• 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]

CanadaJohn said:
I'm curious - do you feel that public servants, government workers, should have a higher level of protection against bankruptcy than workers in the private sector?
Click to expand...

That would depend on what the constitution and the law says. For example, Michigan teachers pensions are guaranteed by the Michigan Constitution. That is simply reality. This was done in part to encourage people to take public school jobs at lower salaries than many private sector jobs so there was a trade off for that.
 
haymarket said:
See the above post and see the facts. Sorry to rain on your parade but Cobo and Mariani were both republicans. And Detroit lost nearly 200,000 people during their reign. And that trend established under their rule did not abate once the slide down the hill was started.

I know its a real bitch when facts bite you in the ass like that. :roll::doh

And of course, the loss of tax base, the loss of manufacturing, the loss of jobs, racial polarization.... had nothing to do with it as it was all politics. :dohHow completely absurd. :shock:

But the far right likes to hate both Detroit and Democrats so its a no brain twofer for them. Emphasis on no brain. :roll:
Click to expand...

typical Democrat.. despite utterly ruling a city, lock stock and barrel, for 50+ years.. you want to blame Republicans.


I know you have a habit if ignoring my words... but it gets tiresome having to correct you.
I have specifically said i like Detroit....I'll give you not liking Democrats, though....you claiming I hate Detroit is false.. it's a lie.

but then again, you probably weren't talking about me when you spewed off the same old " far right wing" bull**** you always pull... as i'm not far right wing, or even near right wing.
for the hundredth time, on a left right scale, I consistently and historically fall in the center...I'm not the bogey man you continually pretend I am.

well, that's not true, to you authoritarians, left or right wing... I am most certainly the bogeyman.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm curious - do you feel that public servants, government workers, should have a higher level of protection against bankruptcy than workers in the private sector?
Click to expand...

The government does lend protection to people in the private sector when pensions get dumped. It's called the PBGC which stands for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
 
haymarket said:
That would depend on what the constitution and the law says. For example, Michigan teachers pensions are guaranteed by the Michigan Constitution. That is simply reality. This was done in part to encourage people to take public school jobs at lower salaries than many private sector jobs so there was a trade off for that.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that guarantee under the Michigan State Constitution would stand a US Supreme Court challenge under the equal protections provisions?

If you were in Michigan and a civil servant, would you be concerned that the courts getting involved in the bankruptcy proceedings on pension related issues may lead to a challenge of the State's constitution in federal courts?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
The government does lend protection to people in the private sector when pensions get dumped. It's called the PBGC which stands for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Click to expand...

Could be very true, but that is different from estopping a bankruptcy proceeding based on a state constitutional protection.
 
Thrilla said:
typical Democrat.. despite utterly ruling a city, lock stock and barrel, for 50+ years.. you want to blame Republicans..
Click to expand...

I am NOT blaming any party. I specifically stated that there is no party to blame since Detroits problems are economic and racial and not first political.

Do you comprehend that?

I also said that if anyone wants to push the right wing meme that it is all the Democrats fault, sorry to rain on your parade of partisan hate, but the facts do not support that. Detroit began its slide from 1950 to 61with two mayors who were Republicans. They saw the loss of 10% of the population.

So get off the high political horse.

know you have a habit if ignoring my words... but it gets tiresome having to correct you.
Click to expand...

You have not yet corrected me of one thing so I have no idea what you are tired from.



I have specifically said i like Detroit....I'll give you not liking Democrats, though....you claiming I hate Detroit is false.. it's a lie.
Click to expand...

You confuse me with somebody who cares about your personal feelings. All I am interested in is facts - not your emotions.



but then again, you probably weren't talking about me when you spewed off the same old " far right wing" bull**** you always pull... as i'm not far right wing, or even near right wing.
for the hundredth time, on a left right scale, I consistently and historically fall in the center...I'm not the bogey man you continually pretend I am.

well, that's not true, to you authoritarians, left or right wing... I am most certainly the bogeyman.
Click to expand...

