit for greener pastures. The union has the backing of the Federal Government. No corporation wants to go head-to-head with that.

If there were no government regulations, we'd have better, faster, and stronger cars. Speed limits and government oversight prevents companies from developing very fast cars for the consumer. The push from steel to plastic has weakened our cars from tanks to accordions. Now, instead of just experiencing whiplash, we experience whiplash and crushed appendages. The push for seat belts and air bags has resulted in further injuries/deaths. Air bags break noses and arms, while seat belts can jam, preventing your escape from a burning accordion, while also choking children. Yes... government always wants to do what's best for the people, because they don't trust that the people know what's best for themselves, so they force these regulations.

Government regulations stymie growth - it always has and always will. The car was developed by private entrepreneurs... not the government. Progress comes from free-market capitalism and these free-thinking entrepreneurs... not government oversight/regulation. If you don't think we could have gotten where we are today without the help of government, then I would point to our very history, prior to government over-regulating private industries. Just look at all of the innovations our engineers, scientists and inventors came up with since the birth of this country.

 

The UAW wish they were as strong as you say. There were 2 sides to the labor negotiations. The company agreed to what they figured was in their best interest. If they figured wrong it's on them, not the union.

What have you got against pensions? Should working people just die when they reach retirement age?

Government regulations don't stymie growth. They regulate. It was deregulation that allowed the collapse of 2008 to happen.

 

I don't have anything against pensions, per se. If a company can afford to give them, then do so... That's up to them (and sometimes not up to them, due to unions).

Are you unfamiliar with our history, pre-Social Security and Pensions? People used to work until they died. They didn't typically retire, and if they did, they wouldn't live much longer than 65yrs old. That's why Social Security is such a scam. It's a Ponzi Scheme. FDR and congress knew that the average age of an American citizen back in the 40s was 65yrs old. The retirement age was 65yrs and they'd be allowed to collect Social Security. Ironically, most people wouldn't collect, because they'd die before getting the chance, or if they lived... they only collected for a short while. That money has been used for other means for decades.

Government regulations certainly does stymie growth... it always has. It was government regulations and the forcing of banks to lend to those that couldn't afford houses that led to the collapse of 2008. Government should have kept their nose out of it in 1977, in 1995 and in 1999.