• 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]

haymarket said:
But you are then paying twice. Once as a taxpayer and the second time you pay by giving up your own values and the things that you pretend you believe in but which your actions show that you don't. And the second time you are exposing yourself as a hypocrite for doing so.
Click to expand...
No. I do not surrender my values by collecting SS. 15c of every dollar I have ever made has been taken from me by force to pay for programs I don't approve of. It is not hypocrisy to take back at retirement what is rightfully mine to begin with. But this is very basic stuff. I don't need to explain to you why 1+1=2 do I?
 
haymarket said:
Those pensions are paid on a monthly basis. How does one claim that they will have no money to make their December 2018 payment or their July 2021 payment or their January 2024 payment?
Click to expand...

It is reported that pensioners will be getting a small fraction of what they expected.

In short, as I understand it, funds for the pensions are not held separate from the city's other assets. When the city goes broke so does the pension fund. Any future pension payments will have to be adjusted to reflect city income, and in a bankruptcy that will be set by the court. In a normal bankruptcy it will be the bond holders who get paid back first.
 
Peter King said:
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.
Click to expand...

In the case of cities in California, the people are moving away. There are few people and businesses left to tax. It has become impossible for these governments to pay their debts. And orderly process managed by the courts is preferable to the kind of chaos that would ensue if everything were just allowed to grind to a halt.
 
LowDown said:
In the case of cities in California, the people are moving away. There are few people and businesses left to tax. It has become impossible for these governments to pay their debts. And orderly process managed by the courts is preferable to the kind of chaos that would ensue if everything were just allowed to grind to a halt.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has become impossible for government to pay its debt and Bruce Bartlett has a different spin on it. He says it is because of starve the beast economics. After reading about what happened in CA I have to say he has some fantastic points.
 
Arbo said:
Your history of not backing up what you say and being ignorant to factual material is all across the forums, from this topic to gun rights. Any who have paid attention know it. And you do too, no matter how much you try to spin and deny it.
Click to expand...

How dare anyone "infringe" on the constitution! Now Hay is concerned about the constitution? As usual, only when it fits their needs.

haymarket said:
But yet you are woefully impotent to actually provide a verifiable link or proof of even a single occurrence of the falsehood that you allege.

And that says it all.

But do prove me wrong. This time back up the checks you write but are unable to ever cash. Prove me wrong with evidence and chuck your empty self serving pontifications.
Click to expand...

The proof is in everything you post.

All I can say is that you democrats can't complain when you continuously demand free hand-outs for everything - especially in the recent (2007-present) economy.
 
LowDown said:
It is reported that pensioners will be getting a small fraction of what they expected.

In short, as I understand it, funds for the pensions are not held separate from the city's other assets. When the city goes broke so does the pension fund. Any future pension payments will have to be adjusted to reflect city income, and in a bankruptcy that will be set by the court. In a normal bankruptcy it will be the bond holders who get paid back first.
Click to expand...

That has not yet been determined.

And is it acceptable and right to you that bondholders would get paid before pensioners?
 
MACS-24 said:
How dare anyone "infringe" on the constitution! Now Hay is concerned about the constitution? As usual, only when it fits their needs.



The proof is in everything you post.

All I can say is that you democrats can't complain when you continuously demand free hand-outs for everything - especially in the recent (2007-present) economy.
Click to expand...

Your post makes no sense following what you posted from me. it is irrational and without foundation and is only an attack upon me without any evidence to support it.
 
MACS-24 said:
How dare anyone "infringe" on the constitution! Now Hay is concerned about the constitution? As usual, only when it fits their needs.



The proof is in everything you post.

All I can say is that you democrats can't complain when you continuously demand free hand-outs for everything - especially in the recent (2007-present) economy.
Click to expand...
you make such a good point

NOT!
Red states were more likely to get a bigger cut of federal spending. Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. In contrast, 55 percent of the states that went to Obama received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. Republican states, on average, received $1.46 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; Democratic states, on average, received $1.16.
Click to expand...
Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones

if those republican states are so fiscally responsible, why do they require a larger federal subsidy than the democrat dominated states?
 
LowDown said:
It is reported that pensioners will be getting a small fraction of what they expected.

