• 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]

Oh you can still file for bankruptcy and free yourself from lots of obligations. Just not public pensions. Perhaps this should be known as LIMITED GOVERNMENT?
limited government
a concept the wingers cannot comprehend
they have become too accustomed to a perceived right to corporate welfare
you know, the same folks who equate campaign bribes with free speech
 
Who knew it was Unconstitutional to go broke!

When liberals are in charge dumb things happen. Like pensions relying on taxation being part of the constitution.
 
They already have effectively done that by adopting the Constitution as shown. And that was done in 1963.

Or if you do not like that interpretation, the only other one is that it forbids pensions to be part of a city bankruptcy.

Either way, pensions are sacred in this state.

Just guessing but I would interpret it as referring to the state pension funds. What if the state were to go bankrupt? Would the US constitution make the federal government cosign for the funds? There have to be consequences for mismanagement whether in business or in government. We can't allow managers to do whatever they feel like doing, fail and then be bailed out. I would support completing the bankruptcy and then turning the city over to the employees for a few years. Let them do what is necessary to improve things and protect their pension. They have the real incentive. Then, when things settle down, they can have elections and do a better job of demanding performance from those they elect. The citizens share in the failure for electing incompetents and letting them practice their incompetence without interference.
 
Oh you can still file for bankruptcy and free yourself from lots of obligations. Just not public pensions. Perhaps this should be known as LIMITED GOVERNMENT?

If you can't pay them then it really doesn't matter what a judge says. It's not like Detroit can print money!
 
By attempting to violate the very Constitution of the State of Michigan and the obligations therein? That is astounding.
You really can't grasp this, can you.

The city is broke. They do not have the funds to pay their debts. What are they supposed to do? Are the citizens of Michigan that DON'T live or vote in the city of Detroit somehow liable for this debt? Whether you realize it or not, that is exactly what you are saying. Maybe the courts will rule that the this is indeed the case but think of the slippery slope that ruling would set up. It would basically give cities the green light to spend to their hearts content knowing that, ultimately, the state would have to bail them out. Seems to me that ruling this way would be incredibly irresponsible.
 
If you can't pay them then it really doesn't matter what a judge says. It's not like Detroit can print money!

here is a hint
obviously you need it
this means that within the bankruptcy, the pensioners cannot be compelled to take a financial haircut
not true of other creditors
 
When are you going to start caring for the second amendment as much as you care about a ponzi scheme based entirely on theft from the people being part of a state constitution? Just wondering is all.

Every gun post I have ever made is from a deep and profound caring for the Second Amendment as written and as ratified. I have long campaigned against the perversion of it by toadies and sycophants of the gun lobby who would change it from the way it actually was written and of its meaning when written.

I have no idea where this THEFT come in. Or are you using the term the way some right wing extremists use the term THEFT in place of taxation?
 
Every gun post I have ever made is from a deep and profound caring for the Second Amendment as written and as ratified. I have long campaigned against the perversion of it by toadies and sycophants of the gun lobby who would change it from the way it actually was written and of its meaning when written.

OMFG! :lamo:lamo:lamo OMG! The BS meter just exploded. Since when have you defended the second amendment? Who do you think you are bull****ing right now? The only reason you care about this that you can't bear to recognize that pensions have never made a lick of sense in the private sector or the public sector.

I have no idea where this THEFT come in. Or are you using the term the way some right wing extremists use the term THEFT in place of taxation?

It depends. How did they get the taxation? Did they take it from by force and without the peoples consent? They did you say? Well then, it's theft. To put it lightly you're supporting theft right now. Congrats?
 
Every gun post I have ever made is from a deep and profound caring for the Second Amendment as written and as ratified. I have long campaigned against the perversion of it by toadies and sycophants of the gun lobby who would change it from the way it actually was written and of its meaning when written.

I have no idea where this THEFT come in. Or are you using the term the way some right wing extremists use the term THEFT in place of taxation?



just more mindless diversion
employed when they are losing the debate
 
By attempting to violate the very Constitution of the State of Michigan and the obligations therein? That is astounding.

What's astounding is that you've argued so vigorously on these very forums about how the U.S. Constitution is so living and open to interpretation. But oh boy touch your pet issues and suddenly it's incomprehensible? *eating popcorn*

If there ever was an issue with government corruption this is a great, tragic, example. You can't legislate that taxpayers ensure your political cronies have ZERO risk in the economy on taxpayer subsidized rates and investments for their entire life. Democrats have been using government to collect taxes and redistribute to their operatives and base for decades, it's the old tried and true liberal political machine. That it lasts as long as it does is a testament to how good you guys are at ****ing over the rest of us, no doubt...you should be applauded for that. But the music as others pointed out, eventually stops.

The public workers are just as much a victim here as the taxpayers, let's not lose sight of that. You and your ilk have sold them what you should never have tried to sell them, because it was not yours to begin with. They were suckered by that tried and true political propaganda and now they have to bear that burden.
 
Detroit began its slide under two consecutive Republican mayors from 1950 through 1961. During that time, under Cobo and Mariani, Detroit lost 10% of its population. That was the beginning of the end of a trend that is still in effect today.

But to blame this on a party is silly as no mayor is responsible for the two huge factors that killed Detroit:

1 - economic desertion of the city causing it to be abandoned by business and the middle class
2 - deeply ingrained racial problems

It was those two things which have taken Detroit from 1.8 million down to just over 700,000. And that is not the fault of a Republican or Democratic mayor.

You have referenced racial problems a number of times. What would those problems be and in what way are they ingrained?
 
Just guessing but I would interpret it as referring to the state pension funds. What if the state were to go bankrupt? Would the US constitution make the federal government cosign for the funds? There have to be consequences for mismanagement whether in business or in government. We can't allow managers to do whatever they feel like doing, fail and then be bailed out. I would support completing the bankruptcy and then turning the city over to the employees for a few years. Let them do what is necessary to improve things and protect their pension. They have the real incentive. Then, when things settle down, they can have elections and do a better job of demanding performance from those they elect. The citizens share in the failure for electing incompetents and letting them practice their incompetence without interference.


Caveat: The citizens of Detroit elected a school board president who is functionally illiterate.
 
just more mindless diversion
employed when they are losing the debate

Explain to me how putting obligations on the people in a constitution is a good thing. Please explain to me how obligating the people to pay for workers that are retired can possibly be seen as anything short of corruption. Go ahead, please. I'll wait.
 
What's astounding is that you've argued so vigorously on these very forums about how the U.S. Constitution is so living and open to interpretation. But oh boy touch your pet issues and suddenly it's incomprehensible? *eating popcorn*

If there ever was an issue with government corruption this is a great, tragic, example. You can't legislate that taxpayers ensure your political cronies have ZERO risk in the economy on taxpayer subsidized rates and investments for their entire life. Democrats have been using government to collect taxes and redistribute to their operatives and base for decades, it's the old tried and true liberal political machine. That it lasts as long as it does is a testament to how good you guys are at ****ing over the rest of us, no doubt...you should be applauded for that. But the music as others pointed out, eventually stops.

The public workers are just as much a victim here as the taxpayers, let's not lose sight of that. You and your ilk have sold them what you should never have tried to sell them, because it was not yours to begin with. They were suckered by that tried and true political propaganda and now they have to bear that burden.

yet another extreme perspective
a rant which tells us he would similarly object to federal bankruptcy rules which provides wage earners a super-priority
how dare the government look after the common citizen when it could instead be using its authority to vest corporations with more advantages
 
Perhaps the judge read the Michigan Constitution?

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT) CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963
§ 24 Public pension plans and retirement systems, obligation.
Sec. 24. The accrued financial benefits of each pension plan and retirement system of the state and its political subdivisions shall be a contractual obligation thereof which shall not be diminished or impaired thereby.




The way pensions are backed up in the USA we might all be chipping in, whether we like it or not.
 
yet another extreme perspective
a rant which tells us he would similarly object to federal bankruptcy rules which provides wage earners a super-priority
how dare the government look after the common citizen when it could instead be using its authority to vest corporations with more advantages

How dare they do either. :cool:
 
here is a hint
obviously you need it
this means that within the bankruptcy, the pensioners cannot be compelled to take a financial haircut
not true of other creditors

I can see that if they are State pensioners but aren't most City pensioners?
 
Explain to me how putting obligations on the people in a constitution is a good thing. Please explain to me how obligating the people to pay for workers that are retired can possibly be seen as anything short of corruption. Go ahead, please. I'll wait.

it's always a good thing for the state to put its citizens first
which illustrates the difference of the beliefs of democrats and republicans
republicans will use government authority to provide corporate interests with imbalanced advantages
in this instance, paying investors before the payment of retirement benefits to those who actually exerted while on the job
fortunately, the state anticipated this inclination and mandated in its constitution that no body can dissipate the pension claim of a pensioner
so, when the assets are apportioned based on the claims of the claimants in bankruptcy, the pensioners will be first in line
if the money exists to pay any creditor, the pensioners will be first in line to receive it
NOT bond holders
obvious why the wingers hate that
 
I can see that if they are State pensioners but aren't most City pensioners?

they are STATE citizens
the state constitution does not just protect the interests of detroit residents
 
