Wall Street got a bailout but not Detroit?

Okay, as you may know, the city of Detroit has filed for bankruptcy earlier this summer. The mayor of the city on the news didn't seemed alright, he was admitting that a federal bailout of the city was unlikely and that he didn't want to put Obama in a tough spot by asking for a bailout. But some people were not as accepting, they were asking for bailouts. One guest I saw on a news show was saying that the feds bailed out the banks and the auto industry, so why not the people of Detroit.

I'm sure some people would think that the banks and the auto industry getting a bailout (actually I think the bailouts were loans, many of which have since been repaid) while Detroit not getting one is unfair, though the auto industry is still somewhat based in Detroit I think so the city should've benefitted somewhat from the auto "bailout". I think the flaw in this argument though is that the auto industry and the financial industry got a bail out because they are national industries and that if they collapsed it would have national consequences, whereas Detroit wouldn't really effect the national economy.

Also if the feds bailout Detroit then it would be unfair to deny bailouts to other cities and towns that may face bankruptcy in the future.

What do you guys think, should the federal government bailout Detroit?

I don't think a bailout is appropriate. But I think there are some things the government could do to help the residents of Detroit such as fixing street lights and fire hydrants (afterall those are public safety things). They can also repeal the HHS mandate, either nationwide or for that area, so that the various religious hospitals and charities and ministries providing aid to the poor, can devote more resources to helping out the people of Detroit instead of having the prospect of fines or litigation related to the mandate hanging over their heads.

If a city cannot manage it's finacials and ends up bankrupt, it should not get a bailout. Those residents who elected the corrupt politicians in the first place have shown that they do not care how their money is spent or where it goes. Why should someone help them? 

Does that mean that I think the banks deserved to get bailed out too? Hell no, they should have been allowed to wither on the vine. Banks have been bailed out more than once over the years and they still haven't learned. Letting banks fail might be a wake up call for those that survive or start up in the future. 

If a city cannot manage it's finacials and ends up bankrupt, it should not get a bailout. Those residents who elected the corrupt politicians in the first place have shown that they do not care how their money is spent or where it goes. Why should someone help them?

Does that mean that I think the banks deserved to get bailed out too? Hell no, they should have been allowed to wither on the vine. Banks have been bailed out more than once over the years and they still haven't learned. Letting banks fail might be a wake up call for those that survive or start up in the future.

WhiteKnight77

I live about 10 minuted from Detroit and if there are any people in the U.S. that DO NOT deserve a bailout, it's the residents of Detroit. They created this mess, now they get to suffer through it. As much as I would love for the city to bounce back, the residents there just don't care about the city. They keep voting in crooks that rob the city blind because as long as the residents are getting their free checks from the city, they don't give a shit. Hell, most of the city's residents still supported Kwame after it was first found out he stole from the city. It's a joke. Detroit isn't going to get any better unless we wash all of the people out of the city. Until that happens, no bankrupcy or bailout can fix anything. it would purely be temporary.Toxic-Seahorse

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Does that mean that I think the banks deserved to get bailed out too? Hell no, they should have been allowed to wither on the vine. Banks have been bailed out more than once over the years and they still haven't learned. Letting banks fail might be a wake up call for those that survive or start up in the future. 

Ackad

One way of letting the banks fail is by bringing the Glass Steagall act. 

I have always been vocal about the government screwing up by deregulating the banking industry (I guess the Glass Steagall Act is what was repealed). Look at who signed off on it, Bill Clinton. Banks should never have been allowed to merge to begin with. Ever since deregulation, banking has gone downhill. The services they offer are nowhere what they used to be.

Detroit filing for bankruptcy is probably the best thing to happen to Detroit in a long time.  It gives them a completely new slate and they are pushing for major infrastructure in areas deemed as un-worthy.  For instance, they finally built a Whole Foods in an area where investors said it would not do well because the community was of lesser privilege, however that Whole Food store has become a major success and they are now pushing more and more higher end stores.  

The story of Detroit is very sad, but I have a feeling they will bounce back up.

If a city cannot manage it's finacials and ends up bankrupt, it should not get a bailout. Those residents who elected the corrupt politicians in the first place have shown that they do not care how their money is spent or where it goes. Why should someone help them? 

Does that mean that I think the banks deserved to get bailed out too? Hell no, they should have been allowed to wither on the vine. Banks have been bailed out more than once over the years and they still haven't learned. Letting banks fail might be a wake up call for those that survive or start up in the future. 