In short, as I understand it, funds for the pensions are not held separate from the city's other assets. When the city goes broke so does the pension fund. Any future pension payments will have to be adjusted to reflect city income, and in a bankruptcy that will be set by the court. In a normal bankruptcy it will be the bond holders who get paid back first.
Click to expand...

what causes you to believe passive investors get in bankruptcy line to receive their money in front of former wage earners?
 
Fletch said:
I don't know, you tell me. I suspect it has more to do with income levels and cost of living being lower in red states, thus lower tax revenue, than any ideological explanation.
Click to expand...

the point is, republican dominated states require more federal subsidies than those blue states which are dominated by 'free spending' democrats
notice how silly your proposition is when confronted by facts and reality

quit speculating and tell us what causes this disparity between red states and blue states
 
justabubba said:
the point is, republican dominated states require more federal subsidies than those blue states which are dominated by 'free spending' democrats
notice how silly your proposition is when confronted by facts and reality

quit speculating and tell us what causes this disparity between red states and blue states
Click to expand...
??? You posted the link, you explain it. If you don't have a counter explanation, then I guess mine stands.
 
Fletch said:
??? You posted the link, you explain it. If you don't have a counter explanation, then I guess mine stands.
Click to expand...

my FACTS trump your weak ass speculation

the fact is red states require a larger federal subsidy than do blue states

which then tells us red states, dominated by republicans, are less self sustaining economically, which then tells us they are less fiscally responsible

until you offer facts which refute my facts, you can be found to be nothing other WRONG in your bogus, ignorant and unfounded presentation
 
haymarket said:
Your post makes no sense following what you posted from me. it is irrational and without foundation and is only an attack upon me without any evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Sorry you can't keep up with your own nonsense and of course it doesn't make sense, logic and facts escape you, but don't worry hay I will not get on your merry-go-round. Unlike most, I don't have patience to go in endless circles with you and normally stay away from any thread you post on - which definately limits my movement. But sometimes your hypocrisy needs highlighted.
 
justabubba said:
my FACTS trump your weak ass speculation

the fact is red states require a larger federal subsidy than do blue states

which then tells us red states, dominated by republicans, are less self sustaining economically, which then tells us they are less fiscally responsible

until you offer facts which refute my facts, you can be found to be nothing other WRONG in your bogus, ignorant and unfounded presentation
Click to expand...
Wow. What crawled up your ass? You made an unfounded assumption and don't like being challenged, I guess. I simply offered another possible explanation and you go berserk. I suspect that if you look at average annual income in Mississippi and compare that to California, you will find a big difference. That difference will be reflected in tax revenue. If the average Mississippian earns 30,000 and the average Californian 50,000, tax revenues from Mississippi will be lower per person. So it stands to reason that all things being equal, Mississippi will get more back per taxpayer. Now, try to address that without going ballistic. If you can.
 
MACS-24 said:
Sorry you can't keep up with your own nonsense and of course it doesn't make sense, logic and facts escape you, but don't worry hay I will not get on your merry-go-round. Unlike most, I don't have patience to go in endless circles with you and normally stay away from any thread you post on - which definately limits my movement. But sometimes your hypocrisy needs highlighted.
Click to expand...

You already have gotten on the merry go round. And that tough horsie appears to have thrown you right off again. :doh;)

Your post made no sense in any way or on any level or in any context next to the post of mine that you printed in front of it.
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
and what about the people whose pensions are at risk? do we have to give them nothing?
Click to expand...

There will be some deal made to protect at least some portion of those pensions.

I remember back in the 70's when government employees pensions were a hot debate topic. People warned that the pensions that were being bargained for then were not sustainable, add 35 years & additional "negotiations" and we have Detroit along with many other communities having to go bankrupt because they dont have the money to fulfill the obligation.

This is one of the down falls of politicians negotiating with unions with your money.
 
Doing good here, thanks! The reason I asked about replacing the city government is that there has been rampant crime and corruption at least since the 70's. I'm assuming that as soon as the EM is done with his job, Detroit will start to sink back into their old position again. I believe that the people of Detroit should be responsible for what happens there, as they've voted their own representatives in. A person in Detroit should either leave or be actively involved in ending the corruption, but they shouldn't be waiting for outsiders to fix their problems. I think help from outside at this point, other than a good escape plan, would enable the city further, as there is already a strong entitlement attitude there.



CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Yes, it has become impossible for government to pay its debt and Bruce Bartlett has a different spin on it. He says it is because of starve the beast economics. After reading about what happened in CA I have to say he has some fantastic points.
Click to expand...

They have the highest taxes around. What kind of moron calls that "starve the beast"?
 
haymarket said:
That has not yet been determined.

And is it acceptable and right to you that bondholders would get paid before pensioners?
Click to expand...

If liberals want to be able to borrow money for municipal governments ever again they had better respect the rights of bondholders.
 
LowDown said:
They have the highest taxes around. What kind of moron calls that "starve the beast"?
Click to expand...

Perhaps a 'moron' who looks at more than just what is on the surface? I have helped many Detroit constituents with their taxes. What we find out is two things: 1) the rate is rather high for property tax compared to the surrounding suburbs and tri-county communities. 2) most homes in Detroit are assessed at very low values going back many years and the actual dollar and cents tax produced for the city is often rather a small figure compared to the surrounding suburbs and tri-county communities.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130221/METRO01/302210398

Detroit ranked first among the 50 largest cities in taxes and last among property values in a 2011 study by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy in Cambridge, Mass. Detroit taxes on a $150,000 house were $4,885, twice the national average of $1,983. The city's average house price, $16,800, was nearly 10 times lower than the next lowest, Mesa, Ariz.
Click to expand...



For example, Detroit went through a thirty year period from the late Sixties through the early 2000's where property was almost worthless and houses could be bought very very cheap compared to the suburbs. And when home values dropped, many people appealed their tax assessments and won since it was not hard to prove a low value based on current sales - which is the standard in Michigan. As a result, many people lived in decent three bedroom homes that were listed on the books as having a taxable value of under $20,000.00. Then the housing took off and Detroit houses doubled in value - some tripled in value. I sold a home in decent working class neighborhood in the early 80's for $26K. Thirty years later it sold for just over $100K. Then the bubble burst and the housing market crashed and Detroit has not yet recovered. I personally know people who bought homes seven or eight years ago at 100K only to see it worth maybe 15K today.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/..._1_home-prices-mayor-kwame-kilpatrick-outlook

DETROIT — It may be tough to get financing for a new car these days, but in Detroit you can buy a house with a credit card.

The median price of a home sold in Detroit in December was $7,500, according to Realcomp, a listing service.

Not $75,000. Remove a zero -- it's seven thousand five hundred dollars, substantially less than the lowest-price car on the new-car market.
Click to expand...


http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/finance-10marketstocollapse/detroit-michigan/

https://www.detroitmi.gov/CityCounc...fReview/FAQS/PropertyAssessmentExplained.aspx

Michigan has laws which limit how much the property tax assessment can go up in any given year so the City never really made up those tax values. And even the ones which resold for higher values have seen appeals of the higher values over the last few years and the people are winning much lower assessments.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-act-206-of-1893.pdf

http://www.mml.org/resources/publications/one_pagers/opp_headlee_override.pdf
 
Last edited:
mac said:
That's not what I read, can you show me a link to the source of your information?
Click to expand...

Sure:
Representatives of the association and police officers will meet Friday morning to discuss the situation, McNamara said. They’re working with other Detroit employees to form a coalition to address the city’s financial crisis.

“From the beginning, we have attempted to participate in discussions and offer a restructuring plan,” McNamara said. “It is a shame that now we will have to be in front of a bankruptcy judge when all along we have been expecting to have meaningful meetings with emergency manager Kevyn Orr. These meetings never occurred.” Detroit union leaders call bankruptcy filing premature, say they were trying to negotiate | Detroit Free Press | freep.com
 
Judge rules Detroit bankruptcy filing UNCONSTITUTIONAL

They need to get innovative, perhaps even de-incorporating the city and revert governance to the county.

Perhaps they could reduce the pensions of those who no longer live in Michigan.
 
justabubba said:
my FACTS trump your weak ass speculation

the fact is red states require a larger federal subsidy than do blue states
Click to expand...

Because there are many more of them? Why should the federal government subsidize states and cities. Those are taxing entities in themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom