Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Detroit_News)   Your tax dollars at work: A Detroit grant helps low-income people buy business attire for job interviews. Two people, be exact. For a measly $5.5 million. Each   (detroitnews.com) divider line
    More: Fail, incomes  
•       •       •

2992 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2012 at 5:29 AM (9 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



100 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-03-08 12:05:00 AM  
Among the most telling findings, which will be discussed today during a City Council committee meeting, is that a third-party contractor advanced $148,000 to a downtown Detroit clothing store and opened an account, but did not include the city on the account.

The $11 million was the entire grant, not the section for the clothing
 
2012-03-08 12:14:44 AM  
Okay... so you take someone who is low-income and dress them in clothes they can't afford... for what purpose? To impress a recruiter with their clothing? Unless their job is going to be modeling clothes, what good does that do?
 
2012-03-08 12:20:43 AM  

Fark Me To Tears: Okay... so you take someone who is low-income and dress them in clothes they can't afford... for what purpose? To impress a recruiter with their clothing? Unless their job is going to be modeling clothes, what good does that do?


I guess you go to job interviews in sweats and a t-shirt.
 
2012-03-08 12:21:25 AM  

Fark Me To Tears: Okay... so you take someone who is low-income and dress them in clothes they can't afford... for what purpose? To impress a recruiter with their clothing? Unless their job is going to be modeling clothes, what good does that do?


Even for "blue-collar" jobs with a required uniform that gets filthy, employers expect you to look respectable in the interviews, or at least looking respectable will make a good impression on the interviewer, and good impressions go a long way in getting a job.

Do you seriously think janitors show up for interviews wearing overalls and a wife-beater?
 
2012-03-08 1:53:06 AM  

Fark Me To Tears: Okay... so you take someone who is low-income and dress them in clothes they can't afford... for what purpose? To impress a recruiter with their clothing? Unless their job is going to be modeling clothes, what good does that do?


I just wanted to win that farking bet with Pickering. Get off my ass.
 
2012-03-08 3:54:04 AM  
Detroit City Council making poor decisions? The hell you say!
 
2012-03-08 4:44:30 AM  
So, government allocates money because buying someone a suit to get a job is cheaper than welfare. Sounds good except government is so broken it gives six figures to a store for outfitting two customers. There's only one fix to this problem - raise taxes to pay for more bureacracy.
 
2012-03-08 5:33:33 AM  

Triumph: So, government allocates money because buying someone a suit to get a job is cheaper than welfare. Sounds good except government is so broken it gives six figures to a store for outfitting two customers. There's only one fix to this problem - raise taxes to pay for more bureacracy.


-5/10
 
2012-03-08 5:34:33 AM  
Part of an $11 million grant intended to provide business attire to 400 low-income job-seekers ...

Unholy fark... That's... $27.5k per person. What the hell. Even with the intended results they were better off handing out $500 suits to the first 22,000 people who turned up.

This is why Detroit needs to be torn down and the people scattered to the four winds. And the politicians cast in bronze.
 
2012-03-08 5:41:25 AM  
fta: According to the audit, the DHS was supposed to help 400 people between October 2010 and September 2011 but instead served only two.

Great idea, piss poor implementation.

Somebody's head should roll for this but don't toss the baby out with the bathwater here.
 
2012-03-08 5:46:38 AM  

Triumph: So, government allocates money because buying someone a suit to get a job is cheaper than welfare. Sounds good except government is so broken it gives six figures to a store for outfitting two customers. There's only one fix to this problem - raise taxes to pay for more bureacracy.


Or maybe don't outsource administration of the program to an incompetent/crooked contractor.
 
2012-03-08 5:51:05 AM  

wildcardjack: Unholy fark... That's... $27.5k per person. What the hell. Even with the intended results they were better off handing out $500 suits to the first 22,000 people who turned up.


Again, there was $148,000 allocated for that, not 11 million. Subby is full of crap.

I'm not saying that isn't incredibly wasteful (it looks like there was possible fraud on the part of the 3rd party contractor), but it isn't as bad as it looks.
 
2012-03-08 5:52:16 AM  
If only there was some argument to be made that smaller government that keeps money close to home is better than federal government spending...
 
2012-03-08 5:58:17 AM  

wildcardjack: Part of an $11 million grant intended to provide business attire to 400 low-income job-seekers ...

