What do you think?

Question

I recently watched a Michael Moore movie about Flint, Michigan called Roger and Me. I talked about how devastating a GM plant closing was on the Flint community. The movie was ok, albeit quite biased for a documentary. Most of it involved the evictions, unemployment, and poverty caused by the closings. Michael apparent thought that he could solve these problems by getting the chairman of GM to come see the situation. Of course he didn't succeed. The city of Flint also tried opening entertainment centers in the hope of attracting tourists and creating new jobs for the impoverished. The centers went bankrupt in months.
Now, I want to ask you, if you were the mayor/leader of an area that has suffered a catastrophe like that of Flint Michigan. (any event that results in deaths, damages, umemployment, etc like a hurricane or business closing), what would you do to fix the situation? Who would be responisble for taking care of the damage costs and the poor? The rich? The middle class?

I don't want hateful or spiteful answers. Or, if you are going to give them anyway, back your answer up with reason. That goes for all answers. Poverty is an important issue in the U.S. and everywhere else. What would YOU plan to do (new laws, etc) to help those below the poverty line? Would you divide the responsibility up between the taxpayers and those who need help? Maybe you could create something similar to the Welfare-to-Work program. Give me your ideas!

Answer 1

I just want to comment that this was not a documentary. Michael Moore uses interviews and film footage to create an interesting film and show his point of view. Although there is truth mixed in, even Mr. Moore admits that his films are not documentaries. Do not believe everything you see.

Answer 2

"Roger and Me" was Moore's first documentary. A documentary is not required to be "fair and balanced," just as Fox News isn't required to be fair and balanced. At least Moore doesn't pretend to be fair and balanced. He is documenting his actions and the actions and words of others. If you think that's unfair, well, so is corporate greed, which tends to to be Moore's point.

Corporations have always gotten away with not paying for the damage they do to the neighborhoods and communities they work in. The excuse always is that they are responsible for keeping jobs in the area and for paying real estate taxes. But those environmental costs come due at some point, and usually the corporation has decided or decides at that point to move on to a better environment (for them) and to hell with their former "home."

Then the politicians who promised to cut taxes and the citizens who voted to cut taxes change their minds and want the government to pay for all the corporate damages and all the things that still need to be done to keep up the infrastructure. They want OTHER taxpayers to pay, because they like not paying taxes for their own expenses. (See what happened after Katrina? Mississippi and Louisiana cut taxes, then wanted federal taxpayers to foot the bill.)

We have to learn that we have to all be responsible for the expenses of a civilized society, and that taxes are the costs of civilization. Greed may good for the greedy as long as the rest of us let them get away with not paying their fair share, but in the long run, it's the poor and the middle class who pay the most. And that's Moore's point.

Answer 3

Many businesses have had a detrimental effect on the cities and states in which they operate. One must realize that all good things tend to come to an end, and it is not neccssarily anyones fault. We all have to participate in our well being especially when it comes to education that way you have options. I have many family member who wish they went to school when they had the chance. But when you can drop out of high school and get a job making 40K would you?

Answer 4

Quite frankly, no one is "responsible" in that sense. The plant left and they were free to do so. If I were the mayor, I would have immediately begun negotiations with big industry. I would have involved the state in the negotiations. Frequently, states offer LARGE tax breaks, while the cities offer low cost utilities, fire & hazard protection, etc. Big Industry rarely turns this down, but it is a lengthy negotiating process. If you want to see it in Action, look at the I-85 Corridor in Alabama.