WhiteKnight77

I live about 10 minuted from Detroit and if there are any people in the U.S. that DO NOT deserve a bailout, it's the residents of Detroit. They created this mess, now they get to suffer through it. As much as I would love for the city to bounce back, the residents there just don't care about the city. They keep voting in crooks that rob the city blind because as long as the residents are getting their free checks from the city, they don't give a shit. Hell, most of the city's residents still supported Kwame after it was first found out he stole from the city. It's a joke. Detroit isn't going to get any better unless we wash all of the people out of the city. Until that happens, no bankrupcy or bailout can fix anything. it would purely be temporary.Toxic-Seahorse

Repealing or not enforcing the HHS mandate could help the people of Detroit without really being a bail out because Detroit would not receive any money due to the repeal and the fed's wouldn't spend any money (they would actually save money because they wouldn't be spending it defending the mandate regulation against lawsuits), but it would remove the burden of the mandate (particularly potential fines, and litigation) from businesses, ministries and charities, allowing them to devote more resources to the purpose of their business, charity or ministry, thus potentially creating jobs and helping the people of Detroit (providing a cushion against cuts to social programs that Detroit may have to make in order to reduce their deficit).

Also one thing Detroit could try is create a voucher program for some students to use for private schools, like the DC scholarship program, this could alleviate public school crowding, and take some kids out of the public schools so that the city won't spend as much on those schools.

If they can come up with a plan that will make detroit viable without Fed assistance, and they cut the hell out of pensions, then I say it would be ok.

My fear would be if they do bail out detroit, would the same thing happen in 30 years?

Also one thing Detroit could try is create a voucher program for some students to use for private schools, like the DC scholarship program, this could alleviate public school crowding, and take some kids out of the public schools so that the city won't spend as much on those schools.

whipassmt

If a city cannot manage it's finacials and ends up bankrupt, it should not get a bailout. Those residents who elected the corrupt politicians in the first place have shown that they do not care how their money is spent or where it goes. Why should someone help them? 

Does that mean that I think the banks deserved to get bailed out too? Hell no, they should have been allowed to wither on the vine. Banks have been bailed out more than once over the years and they still haven't learned. Letting banks fail might be a wake up call for those that survive or start up in the future. 

WhiteKnight77

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

Also one thing Detroit could try is create a voucher program for some students to use for private schools, like the DC scholarship program, this could alleviate public school crowding, and take some kids out of the public schools so that the city won't spend as much on those schools.

MakeMeaSammitch

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

If a city cannot manage it's finacials and ends up bankrupt, it should not get a bailout. Those residents who elected the corrupt politicians in the first place have shown that they do not care how their money is spent or where it goes. Why should someone help them?

Does that mean that I think the banks deserved to get bailed out too? Hell no, they should have been allowed to wither on the vine. Banks have been bailed out more than once over the years and they still haven't learned. Letting banks fail might be a wake up call for those that survive or start up in the future.

MakeMeaSammitch

If a city cannot manage it's finacials and ends up bankrupt, it should not get a bailout. Those residents who elected the corrupt politicians in the first place have shown that they do not care how their money is spent or where it goes. Why should someone help them? 

Does that mean that I think the banks deserved to get bailed out too? Hell no, they should have been allowed to wither on the vine. Banks have been bailed out more than once over the years and they still haven't learned. Letting banks fail might be a wake up call for those that survive or start up in the future. 

WhiteKnight77

Completely agree. 

I don't think the banks and auto industry should have received bailouts, nor should Detroit. Let them fail. Where were the bailouts for all the small businesses that failed?

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/26/news/economy/detroit-bankruptcy-arena/

priorities!

good luck with your street lights and corrupt cops robbing people, Detroit.

It's clear to see that Detroit is in the category of not too big to fail.

Detroit is a pretty terrible place. Insanely high violent crime rate, tens of thousands of people leaving every year, ridiculously high unemployment.

However there definitely are some good people there. I listen to a Detroit radio station on my way to work and the dude on it is always talking about stuff to help out the city.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/26/news/economy/detroit-bankruptcy-arena/

priorities!

good luck with your street lights and corrupt cops robbing people, Detroit.

Jimn_tonic

Cities should never use taxpayer funds to pay for private enterprises or entertainment facilities. If a sports team wants a facility, the owner of the team should raise the money himself or pay for it from franchise revenue. If the owner feels that the team needs to move to a different city due to the current one not building something for them, so be it, but the new city should not be using taxpayer money to build that new facility either. Again, the owner or the team needs to pay for it. 

Screw Detroit.xdude85

[QUOTE="Jimn_tonic"]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/26/news/economy/detroit-bankruptcy-arena/

priorities!

good luck with your street lights and corrupt cops robbing people, Detroit.

