It saddens me that I could make a post about people's opinion on kim kardashian and it would go to page 10 without effort, yet, a thread like this struggles to get past page 1. You people are the reason this is happening.
It saddens me that I could make a post about people's opinion on kim kardashian and it would go to page 10 without effort, yet, a thread like this struggles to get past page 1. You people are the reason this is happening.
America meet Seno
Seno meet America.
Eh, there are pros and cons to it. Sure, it's entirely possible a CEO would give out favors and shit and all that jazz (however, as an aside, is that so different from now with non-CEO's as elected officials?). However, you also have someone interested in BALANCING THE BUDGET in charge. And what's the biggest real problem we have as a nation? Budget issues. They're so huge it's amazing we're still a superpower. Hell, sometimes I think it's so bad the only reason we're still a superpower is because we call ourselves a superpower.
One of the issues we have with elected officials is they spend half their time (or more!) making sure they have nice things to show their voters to get them to vote back in. So they're more focused on getting re-elected then actually fixing shit. A CEO would be able to go back into the business world and make MORE MONEY, so while they're in office they're more likely to worry about doing their job.
CEOs are the model of fiscal responsibility.
didn't we just have a huge fucking meltdown in large part because of overreaching, incompetent and shady CEOs in some of the countries largest businesses? did the last three years not happen? did I dream it up?
Perhaps King Snyder will allow me a job here in Michigan. All heil!
isn't that the point of the free market system the GOP clamor about? shut the fuck up you have no idea how stupid you sound.
wheres the tea party in this?
ah ok nvm thenThe racial makeup of the city was 92.40% African American
I didn't know that agreeing with one thing that one person from the party does mean I agree with all of their ideas and policies
If a city government is failing to provide for the best interests of its people, I don't think it's unreasonable at all for the state government to step in. Someone has to do it. I thought that's what governments are supposed to be for.
Benton Harbor is a dump. I'm as liberal as they come, but it's hard to be raging over this when that place is a walking example of democracy failure. I know, I know, broader implications and what-not, but this honestly couldn't be happening to a better shit hole.
But hey, why would you ever live in Michigan? Worst place ever.
I'm not calling you out for being conservative. I'm calling you out for parroting stupid shit the talking heads say. Two bailouts and a stimulus later we still knee deep in shit. Talking heads response to that? "..It would have been worse.."
I honestly don't care about whats happening in Benton Harbor just find it amusing that we have a slap to the face of our constitutionally limited government and no one bats an eye. I lost all of the previous notions that were ingrained during my youth of how awesome our country is compared to the rest of the world.
That small government sure is big and intrusive.
This isn't so much about Benton Harbor as it is for what it stands - an obvious breach of the constitution/people's voting rights. "Your elected officials mean shit because we can declare a deficit and hand pick someone to override their authority and "handle" the situation."
But this has nothing to do with a bailout or a stimulus. And as far I know, the talking heads are as up-in-arms about it as everyone else seems to be (I don't know, I don't follow MSM because of all the stupid). If anything it's the opposite, since the EFM wants to cut a lot of the spending that the local government was running up on the Michigan state government's dollar. You can only beg the state for so much money while assuring them your financials are fine before they call you out on it and realize how shit your situation really is.
Our "constitutionally limited" federal government is not involved in this at all. Only the state government, which doesn't have those limitations when dealing with cities.
They've been running a steep deficit for a while now and lying about it. Even the mayor admits it.Originally Posted by Kurokikaze
It's not unconstitutional. If the federal government tried this on a state it would be, but state constitutions are a lot different. It is completely constitutional for a state to act this way, because they "own" the cities. States have rights and protections from the federal government. Cities don't. So there is no slippery slope, unless the US Constitution is amended.
Also, the EFM was appointed by the previous governor (a democrat), not Snyder. And only 17% of BH bothered to show up to the last election, so the whole democracy thing wasn't working too well there anyway apparently.
I brought up the bailouts and the stimulus because the same rhetoric was being used then as it is today with the debt ceiling and you're using it here.
Each state has a state constitution that it needs to adhere too. Seno posted the law that was past and this was a clear slap in the face to it.
I feel like I'm in 8th grade government class again ffs