Unholy fark... That's... $27.5k per person. What the hell. Even with the intended results they were better off handing out $500 suits to the first 22,000 people who turned up.

This is why Detroit needs to be torn down and the people scattered to the four winds. And the politicians cast in bronze.


You didn't even read what you pasted.
 
2012-03-08 5:58:27 AM  
So the program basically bought each person a Mitchell & Ness throwback jersey?
 
2012-03-08 5:59:25 AM  
Great idea even if the execution was terrible. An interview-quality suit could be an onerous expense if you are broke, and no, you can't show up in jeans and a tshirt. The commerce students at my university used to run a clothing drive for exactly this purpose, except they actually got the clothes to people who needed them.

Triumph:
So, government allocates money because buying someone a suit to get a job is cheaper than welfare. Sounds good except government is so broken it gives six figures to a store for outfitting two customers. There's only one fix to this problem - raise taxes to pay for more bureacracy.

"The audit found the Department of Human Services hired a contractor to run the boutique. The contractor negotiated the purchase of clothing without involving city officials and did not give them keys to the center.

The contractor also did not provide proof of the receipt of the clothing to auditors."


PRIVATE CONTRACTOR. Government's failing here is hiring a crooked profiteer, not "bureaucracy".
 
2012-03-08 6:00:33 AM  
If you go into a job interview, show up 20 minutes late, talk like an illiterate cretin, and have no skills outside of slinging dope then what good are you going to be to an employer. Come on people, this is Detroit we're talking about here.
 
2012-03-08 6:05:32 AM  

ArkAngel: Among the most telling findings, which will be discussed today during a City Council committee meeting, is that a third-party contractor advanced $148,000 to a downtown Detroit clothing store and opened an account, but did not include the city on the account.

The $11 million was the entire grant, not the section for the clothing


Moreover, it isn't clear that only two people were helped. They only have records of having helped 2 people but they have poor records. That said, it is a clear case of an abysmally managed grant. The bit about "the purchase of $182,000 worth of high-end furniture for a department office. " is symptomatic of the "hey look, free money" attitude that is sadly not uncommon in the way such grants are too often received.
 
2012-03-08 6:10:42 AM  

wildcardjack: Part of an $11 million grant intended to provide business attire to 400 low-income job-seekers ...

Unholy fark... That's... $27.5k per person. What the hell. Even with the intended results they were better off handing out $500 suits to the first 22,000 people who turned up.

This is why Detroit needs to be torn down and the people scattered to the four winds. And the politicians cast in bronze.


Don't do that. We have enough people from the city moving this way. No thanks. Unless you want them to move in your town.
 
2012-03-08 6:14:05 AM  

Gunther: wildcardjack: Unholy fark... That's... $27.5k per person. What the hell. Even with the intended results they were better off handing out $500 suits to the first 22,000 people who turned up.

Again, there was $148,000 allocated for that, not 11 million. Subby is full of crap.

I'm not saying that isn't incredibly wasteful (it looks like there was possible fraud on the part of the 3rd party contractor), but it isn't as bad as it looks.


I was always taught theft was theft. So, if you look at it that way, it was as bad as it looked. Somebody needs to go down for this because every time something like this happnes, whether it's $100 or $100,000,000 poor people suffer because the idiots assume all of these poor people are thieves.
 
2012-03-08 6:35:00 AM  
I was once (arrived in the UK fresh from africa with nothing) in a position where I had to borrow 100 pounds from a relative I was staying with to buy a suit and shoes. This enabled me to get a 1000 pounds a week job as a contractor in telecoms. There was precisely no way I could have got such a job without a decent suit on. None. I know I know CSB blah, but a program like this would really help people who find themselves in a hard place about getting work, as would available assistance with transport for interviews etc.
 
2012-03-08 7:01:48 AM  
I'm beginning to wonder about that city. Were the native Americans who used to dwell in that area dealt with particularly harshly? Were any wizened old squaws seen fingering bundles of eagle feathers and rabbit fur and muttering balefully just before they were driven off?
WTF is going on there? I thought L.A. was f**ked up, but, man.
 
2012-03-08 7:03:46 AM  

SurfaceTension: If only there was some argument to be made that smaller government that keeps money close to home is better than federal government spending...


I don't know about your city/state but mine can waste the sh*t out of money even better than the fed. govt.
 
2012-03-08 7:03:47 AM  

quatchi: fta: According to the audit, the DHS was supposed to help 400 people between October 2010 and September 2011 but instead served only two.

Great idea, piss poor implementation.

Somebody's head should roll for this but don't toss the baby out with the bathwater here.


Lousy idea, brazen theft of publuc funds.

What needs to happen here us everyone even slightly involved with this project needs to be out there looking fir a job. Hope they have nice clothes to interview in.
 
2012-03-08 7:12:33 AM  
You can get a suit from the Salvation Army for $20. Why does this program exist?
 
2012-03-08 7:27:31 AM  

Fark Me To Tears: Okay... so you take someone who is low-income and dress them in clothes they can't afford... for what purpose? To impress a recruiter with their clothing? Unless their job is going to be modeling clothes, what good does that do?


Don't be stupid. I would seriously question why a guy showed up to an interview in a farking track suit.

Bigdogdaddy: Gunther: wildcardjack: Unholy fark... That's... $27.5k per person. What the hell. Even with the intended results they were better off handing out $500 suits to the first 22,000 people who turned up.

Again, there was $148,000 allocated for that, not 11 million. Subby is full of crap.

I'm not saying that isn't incredibly wasteful (it looks like there was possible fraud on the part of the 3rd party contractor), but it isn't as bad as it looks.

I was always taught theft was theft. So, if you look at it that way, it was as bad as it looked. Somebody needs to go down for this because every time something like this happnes, whether it's $100 or $100,000,000 poor people suffer because the idiots assume all of these poor people are thieves.


I agree that the city needs to prosecute, it's the only way to clean this mess up for good.

One of the big problems with the city of Detroit (and I should know, being a native Detroiter) is not that the city is exceptionally poor, it's that what funds it does has have always been mismanaged and handed out to people as favors and kickbacks.

And yeah, I'm going to play the race card here, but in a way that most people probably don't expect -

I firmly believe that if the city leadership had been white then the feds would have launched a corruption and racketeering probe into the city decades ago. I have two views on this, the cynical one and the pragmatic one.

Cynical View:
The city is mostly black with black politicians and the powers above them at the state and federal level could farking care less because they're all white. This view is probably endorsed by a lot of people in Detroit (I've heard it vocalized alot growing up there).

Pragmatic View:
Doing anything at the state or federal level in terms of a corruption probe would have been political suicide for no benefit for both parties. For the GOP it would have merely reinforced the view that they are a bunch of racist jerks hating on black people and for the Democrats it would have alienated a powerful voting block in a very purple state.

I really believe that if the city leadership had been white then the GOP officials in charge at the state and federal level would have prosecuted the evil corrupt democrats for political gain, or the Democrats in charge would have quietly "disappeared" people in primarys to get rid of the embarassment. But because of the race factor at play, it was basically "hands off" for both groups.

And also, before someone starts in on the "black people can't govern themselves" crap - I would like to point out the farking fantastic job that Corey Booker has done with Newark, a city just as corrupt and filled with cronyism as Detroit. Since he got on the city council and especially since he became mayor, that city has done a complete 180. As far as I'm concerned not only is this guy smashing sterotypes on that front, he's also setting an example for all cities in the country on how to turn stuff around and get your community not just back on track, but actively engaged in caring for themselves.

Anyway, this is loooong overdue for Detroit and my hat is off to mayor Bing for continuing to struggle against the massive inertia of corruption that he's inherited. The man quite literally is going to go down with this ship and he's fighting it every step of the way. I know it's pessimistic, but I don't think there is a way out other than for the state government to take over the complete administration of the city, which includes disbanding the city council which has proven to be a big impediment to getting anything done. Frankly, I don't see it as a reflection on Bing in so much as I see it as a reflection of how he came to power - shooting to the top job in the city without the solid backing of the council has hamstrung him and his opponent (and city council leader) Ken Cockerell has made it like pissing glass out of his dick the entire way.

Ah well, going back there in a couple of months to visit the family. I bet they'll chew my ear off about all this stuff when I get home...
 
2012-03-08 7:31:26 AM  

Frank N Stein: You can get a suit from the Salvation Army for $20. Why does this program exist?


Not all hiring managers share your keen fashion sense.
costumesofnashua.comView Full Size
 
2012-03-08 7:32:01 AM  
newhealthbasics.comView Full Size


You twos look mahvelous

 
2012-03-08 7:41:07 AM  

Fark Me To Tears: Okay... so you take someone who is low-income and dress them in clothes they can't afford... for what purpose? To impress a recruiter with their clothing? Unless their job is going to be modeling clothes, what good does that do?


Does anybody else find it funny that a Republican--one who goes to obscene lengths to showcase responsibility--doesn't even know how to dress for an interview? Must be nice to have daddy buy you a position without having to actually work for it.
 
2012-03-08 7:43:19 AM  

Guntram Shatterhand: Does anybody else find it funny that a Republican--one who goes to obscene lengths to showcase responsibility--doesn't even know how to dress for an interview? Must be nice to have daddy buy you a position without having to actually work for it.


You are a sad, bitter little man.
 
2012-03-08 7:56:44 AM  
Well abuse is to be expected. You don't throw away a good program because it was abused. Besides, the entire grant was 11 million. We only know a portion helped 2 people. It only says a specific portion was given out to a store that helped not a single person.

I'd like to think that the multiplier effect was around 90,000 or so and it generated several billion in revenue. when you think about it, that's awesome.

/article was poorly written though
//should have. Een clearer on the specifics
 
2012-03-08 7:57:20 AM  

Frank N Stein: You can get a suit from the Salvation Army for $20. Why does this program exist?


yes, because showing up in an ill-fitting polyester suit that smells of mothballs can really help win over those interviewers!
 
2012-03-08 7:59:52 AM  

No Such Agency:
PRIVATE CONTRACTOR. Government's failing here is hiring a crooked profiteer, not "bureaucracy".


This is pretty much the case at all levels of government and it is exactly how conservatives want the system to work.

prairiefirenewspaper.comView Full Size
 
2012-03-08 8:00:03 AM  

No Such Agency: Great idea even if the execution was terrible. An interview-quality suit could be an onerous expense if you are broke, and no, you can't show up in jeans and a tshirt. The commerce students at my university used to run a clothing drive for exactly this purpose, except they actually got the clothes to people who needed them.

Triumph:
So, government allocates money because buying someone a suit to get a job is cheaper than welfare. Sounds good except government is so broken it gives six figures to a store for outfitting two customers. There's only one fix to this problem - raise taxes to pay for more bureacracy.

"The audit found the Department of Human Services hired a contractor to run the boutique. The contractor negotiated the purchase of clothing without involving city officials and did not give them keys to the center.

The contractor also did not provide proof of the receipt of the clothing to auditors."

PRIVATE CONTRACTOR. Government's failing here is hiring a crooked profiteer, not "bureaucracy".


You would think it would be the governments job to monitor said contractor. Odds he has elected family members?

The program office spent more money on office furniture than helping. Nothing like using taxpayer money to make yourself look special.
 
2012-03-08 8:01:14 AM  

wildcardjack: Part of an $11 million grant intended to provide business attire to 400 low-income job-seekers ...

Unholy fark... That's... $27.5k per person. What the hell. Even with the intended results they were better off handing out $500 suits to the first 22,000 people who turned up.

This is why Detroit needs to be torn down and the people scattered to the four winds. And the politicians cast in bronze.


No read the article again, its not $11 million its $148,000 for clothes or $370 per intended suit.
The $11 million was the total grant that contains many things, $148,000 was for the clothes.
 
2012-03-08 8:03:22 AM  
This is a poorly worded news article.

These are poor readers of news articles.

Let's put them together and see what happens!
 
2012-03-08 8:05:12 AM  

Mrbogey: Well abuse is to be expected. You don't throw away a good program because it was abused. Besides, the entire grant was 11 million. We only know a portion helped 2 people. It only says a specific portion was given out to a store that helped not a single person.

I'd like to think that the multiplier effect was around 90,000 or so and it generated several billion in revenue. when you think about it, that's awesome.

/article was poorly written though
//should have. Een clearer on the specifics


The state auditors are discussing taking over. That generally means the city is beyond incompetent and or corrupt.
 
2012-03-08 8:05:35 AM  
PRIVATE CONTRACTOR. Government's failing here is hiring a crooked profiteer, not "bureaucracy".

Umm that's what the government does. They piece together programs as slushfunds to suit their donors and friends and those with political ties.

I'm sure this private contractor wasn't picked off the rack. In fact the whole ensemble was probably tailored around him.
 
2012-03-08 8:11:35 AM  
A poorly devised plan turned out poorly.

Sounds like the Detroit I live in.

Bonus News: Mayor Bing announced a new plan last night to allow certain homeowners to buy vacant lots next to them for $200. Why would I want to pay money to increase my property taxes for useless piece of land attached to a house that no one will probably want to buy?
 
2012-03-08 8:11:54 AM  

Animatronik: quatchi: fta: According to the audit, the DHS was supposed to help 400 people between October 2010 and September 2011 but instead served only two.

Great idea, piss poor implementation.

Somebody's head should roll for this but don't toss the baby out with the bathwater here.

Lousy idea, brazen theft of publuc funds.

What needs to happen here us everyone even slightly involved with this project needs to be out there looking fir a job. Hope they have nice clothes to interview in.


Why is it a lousy idea in your estimation?

Helping people looking for work by providing some of them with suitable garb seems like a sensible way, relatively low cost way to try and alleviate one of the obstacles preventing people from rejoining the work force.

The fact that the implementation was so bad it might merit charges is irrelevant to that.
 
2012-03-08 8:16:16 AM  
this article is bullshiat.
 
2012-03-08 8:21:12 AM  
Whenever someone cites crazy high $/person helped stats, they are almost always lying
 
2012-03-08 8:23:44 AM  

Wakosane: A poorly devised plan turned out poorly.

Sounds like the Detroit I live in.

Bonus News: Mayor Bing announced a new plan last night to allow certain homeowners to buy vacant lots next to them for $200. Why would I want to pay money to increase my property taxes for useless piece of land attached to a house that no one will probably want to buy?


It worked pretty well in New York, when they sold Brown stones for a buck
 
2012-03-08 8:27:41 AM  

SurfaceTension: If only there was some argument to be made that smaller government that keeps money close to home is better than federal government spending...


Smaller government would rely even more on the kind of private contractor that acted fraudulently here. If they were govt employees running the thing, you'd have an argument. But it wasn't so you're just plain wrong.
 
2012-03-08 8:31:14 AM  

TwistedFark: I would seriously question why a guy showed up to an interview in a farking track suit


It's a look that works every now and then.

4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2012-03-08 8:37:50 AM  
Like the guy in a 5.5 million dollar suit is going to go to an interview, c'mon!
 
2012-03-08 8:38:35 AM  

Iblis824: Wakosane: A poorly devised plan turned out poorly.

Sounds like the Detroit I live in.

Bonus News: Mayor Bing announced a new plan last night to allow certain homeowners to buy vacant lots next to them for $200. Why would I want to pay money to increase my property taxes for useless piece of land attached to a house that no one will probably want to buy?

It worked pretty well in New York, when they sold Brown stones for a buck


Harlem:
Auctioning off multi-unit apartment buildings with a sale contingent on guaranteeing a significant investment into the restoration of the building coupled with assistance in securing low interest renovation loans

Detroit:
Charging $200 dollars for a piece of property that no one wants with NO guarantee the owner must improve on it and only providing a gift certificate that can only be used to put a fence around the property.

While both programs involve trying to encourage growth, one is planned correctly; the other is just nonsense framed as progress and opportunity.
 
2012-03-08 8:38:36 AM  

MindStalker: No read the article again, its not $11 million its $148,000 for clothes or $370 per intended suit.
The $11 million was the total grant that contains many things, $148,000 was for the clothes.



MindStalker: No read the article again, its not $11 million its $148,000 for clothes or $370 per intended suit.
The $11 million was the total grant that contains many things, $148,000 was for the clothes.


MindStalker: No read the article again, its not $11 million its $148,000 for clothes or $370 per intended suit.
The $11 million was the total grant that contains many things, $148,000 was for the clothes.

 
2012-03-08 8:43:23 AM  
As somone who fully supports food assistance programs, progressive taxation, welfare, healthcare for all. Even I think this program is stupid. This would fall into that non essential charity work that can be picked up in the private sector by some bored housewives.
 
2012-03-08 8:49:26 AM  
Your tax dollars at work: A Detroit grant helps two low-income people buy business attire for job inter--- ... look look look, Rush Limbaugh called someone a slut./b>i>

that's how it works people. outrage over tax dollars wasted versus outrage over absurdity.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.