Yeah - I get it .... I'm a libertarian and that makes me special. yeah I get it. :roll::doh:roll:
 
Woodman909 said:
It sounds like you are saying that government has a green light to happily live far outside their means, mismanage their finances and tax/spend to oblivion. In other words, not be responsible for being stupid. I think governments should also have the right to declare bankruptcy, but it should be followed by requirements of the heads of whatever state to spend 10 yrs in prison right in there with the general prison population. Not in the tennis club confinements these types typically get. This predicament is the result of liberal government practices... give the whiners what they want , tax the people who work for a living to death and party hardy into the night.
Click to expand...

You are misconstruing what I wrote. I did not write anything about how much governments spend, I only said that governments cannot cop out by declaring bankruptcy, if someone does business with a local, state or national government they deserve payment in full and not be short changed by the government declaring bankruptcy.

Governments should not live beyond their means but putting the heads of that government for 10 years in jail is ridiculous. Who says that head is responsible for the bankruptcy? Or do you want to put every politician/official in jail who contributed to that bankruptcy?

Governments should live within their means, tax and spend is fine by me as long as there is a mandate by the voters to do so but only if the money spent and the taxes/income of the government are balanced or that the tax/income is higher than the money spent.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Do you believe that guarantee under the Michigan State Constitution would stand a US Supreme Court challenge under the equal protections provisions?

If you were in Michigan and a civil servant, would you be concerned that the courts getting involved in the bankruptcy proceedings on pension related issues may lead to a challenge of the State's constitution in federal courts?
Click to expand...

It has been there for fifty years. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

No. I am not concerned about a challenge to Michigan's constitution regarding this provision.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Could be very true, but that is different from estopping a bankruptcy proceeding based on a state constitutional protection.
Click to expand...

Let me correct you, not "could be" but is true. I guess I must have misunderstood your question though. Do you want to know why government pensions should be protected over the rights of creditors in a state constitution?
 
haymarket said:
What you said made no sense in the first place nor did you offer any verifiable evidence for what you said.

Again I have provided you with verifiable evidence that the great slide downwards of Detroit began under two Republican mayors. So if you want to blame a party - begin there.

I also have stated that it is outright ridiculous to affix the blame on a party since the real factors of Detroits decline have little to do with partisan politics.
Click to expand...

I said Detroit has been Solid Blue since the 60's... and somehow that doesn't make sense to you?..even though we both know i'm factually correct, we can move on .

is it your premise that the city government of Detroit has played no part in it's horrific decline?.. is that what you are trying to say here?

if you want be to say the decline began under Republican.. fine.. it's factually correct and I have zero problem with that fact... I'm not a Republican, so i don't feel the need to misrepresent or deflect from anything they do.

now, 50+ years later, after the decline began under republican mayors ...where are we?....
I can understand why you would feel the need to defend your party and their policies.. i mean, you're a paid Democrat after all.... but i'm kind a awestruck as to how you can sit here and argues the policies put forth by the Detroit Democrats have nothing to do with it's decline.

was power usurped by some unseen entity during the last 50 years?.. were Democrats powerless to govern and manage that city?.. please, provide me with a valid explanation as to how that city's management has nothing to do with Democrats and their polices.
 
haymarket said:
It has been there for fifty years. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

No. I am not concerned about a challenge to Michigan's constitution regarding this provision.
Click to expand...

No other city in Michigan has declared bankruptcy in the past 50 years, or ever, to my knowledge, so it's never been an issue.

I'm not passing judgement, other than to say that giving protections such as this to civil servants but not to the general population at large seems wrong to me.

Your claim that civil servants got this protection because they were paid less and it helped people enter the civil service is countered by the fact that many working people don't have employer provided or subsidized pensions and many working people don't have anywhere near the job security that civil servants have and I'd venture that the average civil servant in 2013 takes home a better salary than many if not most of those people working in Michigan, if they're lucky enough to have a job.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Let me correct you, not "could be" but is true. I guess I must have misunderstood your question though. Do you want to know why government pensions should be protected over the rights of creditors in a state constitution?
Click to expand...

No, I was asking the author of the OP if he felt that government pensions should have a higher level of protection under bankruptcy laws than private sector pensions?
 
haymarket said:
I am NOT blaming any party. I specifically stated that there is no party to blame since Detroits problems are economic and racial and not first political.

Do you comprehend that?

I also said that if anyone wants to push the right wing meme that it is all the Democrats fault, sorry to rain on your parade of partisan hate, but the facts do not support that. Detroit began its slide from 1950 to 61with two mayors who were Republicans. They saw the loss of 10% of the population.

So get off the high political horse.
Click to expand...
no, i'll remain on my high horse.... right up until you face facts that are uncomfortable for you to face.



You have not yet corrected me of one thing so I have no idea what you are tired from.
Click to expand...
you said i hate Detroit..after i have specifically said i like it.
you said i like coming down against the common man.. which i specifically said i didn't

that's 2 corrections...so far.





You confuse me with somebody who cares about your personal feelings. All I am interested in is facts - not your emotions.
Click to expand...
I see, so you can make false claims to what my emotions are in order to poison the deabte, but you really don't care about my emotions.

color me unconvinced.. your serial dishonesty showing again.




Yeah - I get it .... I'm a libertarian and that makes me special. yeah I get it. :roll::doh:roll:
Click to expand...

no, you don't get it....I've repeatedly informed you as to my ideology and political beliefs... and you repeatedly lie about it.. over and over and over and over.
the only thing you " get" is how to be dishonest, evasive, and insulting.

don't worry though, we both know you will continue to lie, and we both know I will continue to correct your falsehoods....such is our lot in life.
 
haymarket said:
Well somebody is on the job protecting pensions and the rights of workers"

Judge rules Detroit Chapter 9 bankruptcy filing unconstitutional



Read more: Judge rules Detroit Chapter 9 bankruptcy filing unconstitutional
Click to expand...

How are retired gov't workers any more worthy of protection than any other citizens/workers who chose to invest in (by buying bonds) or did work for/supplied items to the city gov't on credit? What of a private worker that holds Detroit bonds in their personal retirement fund?
 
CanadaJohn said:
No other city in Michigan has declared bankruptcy in the past 50 years, or ever, to my knowledge, so it's never been an issue.

I'm not passing judgement, other than to say that giving protections such as this to civil servants but not to the general population at large seems wrong to me.

Your claim that civil servants got this protection because they were paid less and it helped people enter the civil service is countered by the fact that many working people don't have employer provided or subsidized pensions and many working people don't have anywhere near the job security that civil servants have and I'd venture that the average civil servant in 2013 takes home a better salary than many if not most of those people working in Michigan, if they're lucky enough to have a job.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you would be hard pressed to find a private place of business that offers a defined benefit plan. Once upon a time, many did. Public workers are/were offered that also. Now that the private sector has gutted all those protections and shifted its risk onto its employees, I suppose the argument becomes why not do that to public workers too? I mean the "a rising tide lifts all boats" was merely rhetoric feed to a populace too ______ to see that the opposite was happening right under their nose. Now we fight for race to the bottom policy because I suppose a sinking ship is each for their own and only the strong survive. Very few are fighting to make this country strong again. It's a shame.
 
CanadaJohn said:
No, I was asking the author of the OP if he felt that government pensions should have a higher level of protection under bankruptcy laws than private sector pensions?
Click to expand...

Well it only does for those who have it in their state constitution whereas private pensions do have protection under a government agency.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
How are retired gov't workers any more worthy of protection than any other citizens/workers who chose to invest in (by buying bonds) or did work for/supplied items to the city gov't on credit? What of a private worker that holds Detroit bonds in their personal retirement fund?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is more "worthy" however, those government pensions in that state is the main source of their retirement saying they don't get social security.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I don't think anyone is more "worthy" however, those government pensions in that state is the main source of their retirement saying they don't get social security.
Click to expand...

I will not cry for them. They made that choice, got to retire with more money and at an earlier age than they would have with SS. As with any choice it involves risk/reward analysis - simply because they missed the mark on risk does not entitle them to a reward. Many other folks have worked their entire lives only to have circumstances make them dependent on the dole. I am sick and tired of gov't employees being treated as super citizens, they are supposed to be our public servants not our masters.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I will not cry for them. They made that choice, got to retire with more money and at an earlier age than they would have with SS. As with any choice it involves risk/reward analysis - simply because they missed the mark on risk does not entitle them to a reward. Many other folks have worked their entire lives only to have circumstances make them dependent on the dole. I am sick and tired of gov't employees being treated as super citizens, they are supposed to be our public servants not our masters.
Click to expand...

No, there was no "choice". They don't get to chose if they can collect off of social security or a pension. That decision was made for them when they got that government job. So, now you're telling me that we all should risk losing our retirement (whether pension or SS) because it is a risk? That is not how the system was set up. It may be heading that way but it doesn't make it right nor does it make it right for people to champion these type policies. People should feel some kind of security heading toward retirement and not have the rug pulled out from under their feet no matter what job they work.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
No, there was no "choice". They don't get to chose if they can collect off of social security or a pension. That decision was made for them when they got that government job. So, now you're telling me that we all should risk losing our retirement (whether pension or SS) because it is a risk? That is not how the system was set up. It may be heading that way but it doesn't make it right nor does it make it right for people to champion these type policies. People should feel some kind of security heading toward retirement and not have the rug pulled out from under their feet no matter what job they work.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Someone put a gun to their head an forced them to work for Detriot? Where they drafted or what?

Of course your pension is at risk, it is based on either a ponzi scheme or invested in some bond or stock. Look at Social Security, it is now constantly being pared down yet we have no choice but to "contribute", even if it does not increase our retirement benefit by a single dime. After you have worked 40 quarters (10 years), and have reached your "high three" years of salary, anything more added to your SS account has no affect on your SS benefit. The SS reitrement age is being raised and the COLA adjustment to retirement benefit levels is being reduced. There are now about 9K Detriot workers yet there are 20K Detroit retirees - that happens in a system that has a very early retirement age. Many of these Detriot retirees have drawn more retirement before age 65 than most will draw from SS in their lifetimes assuming that they even live until age 65.
 
Thrilla said:
I said Detroit has been Solid Blue since the 60's... and somehow that doesn't make sense to you?..even though we both know i'm factually correct, we can move on .
Click to expand...

As I have demonstrated with facts and figures, Detroit started its slide during the 1950's under two Republican mayors. Any recitation of the facts without that reality is simply playing ostrich.



is it your premise that the city government of Detroit has played no part in it's horrific decline?.. is that what you are trying to say here?
Click to expand...

Of course government played a role. I never said otherwise. But the real major factors were economic and racial. And that is well established and I provided evidence accordingly.




now, 50+ years later, after the decline began under republican mayors ...where are we?....
I can understand why you would feel the need to defend your party and their policies.. i mean, you're a paid Democrat after all.... but i'm kind a awestruck as to how you can sit here and argues the policies put forth by the Detroit Democrats have nothing to do with it's decline.
Click to expand...

Which I did not do. I simply stated that the major factors were economic and racial.

was power usurped by some unseen entity during the last 50 years?.
Click to expand...
.

Not at all. The power was very much seen. It was economic and it was racial. City government had to react to both those factors. Some decisions were made poorly - no doubt about it. But what
correct" decisions could have been made to overcome the huge factors of economic desertion of the city combined with racial stress? Tell me what decisions the city government could have made which would have turned the decline around. Like Ross Perot once said - I am all ears.
 
CanadaJohn said:
No other city in Michigan has declared bankruptcy in the past 50 years, or ever, to my knowledge, so it's never been an issue.

I'm not passing judgement, other than to say that giving protections such as this to civil servants but not to the general population at large seems wrong to me.

Your claim that civil servants got this protection because they were paid less and it helped people enter the civil service is countered by the fact that many working people don't have employer provided or subsidized pensions and many working people don't have anywhere near the job security that civil servants have and I'd venture that the average civil servant in 2013 takes home a better salary than many if not most of those people working in Michigan, if they're lucky enough to have a job.
Click to expand...

I would be happy to look at your figures documenting this.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you kidding me? Someone put a gun to their head an forced them to work for Detriot? Where they drafted or what?

Of course your pension is at risk, it is based on either a ponzi scheme or invested in some bond or stock. Look at Social Security, it is now constantly being pared down yet we have no choice but to "contribute", even if it does not increase our retirement benefit by a single dime. After you have worked 40 quarters (10 years) and have reached your "high three" years of salary anything more added to your SS account has no affect on your SS benefit. The SS reitrement age is being raised and the COLA adjustment to retirement benefit levels is being reduced. There are now about 9K Detriot workers yet there are 20K Detriot retirees - that happens in a system that has a very early retirement age. Many of these Detriot retirees have drawn more retirement before age 65 than most will draw from SS in their lifetimes assuming that they even live until age 65.
Click to expand...

I contribute nearly double what people who contribute to social security contribute so that is really a straw man. If I want full benefits, I can retire at age 66. And, yes pension vary from state to state and RI has to give its 3% COLA to pay 4% fees to its new system. (Yes, it makes no sense and I suppose another moot point). But, the point is that Michigan along with other states have changed their plans but some not really to the good of employee, taxpayer or economy. Many will be good to the benefit of private investors though. But, I digress. As long as the system maintains new employees being under the defined plan, the plan will continue to hold enough funds as long as corruption is not going on. I believe now in Michigan, they just changed the law where people don't have to enter under a defined plan. That of course will have a negative effect on depleting the fund. It will probably be only a matter of time when they will no longer be able to run the define plan because of lack of participants. It has nothing to do with the number of people living or working in Michigan. All off points to the discussion. Again, people should be able to enter into retirement without the rug having to be pulled from them no matter if they are in a pension or social security. It should not be a crap shot. Again, that is not how either system was set up, and it should not be championed.
 
Last edited:
rabbitcaebannog said:
I contribute nearly double what people who contribute to social security contribute so that is really a straw man. If I want full benefits, I can retire at age 66. And, yes pension vary from state to state and RI has to give its 3% COLA to pay 4% fees to its new system. (Yes, it makes no sense and I suppose another moot point). But, the point is that Michigan along with other states have changed their plans but some not really to the good of employee, taxpayer or economy. Many will be good to the benefit of private investors though. But, I digress. As long as the system maintains new employees being under the defined plan, the plan will continue to hold enough funds as long as corruption is not going on. I believe now in Michigan, they just changed the law where people don't have to enter under a defined plan. That of course will have a negative effect on depleting the fund. It will probably be only a matter of time when they will no longer be able to run the define plan because of lack of participants. It has nothing to do with the number of people living or working in Michigan. All off points to the discussion. Again, people should be able to enter into retirement without the rug having to be pulled from them no matter if they are in a pension or social security. It should not be a crap shot. Again, that is not how either system was set up, and it should not be championed.
Click to expand...

You are missing a VERY critical point in your gov't pension system analysis. 100% of that pension "contribution" is supplied by the taxpayers. You may not see it this way but consider this carefully before you "go off". SS retirement requires a contribution of about 15% (half by the employee and half by the employer) while gov't pensions usually require far less (than 7.6%) to be contributed by the employee.

Even "your" contribution is really just tax money if you work for the gov't: if your salary is $75K/year and you contribute $5K/year to your retirement then that is no different than if you were paid $70K/year and the taxpayers paid $5K/year to your retirement account for you. That is because anything that you defer from your current pay until retirement is in pre-tax dollars - either way you would still gross $70K/year.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
You are missing a VERY critical point in your gov't pension system analysis. 100% of that pension "contribution" is supplied by the taxpayers. You may not see it this way but consider this carefully before you "go off". SS retirement requires a contribution of about 15% (half by the employee and half by the employer) while gov't pensions usually require far less (than 7.6%) to be contributed by the employee.

Even "your" contribution is really just tax money if you work for the gov't: if your salary is $75K/year and you contribute $5K/year to your retirement then that is no different than if you were paid $70K/year and the taxpayers paid $5K/year to your retirement account for you. That is because anything that you defer from your current pay until retirement is in pre-tax dollars - either way you would still gross $70K/year.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. The majority of pension are paid through the employee and the investment return, and not by the taxpayer. As a matter of fact, contribution plans may be more expensive to the taxpayer than defined plans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom