White House Offers $300 Million to Detroit, Claims It’s Not a Bailout

With the federal government once again nearing the debt ceiling limit, the AFP reports, “The White House offered more than $300 million in aid and support to bankrupt Detroit.”

A statement released by the White House said, “The Obama administration is dedicated to ensuring that the federal government remains an active partner in bringing jobs back into the City, and turning the people of Detroit’s vision of the future into a reality.”

Obama claims the money being given to Detroit is not a bailout, and is committing to $150 Million for the Effective, Coordinated Demolition of Blighted Properties, Neighborhood Revitalization and Redevelopment in Detroit; $30 Million to Improve Public Safety, Reduce Crime, and Decrease Emergency Response Time; and $140 Million in Federal Funds for Improving Transportation Systems for City and Regional Residents.

Interestingly this announcement by the White House came less than a week after former-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said “there’s no more cuts to make… The cupboard is bare.”

One would imagine the $300 million being given to Detroit would be a place to begin cutting federal spending. Instead of attempting to be fiscally responsible with the money stolen from taxpayers, the Congress and White House are claiming they can’t cut the budget, despite the fact that the budget continues to increase, and despite the fact that the federal government continues to go deeper into debt. If anyone in the Congress were serious about cutting the budget, they would immediately offer legislation to withdraw troops from the nearly 1,000 bases around the world, and end foreign aid. After all, the foreign policy of the United States government costs taxpayers nearly $1 trillion per year. This sum includes the nearly $1.5 trillion spent on the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan since 2001. The federal government could also stop “giving” militarized vehicles to city and state governments at a cost of almost $300,000 each. There are many other areas where the federal government could cut spending, however it seems the majority of Congress agrees with Nancy Pelosi’s statement that “there’s no more cuts to make… The cupboard is bare.”

  1. This is another bailout for Detroit, plain and simple. STOP with the endless pensions and get Unions out of your city and you may survive. Otherwise, MOVE. It’s the not the rest of the country’s problem as we have enough of our own.

      1. If you’d read our history with Iran and all the other countries we’ve overthrown in the last 50 years, you’d agree with me on that, as well. We overthrew their government in ’53. :)

        1. Here’s a thought for you. Go back and read that exchange and you will find I never posted a word of disagreement with your version of our history with Iran or any other country. Not one word.

          What I did disagree on was whether the particular action involving the Iranian F-4 was justified and when I pointed out the you were dead wrong on the facts about the F-4 vis-a-vis the drone, you threw a tantrum like a three year old who had just been told she couldn’t have an ice cream cone. You finally ended up stomping your feet and insisting that because the specific word you were looking for, “threaten”, was not used, there was no threat, pretending that the fact that it was attempting to “intercept” the drone did not constitute a threat.

          So now, you’ve not only made up a bunch of BS about the F-4, F-22 and the drone, but you’ve also made up a bunch of BS about the entire nature of the discussion.

          1. Once again, you’re wrong. You resort to name calling and cursing, while trying to convince someone they are “having a tantrum like a three year old”. We must have different versions of what tantrums look like. Even here, you’ve resorted to the same tactics and I never fall for them. I’m an adult.

            Second, my entire point was that if that pilot felt threatened he wouldn’t showboat. Not once. He didn’t feel threatened, he felt like a bully and acted like one. And there was zero proof of anything in that article, but it doesn’t take much anymore for Americans to pound the drums of “We’re so awesome and you will bow before us”. Again, we’re not the boss of everyone, yet we’ve been acting that way for almost 50 years. It’s time we shut up and take care of business. Maybe you haven’t heard, but our government is screwed. We have MUCH bigger fish to fry that some silly Iranian who knows good and well he stands no chance against American pilots. Ever.

            And as I said there, I couldn’t care less about specifics on planes. It’s semantics and I just flat couldn’t care less as it adds nothing to the discussion and it’s not the point. At the end of the day, some American pilot showboated and told another pilot to “go home” and leave international air space. He was out of line, but you keep beating those drums. America is broke, war torn and with a government that is on the brink of completely shutting down. We’re screwed up and it’s time we get our crap together. That’s never going to happen as long as we continue to flop around chasing Iranians who are under NO illusions that the US is a bigger fish in the pond than they are. We need to stop being bullies and get down to taking care of business. Period.

          2. “Second, my entire point was that if that pilot felt threatened he wouldn’t showboat.”

            As I said before, nobody ever claimed the pilot felt threatened. He didn’t. He, and almost certainly his airborne controller, felt that the pilotless drone was threatened and they warned the intercepting F-4 away from the drone.

            “And there was zero proof of anything in that article”

            If proof is the standard, there is certainly at least as much in the article as there is in the version you have invented.

            “We have MUCH bigger fish to fry that some silly Iranian who knows good and well he stands no chance against American pilots”

            He wasn’t intercepting American pilots, he didn’t even know they were there. He was intercepting an unmanned drone.

            “And as I said there, I couldn’t care less about specifics on planes.”

            Obviously, but that didn’t stop you from creating a fictitious version of events that was based on your imaginary version of the capabilities of the plane.

            “It’s semantics and I just flat couldn’t care less as it adds nothing to the discussion”

            No, its facts, not semantics, and your whole version of events, at least as you initially created it, was dependent upon those facts, which you had wrong.

            I have finally realized that you really don’t have the basic knowledge to understand what happened here. Beyond that, you have made a decision to be willfully ignorant and I’m bored with trying to teach someone who doesn’t understand and won’t understand. I would, however, be willing to bet that if the plane that was being intercepted was an airliner on which you were a passenger instead of an unmanned (and likely unarmed) drone, you’d have been delighted to have the F-22 intervene.

          3. Then stop stalking me. I don’t care what your opinion is, and I still believe mine is correct. Go home. :)

%d bloggers like this: