And how many corrupt mayors have we had?

This is taking the worst possible case of what happened in the past and saying that will happen to the rest of the U.S. if liberal policies/public assistance are enacted in the present or the future.

I can hear my college professors screaming 'logical fallacy!'

Is the problem of Detroit a democrat vs. republican thing?  I believe, as Mumble stated, that white flight was the largest contributing factor.  Combined then with A.) corrupt mayor after corrupt mayor, who, despite being democrat were greedy and padded their own wallets with federal money. B.) corrupt union officials.

Entitlement was and still is an issue, however I believe the sense of entitlement came after the first major blows had already been struck.  I went to school and worked along Cass Ave, in the area around the Masonic Temple.  In my years there, I saw a people who largely refused to help themselves, especially among the young adults and early middle-aged.

Liberal policies/government assistance... this post is growing too long, but I was about to contrast the social/ethical contrast of other communities around the world with those of Detroit.

Funny there were many other cities at the time that had a similar racial, political make up as Detroit, yet somehow blacks never displaced whites. Could it be that simple entitlement programs (cheap housing, lax welfare) that favored minorities drew large amounts of those folks to peck at the freebies. Of course with the good come the bad, and when crime rises I don't care who you are, you want to get away from it (call it racism if that label suits you). Jobs were still paying high at the time (through the 60's) on a national average, and of course minorities had some of those jobs as well. Maybe blacks are more tolerant of black on black crime, than whites are, anyones guess.  But, something had to start the migration of minorities into the city. Some how I don't think it was a sign saying "Come to Detroit, with a racist Republican population and a Liberal Democrat government".

Nope it was the crumbs of entitlement programs used by the Democrat's since after the Civil War to keep what they could no longer own. Move the low wage folks in to feed the Unions and auto companies (they weren't quite as hostile to each other back then) with the promise of cheep housing and a solid "D" voter base. I'm sure the mass exodus of solid taxpayers was not an expected by product. They left the entitlement valve open a little too wide, a little too long IMO.

The sad thing is they are hell bent to repeat the same thing nationally. This time the bait is set for more than poor minorities. The base of folks wanting entitlements has grown across racial lines, and if he can get some, why can't I mentality has set in. Of course this is all at the pleasure of the modern day plantation owners, showing their benevolent generosity (of other peoples money of course) to the grateful masses.

The race issue is being used as a scapegoat here, just like the administration does.  But it does have a relation to liberalism as this is what they do to get votes from people.

It's not just Detroit, look at other entitlement cities such as New Orleans and you will see the similar effects.  Liberalism is dangerous.

New Orleans is a mess...and that was before Katrina.

I didn't mention you, stop being so defensive.

Yes.  I was in "Detroit" Virginia, "Detroit" California, "Detroit" NJ, and of course "Detroit" Michigan (among many).  My opinion?  Counts the same as yours (except I dont pretend I know it all),  I have seen detroit and the other cities.  I have lived in or around them most of my life.  The commonality was the ability - facilitated by that great detroit product - of people to chose what they wanted.  And they chose with their money.  They (like most sane people) chose to maximize the return on their money.  They work hard for it, and like to keep as much of it as possible to spend on the things that improve their life the most.

And believe it or not, most people (of all races, not just white, black or chartreuse) chose to move to safe environments that allow them to live as they see fit.  IN the common vernacular, the suburbs.  Taxes are lower, services (basic) are comparable, and the onerous taxes and rules are left behind in the rotting core of the past paradigm cities.

In other words, your opinion is stupid.  But I would expect no less from mr, know it all.  I can see that any rational discussion with you is fruitless as you think you know it all, and all revolves around your idealism of racism (which you apparently support), socialism and the greed of anyone who does not agree with you.

The truth is the vast majority (you know those that elected a minority president) are not racists.  But they are not stupid either.  Apparently you would have us believe that Michigan is a bastion of the KKK.  It may be, but then it is people like you that make it a fertile feeding ground up there - vowing to vote for anyone - no matter how heinous - as long as they do not utter the magic words.

I'm here NOW.  Are you?  

Seriously though, is that your argument? You were there?  

Since I live here, I have the opportunity to talk to a lot of people who "were there". 

One of the recurring themes regarding "white flight" has to do with the 1967 race riot.  The question is what led to the race riot in the first place.

By this reasoning, every major city should have this problem.

And why were they afraid?

In 1961, Detroit had a high population of blacks (using your favorite source, Wikipedia, paints Detroit has a haven of middle class blacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot). 

But a decade of "the great society" and other social welfare programs helped create a dependent class. Why work when you could get paid to sit around? And with all that free time, why not have some out of wedlock children? 

White flight, like I said, was a SYMPTOM. 

And white flight caused Detroit to look like Beirut? Really? So without whites, civilization is destroyed? A war zone?

I know you aren't intending to come across as racist but do you realize how patronizing of blacks you are being here?  

If you pay people not to work, you will attract people who don't want to work.

The kind of person who thinks it's okay to live off the labor of others is soon going to feel entitled to more and more when that behavior is constantly reinforced.

Detroit's liberal policies encouraged the least productive people to move there.  The color of their skin is irrelevant and reeks of racism imo. Protected by unions, the parasite class slowly displaced the productive class who moved elsewhere for opportunities based on merit and hard work.

Eventually, corruption and time made Detroit's gravy train come to an end and the result is seen in the video.

This doesn't require some sort of PhD to understand. People who work hard tend to resent those who live off their hard work and will eventually move to where their work will be appreciated and rewarded.  

That's why socialist countries (truly socialist countries, not glorified city states like some European countries) end up with poorer and poorer standards of living, especially if they can move elsewhere easily -- like you can in the US.

After reading this scathing expose' of Wiki,

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx

I will not use it for more than a lead to a reference in the future.  Indeed, the research I have done on it indicates that if you are not looking for a number, it is virtually useless for anything else.

But not all were Republicans basically making them racist none the less.

So what you're saying is Blacks are responsible for Detroits downfall?

Interesting, considering Democrats are the ones who love to use the race card, as you just did. It's always about party when race is involved. At least according to Democrats.

So what you are saying is that you spoke to every person in Detroit, you saw with your own eyes and heard with your own ears how everyone who left was because of racism and not necessarily because of the policies? Are you stating that Blacks don't know how to run a city? Are you saying without Whites cities will crumble? I'm curious, why did you chose to change this into a race issue when the article was about policies? As many here said, if the fact that race was what made people leave then wouldn't this have had a similar effect on onther cities and states?

Do you have anything to say about the policies themselves or is avoiding the errors another Democrat strategy?

The irony of his ignorance is that just a few short years after his claim of republicans in Michigan being racists, they passed the civil Rights act over the objection of democrats.

And of course 100 years earlier, the republicans abolished the institution of slavery, while the democrats fought tooth and nail to preserve it.  Indeed, the only registered member of the KKK that sits in congress is a democrat.

I have to hand it to Democrats, they have really, effectively twisted the race issue around in their favor over the years so that many, especially and surprisingly minorities believe don't believe the truth of it anymore. It goes to show entitlements trump history. IMO it would be like the Jews believing Nazis have their best intrest at heart today. Maybe a little strong, but you get the gist.

I would say that it just goes to show that lendrieu is the exception, and most democrats are cheap lays.