WhiteKnight77

Cities should never use taxpayer funds to pay for private enterprises or entertainment facilities. If a sports team wants a facility, the owner of the team should raise the money himself or pay for it from franchise revenue. If the owner feels that the team needs to move to a different city due to the current one not building something for them, so be it, but the new city should not be using taxpayer money to build that new facility either. Again, the owner or the team needs to pay for it. 

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Cities should never use taxpayer funds to pay for private enterprises or entertainment facilities. If a sports team wants a facility, the owner of the team should raise the money himself or pay for it from franchise revenue. If the owner feels that the team needs to move to a different city due to the current one not building something for them, so be it, but the new city should not be using taxpayer money to build that new facility either. Again, the owner or the team needs to pay for it. 

Toxic-Seahorse

Any kind of sports arena be it a baskeball court, hockey arena, baseball field, football stadium or race track will bring in tons of money due to the crowds they attract. That still does not mean that taxpayers should fund something for a private entity. In the case of the Atlanta Falcons, Arthur Blank wants taxpayers to fund a new stadium or he will take it elsewhere (north side of Atlanta or the Alpharetta area).

Tentitively, a deal has been reached with a church to move so the new stadium can be built (at taxpayer expense), but this will impact a college (a historically black college at that) in that it could possibly take over some of its buildings. This also means a new tax that people will have to pay at hotels and motels which means that it just isn't locals footing the bill, but travelers from out of town, even if they do not go to any games at the new stadium. That really isn't fair for vacationers or other business travelers with having to pay a higher tax just to get a room in town. Knowing that, I wouldn't get a room in Atlanta any day, but would look for something outside of the city or Fulton County.

Wall Street was bailed out by the U.S. to prevent the entire financial system from collapsing and depriving the country of credit, something that a modern economy cannot survive without. The federal government actually made a profit on the bailouts of the private banks. What benefits would come to the U.S. for bailing out Detroit?

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Cities should never use taxpayer funds to pay for private enterprises or entertainment facilities. If a sports team wants a facility, the owner of the team should raise the money himself or pay for it from franchise revenue. If the owner feels that the team needs to move to a different city due to the current one not building something for them, so be it, but the new city should not be using taxpayer money to build that new facility either. Again, the owner or the team needs to pay for it. 

WhiteKnight77

Any kind of sports arena be it a baskeball court, hockey arena, baseball field, football stadium or race track will bring in tons of money due to the crowds they attract. That still does not mean that taxpayers should fund something for a private entity. In the case of the Atlanta Falcons, Arthur Blank wants taxpayers to fund a new stadium or he will take it elsewhere (north side of Atlanta or the Alpharetta area).

Tentitively, a deal has been reached with a church to move so the new stadium can be built (at taxpayer expense), but this will impact a college (a historically black college at that) in that it could possibly take over some of its buildings. This also means a new tax that people will have to pay at hotels and motels which means that it just isn't locals footing the bill, but travelers from out of town, even if they do not go to any games at the new stadium. That really isn't fair for vacationers or other business travelers with having to pay a higher tax just to get a room in town. Knowing that, I wouldn't get a room in Atlanta any day, but would look for something outside of the city or Fulton County.

Screw Detroit.xdude85

Screw Washington and the stupid, shitty bands that came from there.

The whole situation sucks. I really want to see Detroit make a comeback as downtown Detroit shows so mucxh potential IMO. The cityscape there is just awesome and there is lots of sweet places to go to.

I just don't know if a bailout or bankruptcy is a good idea as it sets a TERRIBLE precedent. What other cities are going to turn around and ask for help if Detroit gets it?

On the other hand, I think a clean slate could be absolutely amazing for the city and something that might potentially save it.

Whatever may happen I just hope to see the city make a comeback in my lifetime. I have no idea what the hell it will take to do that though...

Not comparable. The reasoning behind the bank bailouts was that letting them fail would cause horrible consequences for the entire country. Actually, some people believe that if Lehman was bailed out we would have had a very mild recession. 

Detroit is one city with less than 700,000 people. The only real consequence is that the muni market was effected.

Well, it's hard to say no to people who own you. Detroit does not own Barack Obama. Wall Street does.MrPraline

I think Detroit should get a bail out.

But as with the banks, the politicians and the people being paid large soms of money should be cut off, bring in nw management and really use the money to revive the city, not pay the exucutives.

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Cities should never use taxpayer funds to pay for private enterprises or entertainment facilities. If a sports team wants a facility, the owner of the team should raise the money himself or pay for it from franchise revenue. If the owner feels that the team needs to move to a different city due to the current one not building something for them, so be it, but the new city should not be using taxpayer money to build that new facility either. Again, the owner or the team needs to pay for it.

WhiteKnight77

Any kind of sports arena be it a baskeball court, hockey arena, baseball field, football stadium or race track will bring in tons of money due to the crowds they attract. That still does not mean that taxpayers should fund something for a private entity. In the case of the Atlanta Falcons, Arthur Blank wants taxpayers to fund a new stadium or he will take it elsewhere (north side of Atlanta or the Alpharetta area).

Tentitively, a deal has been reached with a church to move so the new stadium can be built (at taxpayer expense), but this will impact a college (a historically black college at that) in that it could possibly take over some of its buildings. This also means a new tax that people will have to pay at hotels and motels which means that it just isn't locals footing the bill, but travelers from out of town, even if they do not go to any games at the new stadium. That really isn't fair for vacationers or other business travelers with having to pay a higher tax just to get a room in town. Knowing that, I wouldn't get a room in Atlanta any day, but would look for something outside of the city or Fulton County.

We bailed out the banks because it would have lead to a much larger financial collapse and economic downturn. Detroit going bankrupt isn't going to have the same impact as the largest financial institutions on the face of the planet going bankrupt. Is it fair? Probably not, but there's your reason. HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]To be fair, these sports teams, especially the Detroit Red Wings, bring in a ton of revenue for the city and surrounding businesses. Detroit would be much worse off if it wasn't for their sports teams.whipassmt

Any kind of sports arena be it a baskeball court, hockey arena, baseball field, football stadium or race track will bring in tons of money due to the crowds they attract. That still does not mean that taxpayers should fund something for a private entity. In the case of the Atlanta Falcons, Arthur Blank wants taxpayers to fund a new stadium or he will take it elsewhere (north side of Atlanta or the Alpharetta area).

Tentitively, a deal has been reached with a church to move so the new stadium can be built (at taxpayer expense), but this will impact a college (a historically black college at that) in that it could possibly take over some of its buildings. This also means a new tax that people will have to pay at hotels and motels which means that it just isn't locals footing the bill, but travelers from out of town, even if they do not go to any games at the new stadium. That really isn't fair for vacationers or other business travelers with having to pay a higher tax just to get a room in town. Knowing that, I wouldn't get a room in Atlanta any day, but would look for something outside of the city or Fulton County.

Stadium critics accuse city of attempting land grab at Morris Brown College in Atlanta. While the college has filed for bankruptcy, that does not mean that it isn't worth saving. The college is accusing the city of trying to get some of it's land with the deal for the new stadium and the church so the church has a place to rebuild. Morris Brown Dorms In Play Amid Falcons Stadium Talks has another take on it.

Like I said, cities should not get involved in funding a private enterprise such as a sports stadium, no matter how much business it could bring in. Atlanta major league sports teams are notoriously mediocre that cannot close the deal. One good season does not make a team a championship team nor does one championship mean they can do so the following years.  

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Any kind of sports arena be it a baskeball court, hockey arena, baseball field, football stadium or race track will bring in tons of money due to the crowds they attract. That still does not mean that taxpayers should fund something for a private entity. In the case of the Atlanta Falcons, Arthur Blank wants taxpayers to fund a new stadium or he will take it elsewhere (north side of Atlanta or the Alpharetta area).

Tentitively, a deal has been reached with a church to move so the new stadium can be built (at taxpayer expense), but this will impact a college (a historically black college at that) in that it could possibly take over some of its buildings. This also means a new tax that people will have to pay at hotels and motels which means that it just isn't locals footing the bill, but travelers from out of town, even if they do not go to any games at the new stadium. That really isn't fair for vacationers or other business travelers with having to pay a higher tax just to get a room in town. Knowing that, I wouldn't get a room in Atlanta any day, but would look for something outside of the city or Fulton County.

 

Toxic-Seahorse

Sure, I may pay for services that I will not use, but I can agree with most of it. I can never agree with any governmental agency doling out money to build anything for a private enterprise that will only enrich the coffers of the company's owner. Will he pay taxes on said entity? Maybe, maybe not. If the owner is given tax breaks on top of it, that does nothing to enrichen the localities coffers while still costing taxpayers in the long run. As seen in a previously linked article, if a mayor can allocate money to build a stadium, why not give that money to a historic college or even give raises to Atlanta's first responders that are last on a list to get raises and that their wives are protesting for? If the mayor continually states that the city cannot afford raises for police or firefighters, why fund a stadium?

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Any kind of sports arena be it a baskeball court, hockey arena, baseball field, football stadium or race track will bring in tons of money due to the crowds they attract. That still does not mean that taxpayers should fund something for a private entity. In the case of the Atlanta Falcons, Arthur Blank wants taxpayers to fund a new stadium or he will take it elsewhere (north side of Atlanta or the Alpharetta area).

Tentitively, a deal has been reached with a church to move so the new stadium can be built (at taxpayer expense), but this will impact a college (a historically black college at that) in that it could possibly take over some of its buildings. This also means a new tax that people will have to pay at hotels and motels which means that it just isn't locals footing the bill, but travelers from out of town, even if they do not go to any games at the new stadium. That really isn't fair for vacationers or other business travelers with having to pay a higher tax just to get a room in town. Knowing that, I wouldn't get a room in Atlanta any day, but would look for something outside of the city or Fulton County.

 

WhiteKnight77

Sure, I may pay for services that I will not use, but I can agree with most of it. I can never agree with any governmental agency doling out money to build anything for a private enterprise that will only enrich the coffers of the company's owner. Will he pay taxes on said entity? Maybe, maybe not. If the owner is given tax breaks on top of it, that does nothing to enrichen the localities coffers while still costing taxpayers in the long run. As seen in a previously linked article, if a mayor can allocate money to build a stadium, why not give that money to a historic college or even give raises to Atlanta's first responders that are last on a list to get raises and that their wives are protesting for? If the mayor continually states that the city cannot afford raises for police or firefighters, why fund a stadium?

Especially in this case in Detroit. Mike Illich is the owner of both the Detroit Red Wings (who would be getting the new stadium) AND the Detroit Tigers. He's done more for Detroit than almost any other person. It's not like the city is completely funding the stadium, just part of it. This willn ot only house the Red Wings but bring concerts and shows to Downtown Detroit. 

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Sure, I may pay for services that I will not use, but I can agree with most of it. I can never agree with any governmental agency doling out money to build anything for a private enterprise that will only enrich the coffers of the company's owner. Will he pay taxes on said entity? Maybe, maybe not. If the owner is given tax breaks on top of it, that does nothing to enrichen the localities coffers while still costing taxpayers in the long run. As seen in a previously linked article, if a mayor can allocate money to build a stadium, why not give that money to a historic college or even give raises to Atlanta's first responders that are last on a list to get raises and that their wives are protesting for? If the mayor continually states that the city cannot afford raises for police or firefighters, why fund a stadium?

Toxic-Seahorse

Especially in this case in Detroit. Mike Illich is the owner of both the Detroit Red Wings (who would be getting the new stadium) AND the Detroit Tigers. He's done more for Detroit than almost any other person. It's not like the city is completely funding the stadium, just part of it. This willn ot only house the Red Wings but bring concerts and shows to Downtown Detroit. 

That is rich. A stadium does not benefit more people than firefighters or police officers. A stadium, areana or field are entertainment venues that serve x amount of people at one time and not on a daily basis. Police and firefighters serve a whole city, and in the case of Atlanta, that is over 432,000 people, every day. 

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="Jimn_tonic"]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/26/news/economy/detroit-bankruptcy-arena/

priorities!

good luck with your street lights and corrupt cops robbing people, Detroit.

Toxic-Seahorse

Cities should never use taxpayer funds to pay for private enterprises or entertainment facilities. If a sports team wants a facility, the owner of the team should raise the money himself or pay for it from franchise revenue. If the owner feels that the team needs to move to a different city due to the current one not building something for them, so be it, but the new city should not be using taxpayer money to build that new facility either. Again, the owner or the team needs to pay for it. 

[QUOTE="Toxic-Seahorse"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Sure, I may pay for services that I will not use, but I can agree with most of it. I can never agree with any governmental agency doling out money to build anything for a private enterprise that will only enrich the coffers of the company's owner. Will he pay taxes on said entity? Maybe, maybe not. If the owner is given tax breaks on top of it, that does nothing to enrichen the localities coffers while still costing taxpayers in the long run. As seen in a previously linked article, if a mayor can allocate money to build a stadium, why not give that money to a historic college or even give raises to Atlanta's first responders that are last on a list to get raises and that their wives are protesting for? If the mayor continually states that the city cannot afford raises for police or firefighters, why fund a stadium?

WhiteKnight77

Especially in this case in Detroit. Mike Illich is the owner of both the Detroit Red Wings (who would be getting the new stadium) AND the Detroit Tigers. He's done more for Detroit than almost any other person. It's not like the city is completely funding the stadium, just part of it. This willn ot only house the Red Wings but bring concerts and shows to Downtown Detroit. 

That is rich. A stadium does not benefit more people than firefighters or police officers. A stadium, areana or field are entertainment venues that serve x amount of people at one time and not on a daily basis. Police and firefighters serve a whole city, and in the case of Atlanta, that is over 432,000 people, every day.