A preliminary review by Michigan has found that Detroit has a "serious financial problem," with...

A preliminary review by Michigan has found that Detroit has a "serious financial problem," with reporting problems causing cash-flow projections to significantly oscillate on a monthly basis. The review could lead to the declaration of a fiscal emergency and prompt the appointment of an emergency financial manager. A municipal filing for bankruptcy protection, the biggest in U.S. history, could ultimately ensue. (previous)

From other sites
Comments (30)
  • davidbdc
    , contributor
    Comments (3194) | Send Message
    Don't need to waste any more money doing studies - its called totally corrupt and inept mismanagement and being broke.


    Let them declare BK - along with it should be sweeping out all elected city officials. Just don't bail them out. Let any bonds default, clean out all debt and future obligations and start over. Bondholders need to start scrutinizing the governments of the state and local bonds they invest in.
    16 Dec 2012, 04:13 AM Reply Like
  • Ray Lopez
    , contributor
    Comments (1821) | Send Message
    +1 from me, but I'm afraid US taxpayers will have to take the hit, once again. All in the best interests of Wall Street, since 'what's good for Wall Street (and GM, or GMAC) is good for America' says Lord Blankfiend.
    16 Dec 2012, 05:43 PM Reply Like
  • caupachow
    , contributor
    Comments (523) | Send Message
    davidbdc, do you know who the president is? I'm afraid not only will Detroit get bailed out but IL and CA too. All before 2016. The sad thing is half of the voters will think that's a good thing.
    16 Dec 2012, 05:53 AM Reply Like
  • brachiosaurus
    , contributor
    Comments (226) | Send Message
    Well, it doesn't matter who the President is, but red states, by and large, get bailed out every single year.
    Every single year, you can count on states like Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Alaska receiving far more in Federal spending than they actually pay in Federal taxes. Contrast that with states like Michigan, Illinois, and California, which continually send more in Federal tax dollars than they receive in spending.
    Despite your fears, the facts show that the real moochers are the Red states.
    16 Dec 2012, 11:45 PM Reply Like
  • brachiosaurus
    , contributor
    Comments (226) | Send Message
    oh the facts... oh they hurt...
    16 Dec 2012, 11:54 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
    Brach, the real moochers would be the states sucking up the spending on housing assistance, welfare, food stamps, etc.. When you look at those figures the blue states are the moochers getting the bailouts.




    More info here. It's not surprising which Presidential candidate the moochers went for:


    "Of the 17 states and D.C. where per capita welfare spending is above the U.S. average, Obama won 16, Romney only two (Alaska and Wyoming). Of the 33 states with below-average welfare spending, Romney won 22 and Obama 11. Of the ten states with the least welfare spending, Obama won two, barely: Virginia, with its massive colony of federal workers in the north, and Florida, with its heavy concentration of seniors drawing Social Security and Medicare entitlements.


    Interestingly, of the 17 states with above-average per capita welfare spending, only two (Nevada and Wyoming) have right-to-work laws. Although there may be many reasons for this, one is that unions act as cartels, restricting labor's access to the market and preventing those with marginal skills from becoming employed, thus inflating the ranks of those dependent on government."
    17 Dec 2012, 01:34 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4581) | Send Message
    I'll play with you Cin.


    "Obama Wins 8 of 10 Wealthiest Counties in US"
    17 Dec 2012, 09:51 AM Reply Like
  • brachiosaurus
    , contributor
    Comments (226) | Send Message
    You don't understand what mooching is. You see the blue states pay for what they receive--- in fact they pay far more in taxes than the services that they receive. That was the point of the data I linked to. The red states don't even come close. Again, look at the data. Since the early 80s, reliably red states receive more from the Feds than they pay. While the opposite is true of blue states.
    Red states are bailed out by the Federal Gov, each and every year.
    17 Dec 2012, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
    kmi, nothing there contradicts that the blue states are the moochers. In fact if you'll pay attention to your own source, many of the wealthiest counties surround D.C. Do you have any clue as to why they are wealthy and where that wealth originates?
    17 Dec 2012, 05:10 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
    No they don't, and you don't bother to read the fine print on your own source. Those "taxes paid" includes borrowing, so they're not actual taxes paid. It would be more accurate to say that the blue state moochers are doing a lot of borrowing to finance what they're getting back.


    Secondly, you have to look at what the federal spending is paying for, to know who is and who is not mooching. Not all federal spending is equal. You don't know, and it's clear you don't care to know because you don't like the answer you're going to get. If you are spending on welfare then you're mooching. If the spending is on military installations, guarding the coastline, building interstate highways that are conduits, then you can't claim that's equivalent to just paying deadbeats to lay about.
    17 Dec 2012, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • brachiosaurus
    , contributor
    Comments (226) | Send Message
    You don't understand the fine print. The tax liability of the debt is assigned to the states proportionally to their tax burden. Red states proportionally receive more spending, and proportionally pay less in taxes. The facts are simple, even if you willfully misunderstand them.
    17 Dec 2012, 05:39 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
    It's the tax burden (which includes the borrowing) that is assigned proportionally based on the actual tax receipts, so proportionally they're responsible for more of the borrowing. So if they're doing most of the borrowing, and most of the welfare is going to them, then they're the moochers.


