• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge rules Detroit bankruptcy filing UNCONSTITUTIONAL[W:584]

Deuce said:
No, the bankruptcy is a result of major economic and social shifts occurring over a period of several decades.
Click to expand...

While I agree with the above the failure of local politicians to change spending habits in response to these realities hardly absolves them, and the voters who put them into office, from blame.
 
LowDown said:
It doesn't matter whether they are included or not. There's no money to pay them. An orderly bankruptcy is more their favor than the chaos that will result without one.

Eventually you run out of other people's money.
Click to expand...
Blasphemy!!!

We never run out of other people's money.
 
Governments cannot declare bankruptcy IMHO, governments should always pay their way. If a company goes into business with individuals and/or companies he knows he always runs the risk of not getting paid due to bankruptcy risks, but a company should always be able to count on getting paid by government in any shape or form.

Governments have to pay their way, always and in all situations and not weasel out by declaring bankruptcy.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
and what about the people whose pensions are at risk? do we have to give them nothing?
Click to expand...

Life is a risk. You risk when you put money in a private fund, you risk when you trust a government to follow through with a promise. They lose, so freaking what. That's what they get for electing idiots over and over. Deal with it, just like the private sector does.
 
Sherman123 said:
My understanding was that this was expected to happen in the lower courts, but that eventually this would be overturned as it made its way to higher courts.
Click to expand...

If government can declare bankruptcy, then there's nothing preventing the federal government from reneging on its debts.
 
MaggieD said:
Okay, I have a legitimate question. Detroit's $327,000,000 in the hole, resulting in their filing bankruptcy.

There are 706,585 people living in Detroit.

That's $463.00 per person.

That's completely undoable? A special assessment of sorts?

Another question: Are policemen, firemen, paramedics, teachers and all other Detroit public workers required to live in the city? If not? They should be. Chicago, Illinois has that requirement. It's the only thing that keeps the city alive.

Anyone have answers?

Edit: Wait!!! The $327 million is their deficit. Their debt is $18.4 billion. Holy crap. That's a different horse: that's $26,000 per resident.

Never mind.
Click to expand...


there is no longer a residency law for city employees. never was for teachers.

The 18 billion is a ridiculously inflated number based on obligation decades in the future without considering revenues in the future. As such it is completely one sided and absurd.
 
haymarket said:
there is no longer a residency law for city employees. never was for teachers.

The 18 billion is a ridiculously inflated number based on obligation decades in the future without considering revenues in the future. As such it is completely one sided and absurd.
Click to expand...

you mean their debt is calculated the way real people properly calculate debt?.... imagine that.
 
haymarket said:
there is no longer a residency law for city employees. never was for teachers.

The 18 billion is a ridiculously inflated number based on obligation decades in the future without considering revenues in the future. As such it is completely one sided and absurd.
Click to expand...

Haymarket, this sounds suspiciously like the Hostess bakers. Is this union propaganda? Where are you getting this information?
 
this is what happens when the takers outnumber the givers... democratic Detroit ran out of pockets to pick to fund their municipal trough and the unions appear to have dug their own graves.
 
haymarket said:
there is no longer a residency law for city employees. never was for teachers.

The 18 billion is a ridiculously inflated number based on obligation decades in the future without considering revenues in the future. As such it is completely one sided and absurd.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that the guy directing Detroit's finances is a crook. He just doesn't want to pay creditors and workers on pensions.
 
MaggieD said:
Haymarket, this sounds suspiciously like the Hostess bakers. Is this union propaganda? Where are you getting this information?
Click to expand...

The 18 billion takes in future pension payments that will occur monthly over many many many years. As such, it is NOT money owned right now.
 
washunut said:
So are you saying that the guy directing Detroit's finances is a crook. He just doesn't want to pay creditors and workers on pensions.
Click to expand...

Wanting to rid the city of its pension obligations is one of his goals.
 
Judge rules Detroit bankruptcy filing UNCONSTITUTIONAL

MaggieD said:
Okay, I have a legitimate question. Detroit's $327,000,000 in the hole, resulting in their filing bankruptcy.

There are 706,585 people living in Detroit.

That's $463.00 per person.

That's completely undoable? A special assessment of sorts?

Another question: Are policemen, firemen, paramedics, teachers and all other Detroit public workers required to live in the city? If not? They should be. Chicago, Illinois has that requirement. It's the only thing that keeps the city alive.

Anyone have answers?

Edit: Wait!!! The $327 million is their deficit. Their debt is $18.4 billion. Holy crap. That's a different horse: that's $26,000 per resident.

Never mind.
Click to expand...

I'm conflicted. This is in the Michigan constitution, I'd be curious what the machinations got it in there.

If Michigan says that pensions can't be touched, then perhaps everyone I. Michigan should be o. The hook to see that they get paid and not just the remaining Detroiters. Then perhaps all of Michigan can declare bankruptcy someday and then it would be more legal to cut the pensions or whatever other debts cannot be paid.
 
haymarket said:
The 18 billion takes in future pension payments that will occur monthly over many many many years. As such, it is NOT money owned right now.
Click to expand...

Where was the union management, Haymarket. As it thought/thinks the city plundered its pension and didn't make contributions, where are the court cases where the union demanded the city address its problem years ago? Where was its political will as it continued to support the very jakes they claim destroyed the funds? Democrats have had control of the city of Detroit for over 50 years. Riddle me that.

If the union has clean hands, they've done a piss poor job at PR. And that applies to all the public sector unions.
 
MaggieD said:
Where was the union management, Haymarket. As it thought/thinks the city plundered its pension and didn't make contributions, where are the court cases where the union demanded the city address its problem years ago? Where was its political will as it continued to support the very jakes they claim destroyed the funds? Democrats have had control of the city of Detroit for over 50 years. Riddle me that.

If the union has clean hands, they've done a piss poor job at PR. And that applies to all the public sector unions.
Click to expand...

Maggie - how does your attempt to turn your ire against unions negate the reality that these payments will not be incurred for years down the road and should not be figured into a bankruptcy today?
 
haymarket said:
Maggie - how does your attempt to turn your ire against unions negate the reality that these payments will not be incurred for years down the road and should not be figured into a bankruptcy today?
Click to expand...

Ummmm, I wanted to say all that and worked it in there? ;)

If that's true, the one thing that applies is, "The union has done a terrible job at PR."
 
cpwill said:
:lamo

I wonder where the Judge intends to magic the money to pay Detroits' obligations from? :D this ought to be fun (in a twisted sort of way) to watch.

Detroit is de facto bankrupt, whatever a judge says. You don't get to re-adjudicate reality.
Click to expand...

This judge is a political panderer.

When the City of Detroit came into court, she said something to the effect that, "The union was one minute behind the City of Detroit with a motion to stay the bankruptcy. I want to let you know I would have granted that stay."

(So vote for me.)

:rofl
 
Ikari said:
If government can declare bankruptcy, then there's nothing preventing the federal government from reneging on its debts.
Click to expand...


images
 
MaggieD said:
This judge is a political panderer.

When the City of Detroit came into court, she said something to the effect that, "The union was one minute behind the City of Detroit with a motion to stay the bankruptcy. I want to let you know I would have granted that stay."

(So vote for me.)

:rofl
Click to expand...

I just am sort of enjoying the way that the realization that you can't - actually - legislate or adjudicate away fiscal reality is going to be dawning on some folks here over the next few years. What the heck do you mean, we can't vote ourselves more money ad infinitum?!?
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
This judge is a political panderer.

When the City of Detroit came into court, she said something to the effect that, "The union was one minute behind the City of Detroit with a motion to stay the bankruptcy. I want to let you know I would have granted that stay."

(So vote for me.)

:rofl
Click to expand...

I've long wondered about the election of judges. I m wonder if making them all appointees with greater vulnerability to impeachment or legislative overturning is a better mechanism for balance.
 
MaggieD said:
Ummmm, I wanted to say all that and worked it in there? ;)

If that's true, the one thing that applies is, "The union has done a terrible job at PR."
Click to expand...

I cannot tell you how many union meetings I have attended over several decades where that message was sent to leadership by angry members.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom