• 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]

the city of detroit has faces a population decline since 1950,has had numerous companies go out of business post ww2 due to competition from the govt protected big 3,such as nash studebaker etc.

many also left detroit due to the fact detroit didnt meet their manufacturing needs.white people were leaving the city in record numbers since the 50's,1967 just saw the absolute peak of it and the mass exodus.


overall though if a city has had a declining population since the 50's,why the hell would they keep increasing spending if their tax base has shrunk every year for over 60 years straight,its like they kept hoping for a miracle,and straight up ignored the fact they created their own mess.
 
So when Govt really blows it badly, you say they should pay out anyway? Where specifically is the money supposed to come from?

Governments are chosen by the people, so taxes will have to pay for part of it (the rest can come from, for example, selling land etc.)
 
That makes no sense. Public sector workers pay taxes too. The same taxes you do.

No, not the same taxes I pay. The "taxes" that are held out of a government worker's check, is government money anyway. The government is simply keeping their money and calling it taxes; that money isn't "new" revenue like my tax money is.

Automatically equating government mistakes to people who are public sector workers is a logical fallacy.

I didn't blame the public sector workers. They're just doing a job. I'll never fault a man for going to work; no matter who he works for.
 
Someone is going to lose out; the retirees, or the tax payers. Why should the tax payers get screwed for someone else's mistake, just so some guy can sit on his ass and keep collecting his pension. Oh, and don't get me started on lazy ass municipal workers, that may not have necessarily earned it.

Sorry, I'm the type of person who believes in honoring commitments. And I'm not a person who would be able to tell a 65, 75, 85 yr old man or woman that the pension they've been surviving on is now going to disappear. Call it whatever you want, it is what it is.
 
Sorry, I'm the type of person who believes in honoring commitments.


I understand and I'm right there with you, but at the same time it's not MY responsibility to honor someone else's promise. I believe that the people who cut the deals should make good on them, or they should go to jail. But, these bailouts have to stop. If we keep bailing people out, then where's the lesson learned? There isn't one and the same mistakes will be repeated over and over again.

And I'm not a person who would be able to tell a 65, 75, 85 yr old man or woman that the pension they've been surviving on is now going to disappear. Call it whatever you want, it is what it is.

What about a 38 y/o? Or a 45 y/o? They can get their asses out there and go back to work.
 
Using your analogy the government is doing just that to people who worked for a company rather than the government. Those people for the most part have their 401Ks as their pension plan. The government, by holding down interest rates on bonds and CDs in order to be able to pay for the huge debt, have in effect cut the earnings retirees can get on their savings.

Why is there no concern for people who did not work for government?

You misunderstand my original point which was, why should the state's constitution specifically protect the pensions of public sector workers and not those in the private sector and if it does, isn't that provision of the state's constitution unconstitional under the US constitution.

I've also indicated that in my view any retiree who is currently collecting a pension should continue to do so but those who have not secured vested interest in that pension plan should be subject to the same returns from bankruptcy that any other "creditor" of the city.

You may not like the answer, but a city is an entity of the state and if an entity of the state has not handled its fiduciary duties legally and ethically - by that I mean they have not fully funded the pension commitments they have on an ongoing basis - then the state becomes responsible for that negligence and perhaps the state should have taken over the operations of the city of Detroit much sooner.
 
I understand and I'm right there with you, but at the same time it's not MY responsibility to honor someone else's promise. I believe that the people who cut the deals should make good on them, or they should go to jail. But, these bailouts have to stop. If we keep bailing people out, then where's the lesson learned? There isn't one and the same mistakes will be repeated over and over again.



What about a 38 y/o? Or a 45 y/o? They can get their asses out there and go back to work.

On your first point, I agree - some people should go to jail if they did not legally and ethically handle their fiduciary duty and pay into the secured pension fund the required payments yearly to ensure the fund was solvent and not subject to bankruptcy proceedings. If these payments weren't made, and the city councillors/mayor etc. spent the money on other more politically advantageous things, toss them all in jail and set an example.

On your second point, you agree with me - I've said that anyone who is still working and not vested in the pension plan should not be made whole as it relates to what their pension payment would be if they got to retire. That said, I do believe that those 38yr olds and 45 yr olds should be entitled to the monies they were legally required to contribute to the pension plan from each paycheck and each year - they are not entitled to matching funds, they never would have got them if they'd quit or been fired before retiring, but they are entitled, similar to monies deposited in a bank, to the money they were forced to contribute.
 
On your first point, I agree - some people should go to jail if they did not legally and ethically handle their fiduciary duty and pay into the secured pension fund the required payments yearly to ensure the fund was solvent and not subject to bankruptcy proceedings. If these payments weren't made, and the city councillors/mayor etc. spent the money on other more politically advantageous things, toss them all in jail and set an example.

On your second point, you agree with me - I've said that anyone who is still working and not vested in the pension plan should not be made whole as it relates to what their pension payment would be if they got to retire. That said, I do believe that those 38yr olds and 45 yr olds should be entitled to the monies they were legally required to contribute to the pension plan from each paycheck and each year - they are not entitled to matching funds, they never would have got them if they'd quit or been fired before retiring, but they are entitled, similar to monies deposited in a bank, to the money they were forced to contribute.

I just don't believe it should come out of my pocket, is all.
 
I just don't believe it should come out of my pocket, is all.

I agree with you - being in Louisiana, you shouldn't have any skin in this debacle. But the people of Michigan, not just those in Detroit, are on the hook, in my view, because they elected a state government that has some control over cities within the state and should have, long ago, taken over operation of Detroit and set it on the right path. The corruption in the city's government has been known for at least a decade if not more. The people of Michigan elected the state government that didn't act, and now they have to suffer the consequences.
 
I can't argue with the points you've presented, but it doesn't change how I feel about retired people who are living on a pension they earned legally and fully. The problem lies with a government that didn't fully fund their obligations under the plan they approved and deferred contributions until better days that never came.

I don't know what part of the $18 billion debt Detroit has that is pension related or even if the pension shortfalls are included in that number. Those currently receiving a pension, however, would be my first priority in any bankruptcy settlement going forward.

Putting that $18 billion of Detroit debt in some perspective, that comes to about $1,800 from each Michigan resident to settle it up, so each family of 4, in the state, could simply pony up $7,200 to bail out Detroit (this time). ;)
 
Last edited:
I agree with you - being in Louisiana, you shouldn't have any skin in this debacle. But the people of Michigan, not just those in Detroit, are on the hook, in my view, because they elected a state government that has some control over cities within the state and should have, long ago, taken over operation of Detroit and set it on the right path. The corruption in the city's government has been known for at least a decade if not more. The people of Michigan elected the state government that didn't act, and now they have to suffer the consequences.

If Federal money is used to back up these promises, then it's coming out of my pocket.
 
You just don't get it. There is no money to pay them. Money doesn't grow on trees. There simply isn't any. It doesn't matter how much you wish there was, there just isn't.

But But BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILLLLDRUNN!!!!!
 
There just might be an island or two for sale in the Pacific where you can officially cancel your obligations to society and your fellow Americans.

I have no obligation to make up for the city of Detroit getting sunk by its' unions, any more than I have an obligation to make up for e-readers' effects on traditional bookstores or bankers making bad bets.
 
There just might be an island or two for sale in the Pacific where you can officially cancel your obligations to society and your fellow Americans.

Or, he could support candidates who won't take money out of his pocket to pay for governmental screw ups. You know, the political solution.
 
I am talking in general, governments shouldn't be able to declare bankruptcy IMHO, of course there is a legal way to or else Detroit would not have filed for it, but morally I think it is the wrong message to send to citizens and other local governments alike.

I agree. I am aware of the law cited, but I think is is a get-out-of-jail free card for government entities. They are not required to maintain balanced budgets, they are free to spend against future income and if this policy fails, default. That's ridiculous.

My concern is with the fact our Federal government is doing essentially the same thing with deficit spending and periodic increases of the debt ceiling. This is insane!! Any competent government strives to maintain not only a balanced budget, but to develop a budget surplus for emergencies. The only time deficit spending should ever be allowed is when the nation is involved in a "total war." TOTAL, as in requiring the entire productive might of the country to win; not "easy wars" like Iraq or mere "police actions" like Afghanistan.

Detroit probably did the same thing with funds dedicated to retirement as our Federal government has with Social Security; used them to pay for other government functions in hopes that future revenues would replace and cover them. Look how THAT"S turned out.
 
Last edited:
She could have left this part out and NOT looked like a political hack judge.

“It’s cheating, sir, and it’s cheating good people who work,” the judge told assistant state Attorney General Brian Devlin. “It’s also not honoring the (United States) president, who took (Detroit’s auto companies) out of bankruptcy.”

From The Detroit News: Ingham County judge rules Detroit bankruptcy be withdrawn; Schuette appeals | The Detroit News

Sorry, but my duty is to honor the office of the President, not for what he does as President. Talk about spin! :wow:
 
Hello CJ, hope all's well with you!

What would have to happen for the state to remove the City of Detroit government and install a new one?

I agree with you - being in Louisiana, you shouldn't have any skin in this debacle. But the people of Michigan, not just those in Detroit, are on the hook, in my view, because they elected a state government that has some control over cities within the state and should have, long ago, taken over operation of Detroit and set it on the right path. The corruption in the city's government has been known for at least a decade if not more. The people of Michigan elected the state government that didn't act, and now they have to suffer the consequences.
 
Or, he could support candidates who won't take money out of his pocket to pay for governmental screw ups. You know, the political solution.

It really doesn't matter who you vote for because the bureaucracy rules. Politicians may come and go but the bureaucracies will remain and continue to grow, despite any weak economy, and will enact rules that the public must follow. The idea that government employees are 'servants of the people' is a quaint idea but no longer applicable. They have all the power now and we happily gave it to them. We will not be getting it back.
 
I agree. I am aware of the law cited, but I think is is a get-out-of-jail free card for government entities. They are not required to maintain balanced budgets, they are free to spend against future income and if this policy fails, default. That's ridiculous.

My concern is with the fact our Federal government is doing essentially the same thing with deficit spending and periodic increases of the debt ceiling. This is insane!! Any competent government strives to maintain not only a balanced budget, but to develop a budget surplus for emergencies. The only time deficit spending should ever be allowed is when the nation is involved in a "total war." TOTAL, as in requiring the entire productive might of the country to win; not "easy wars" like Iraq or mere "police actions" like Afghanistan.

Detroit probably did the same thing with funds dedicated to retirement as our Federal government has with Social Security; used them to pay for other government functions in hopes that future revenues would replace and cover them. Look how THAT"S turned out.

Quite right. The politicians in Washington are doing to the American economy what their counterparts did in Detroit. There is no real difference.
 
There...is...no...money.

Democrats just don't get the concept.

They just need to raise taxes on “the rich”, don't they? Get “the rich” to pay “their fair share”. Isn't that how Democrats always solve all these sort of problems?
 
Last edited:
Hello CJ, hope all's well with you!

What would have to happen for the state to remove the City of Detroit government and install a new one?

Good morning JC - I'm well and hope you're doing ok too.

I'm not sure what it would involve or if it would be necessary to "remove" the city government and install a new one - I was referring to the State's ability to install an Emergency Manager, as they've recently done, suspending the authority of the city government and giving that authority/power to the EM. I'm not sure if the State also has the power to remove the city government and call for new elections, but if the EM has all the power it wouldn't be necessary. I was suggesting the State should have acted long ago considering the financial problems and corruption.
 
Back
Top Bottom