    The biggest error you made is assuming all spending is equal. In 2010 about 41% of what was spent in Alaska was spent by the Dept of Defense. I don't believe that even includes the Coast Guard, which is under the Dept of Homeland Security now.


    17 Dec 2012, 09:17 PM Reply Like
  • bukdow
    , contributor
    Comments (860) | Send Message
    The city "leaders" in Detroit are already calling for Obama to bail them out ("bring home the bacon") because for no other reason than they voted for him. Obamaphone corruption in America is just beginning.
    16 Dec 2012, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9113) | Send Message
    Well Duh. This is news?
    16 Dec 2012, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • winningtrader
    , contributor
    Comments (2459) | Send Message
    Detroit is having financial problems? Nothing that the FED can't fix with some money printing. Not to worry.
    16 Dec 2012, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • John ODonnell
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
    All revenue bills begin in the House of Representatives per the US Constitution; and per House rules the Ways and Means Committee. As a result, any "bailout" would neccessarily be bipartisan.
    16 Dec 2012, 02:58 PM Reply Like
  • chriff
    , contributor
    Comments (117) | Send Message
    It's surprisingly shocking to see someone on this site use real-world facts about politics instead of paranoid illusions about a man (Obama or Bernanke) they distrust. Well done!
    16 Dec 2012, 04:39 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
    Given that Obama did the GM bailout without Congressional approval there's no reason to believe that he won't try the same here. Obama has shown he's willing to act as dictator by abusing the Executive Order power if it pays off his supporters.
    16 Dec 2012, 06:51 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4581) | Send Message
    Yes, yes, he is following in the footsteps of his predecessor in doing end-runs around Congress and usurping powers for the Presidency.






    And of course, the GM bailout was initiated by Bush, which you forget over and over.... “Sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy,” said the ex-President.... “I didn’t want there to be 21% unemployment,” he stressed, echoing forecasts at the time that the loss of GM, Ford and the automotive lenders also covered by the bailout could lead to the loss of 1 million jobs." http://bit.ly/VLEaKU


    And the timeline:


    On December 11, 2008, the House of Representatives buckled under the automakers' demands, voting (largely along party lines) in favor of a $14 billion bailout. The next day, however, the Senate voted down the legislation. A week later, lame-duck President George W. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson intervened. Announcing that the administration would offer the automakers loans with terms similar to the ones Congress had voted down, Bush gave GM and Chrysler three months to develop restructuring plans and prove they could become viable companies. To help the automakers through that phase (and a possible Chapter 11 bankruptcy), the administration extended them $17.4 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which had originally been set up to buy assets and equities from the financial sector in the wake of the mortgage crisis.
    17 Dec 2012, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (6187) | Send Message
    No kmi, he didn't follow in the footsteps of what Bush did. He didn't get Congressional approval because he knew by the time he was asking for it that further bailouts were unpopular with the public and his request wouldn't pass Congress, particularly in the amount he needed. So instead he raided TARP funds although it was illegal and he was advised it was illegal.


    You get an 'A' for another attempt to spin a lie, but an 'F' for execution.
    17 Dec 2012, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (9508) | Send Message
    I am shocked. Things have been going so well for the folks in Detroit. The housing market is rebounding and there are plenty of job opportunities. It appears that Detroit is a wonderful place to live.


    Wrong Detroit. I was thinking of Detroit, Texas. My fault.


    Did they really have to study Detroit, Michigan to find out that things are in rough shape there?
    16 Dec 2012, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • untrusting investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9903) | Send Message
    Maybe the Fed can buy up all the Detroit debt and cut their interest rate to .001%. Since the Fed is hell bent on printing money to infinity, they might as well bail out Detroit as well.
    16 Dec 2012, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • Heinz Doofenshmirtz
    , contributor
    Comments (308) | Send Message
    In other breaking news, scientists predict that it will be dark tonight.
    16 Dec 2012, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1297) | Send Message
    no s***.
    16 Dec 2012, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • phxcrane
    , contributor
    Comments (751) | Send Message
    Detroit a good old Democratic/Union stronghold. That says it all.
    16 Dec 2012, 08:30 PM Reply Like
  • TangoOscar
    , contributor
    Comments (367) | Send Message
    Couldn't have happened to a nicer group of people.
    16 Dec 2012, 09:15 PM Reply Like
  • divinecomedy
    , contributor
    Comments (465) | Send Message
    At least they have the Lions!!
    16 Dec 2012, 10:26 PM Reply Like
  • Jdeboer87
    , contributor
    Comments (330) | Send Message
    Detroit is one of the poorest cities in America, with significant education issues. Much of this is a result of the complete break-down in the family structure. The city itself cannot support itself with income from the people that live their and businesses don't want to locate their due to the crime and the tax structure. It is a sad situation. We need to find a way to reinvest is this once great city.
    17 Dec 2012, 06:01 AM Reply Like
  • BruceInKY
    , contributor
    Comments (445) | Send Message
    "We need to find a way to reinvest is this once great city."


    I'd rather be holding shares of Kodak.
    17 Dec 2012, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • change is the only constant
    , contributor
    Comments (2242) | Send Message
    Let them all eat cake! (Except Wall street Banks (and bankers) of course!!)
    17 Dec 2012, 07:10 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs