Posted on 07/13/2016 4:10:26 AM PDT by detective
The city of Detroit, now famous as an economic disaster, began its decline when it lost jobs. This was accompanied by a loss of population, a rapid rise in poverty, increasing dependence upon federal entitlement programs and an unstoppable downward economic spiral.
Puerto Rico is now undergoing an economic collapse sparked not by population loss but by excessive government spending. Chicago is in the same situation. Government overspending and over taxation comes first, population loss follows.
Chicago is technically bankrupt. Its expenditures have exceeded its receipts for about ten years. All big rust belt cities in the Midwest, East, and Northeast have been losing population since 1950. Detroit’s population has dropped from 1.85 million to 800,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Why are “we” going to change anything in Chicago. Local issue.
As Chicago “dies”, many of the “survivors” have migrated to Wisconsin. Pray for us!
I laugh at their LIB-induced situation. Bwahahahahahahaha.
I laugh at their LIB-induced situation. Bwahahahahahahaha.
When the productive are responsible for the sloths of society and gubmit demands it, this is the result.
We’ll be Brazil in 2 years. Venezuela in 5.
If Obama appointed a Governor, then until they are solvent again would be forever.
Come to think of it, didn't he appoint Rahm Emanuel? ;-)
We need chicago and detroit as solid proof of the failure of liberalism and Chicago is concrete proof of the failure of gun control.
ouch. I have been in great places in social in the 0s when the government (HUD) moved probationers and parolees and welfare families from south central LA into perfectly good cites and ruined them. Classic examples, Moreno Valley, 1990s, Pomona after the Watts riot.
Now Obama is trying to “economically integrate” every city in the US and/or dump a bunch of Somalis, illegals and others from terrorist hellholes into every city in the country.
Bookmark
Ever been to some places in California?
“Why did Rahm want that job?”
Democrat politicians are all about money and power - personal money for themselves and personal power for themselves, that is (see, for example, the Clintons).
Rahm parlayed his connections with the Clintons into a job at a Chicago investment firm, at which he made some $16 million dollars (despite having no professional training in business). He was later appointed to the Board of Directors of Freddie Mac, where he pulled in some more bucks. So he’d taken care of the money end.
Mayor of Chicago was the power part - the machine dropped that position in his lap, despite the fact that he’d had no real residency in the city during the time required for his eligibility to run for that office.
If he had to run again today, he’d probably get tossed, despite the machine - the blacks hate him, the hispanics hate him, the teachers hate him, the cops hate him, and most of the remaining whites hate him - he’s an arrogant little sh!t and everybody knows it. The business community that profits from cronyism and the ward heelers who steer benefits to their constituencies are what kept in power in the last go round.
No Congressmen, Senators or votes in the Electoral College?
And all those Chicagoan’s voted for their self-immolation. I have no sympathy at all for them.
SIX US Presidents tried to do so. Those SIX US Presidents were assassinated or died under 'mysterious circumstances".
Thanks. I didn’t know all the details.
ping
I live in Wheeling, Illinois. Why do so many Chicago voters vote for liberal Democrats, although, during most of the time that the Democrats have been in power, the city has had high tax rates, high crime rates, and high unemployment rates?
“Why do so many Chicago voters vote for liberal Democrats . . .”
For what it’s worth, my theories - there’s no single factor, but a combination of many factors:
1) There’s no viable opposition - the GOP in the city has been effectively destroyed (every member of the city council is a donkey) - that’s Madigan’s vision for Illinois, and Obama’s vision for the country: no opposition.
2) Machine organization. You want anything done at street level, you support the Dems. My dad lived in the city - 40 years ago he refused to put a sign for an aldermanic candidate on our lawn; the next week, our garbage wasn’t collected (and that continued for months).
3) Minorities. Too many blacks and hispanics just blindly follow the lead of their local precinct captains, ministers and activists, all of whom get table scraps from the scum at the top of the machine.
4) Affluent whites. They vote democrat because they’re better than everybody else and they’re smarter than everybody else, don’t you know, and of course anyone who’s not liberal is one step removed from being a Nazi. The city’s falling apart around them, but liberalism is their religion, and no way they’ll buck the democrats.
5) An evaporating middle class (both white and black): they’ve got enough sense to care about there families above all else, and rather than fight a rigged game in the city, they’ll head out to DuPage or Lake County (Indiana or Wisconsin if they can swing it). They can see through the donkey bull-pucky, but it makes more sense to just clear out.
6) The unions The union leadership is totally in bed with the machine, and as a result, most of the rank-and-file goes along as well, even as their neighborhoods turn to donkey-dung.
7) A short-sighted and selfish business community; you want anything done in the city (permitting, variances, utility upkeep. etc), you kiss the behind of the party. No clout, no profits; cronyism reigns, another tactic Obama has imported.
I hate to pessimistic (I loved the city when I lived there), but it’s gotten so out-of-hand, I think it will just have to degenerate to Detroit, and then maybe we can start all over again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.