How dare they do either. :cool:


this is why the libertarian party gets no traction among the voters
they are inclined to **** on the common citizen ... on stand around playing pocket pool when some other entity does
 
Explain to me how putting obligations on the people in a constitution is a good thing. Please explain to me how obligating the people to pay for workers that are retired can possibly be seen as anything short of corruption. Go ahead, please. I'll wait.

of all the creditors owed by the city of detroit, which should stand in line to receive what is owed them before the workers who spent their careers earning a retirement which was committed to them for their decades of service?
i'll wait for your answer
 
it's always a good thing for the state to put its citizens first
which illustrates the difference of the beliefs of democrats and republicans
republicans will use government authority to provide corporate interests with imbalanced advantages
in this instance, paying investors before the payment of retirement benefits to those who actually exerted while on the job.

Both republicans and democrats have corporatist tendencies and both love corporate welfare. The kool-aid is spiked, be careful. As for this, it's union freebies at the taxpayers expense.

fortunately, the state anticipated this inclination and mandated in its constitution that no body can dissipate the pension claim of a pensioner

No, they knew that people would fight the idea of pensions forever and made sure to shut them up. It's really too bad the idea was always stupid and it didn't matter one bit in the end that they protected them by their Constitution.

so, when the assets are apportioned based on the claims of the claimants in bankruptcy, the pensioners will be first in line
if the money exists to pay any creditor, the pensioners will be first in line to receive it
NOT bond holders
obvious why the wingers hate that

Obviously, I hate paying for people when they are NOT working and not providing me a thing in return for it.
 
Last edited:
of all the creditors owed by the city of detroit, which should stand in line to receive what is owed them before the workers who spent their careers earning a retirement which was committed to them for their decades of service?
i'll wait for your answer

That does nothing to answer my question. How is putting obligations on the people in a constitution a good thing? I could care less about the promises made to workers of the state. Really, I could care less. The city is broke, so such promises are moot.
 
When liberals are in charge dumb things happen. Like pensions relying on taxation being part of the constitution.

Hate to rain down upon your ideological rant with actual facts but the reality says that in 1962 when Michigan held its Constitutional Convention it was pretty much controlled by Republicans in the person of George Romney who acted as a liason of sorts between business/manufacturing interest and the Republican party interests. Efforts to get such liberal things in as a graduated state income tax were soundly defeated as republicans and conservatives controlled the process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney

Based on his fame and accomplishments in a state where automobile making was a central topic of conversation, Romney was seen as a natural to enter politics.[104] He first became directly involved in politics in 1959, when he was a key force in the petition drive calling for a constitutional convention to rewrite the Michigan Constitution.[30][96] Romney's sales skills made Citizens for Michigan one of the most effective organizations among those calling for the convention.[104][109] Previously unaffiliated politically, Romney declared himself a member of the Republican Party and gained election to the convention.[104] By early 1960, many in Michigan's somewhat moribund Republican Party were touting Romney as a possible candidate for governor, U.S. senator, or even U.S. vice president.[35][49] Romney briefly considered a run in the 1960 Senate election,[49] but instead became a vice president of the constitutional convention that revised the Michigan constitution during 1961 and 1962.[110][111]

http://bentley.umich.edu/research/guides/politics/conventions.php#1961

To further show how conservatives and republicans were in charge of the convention, read this

http://domemagazine.com/features/f20410

A good constitution should stand the test of time, but the constitution adopted by voters in 1963 — Michigan’s fourth — failed in critical areas. Two of the biggest were in the areas of apportioning the Senate and in deciding how all legislative districts would be reapportioned every decade following new census figures.

For example, the new constitution set forth a complicated plan to overcount rural voters and undercount urban voters in apportioning the state Senate: an 80-20 split between population and land. That effort didn’t survive 15 months before the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the whole scheme.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Reynolds v. Sims in June 1964 threw the upcoming Michigan elections into chaos and left election officials shell-shocked. Less than five months before the November elections, district lines had to be redrawn and candidates had to figure out their new districts.

The state Supreme Court, which a few weeks earlier had approved an apportionment based on undercounting urban voters, reversed gears: on June 22, 1964, it approved the Democratic redistricting plan (Austin-Kleiner) based entirely on population.

So much for the lie that liberals were in control of writing that Constitution for Michigan.
 
Last edited:
And yet, union rank and file just kept on electing the same union leadership that helped put Detroit into the crapper, and let them donate union dues to liberal causes and candidates who continually perpetuated this disaster. And they have the gonads to fight the bankruptcy.

Well yeah, just like when they helped Obamacare and now it's going to sting them they want out. They always want a "get out of jail free" card when poor policy fails.
 
Back
Top Bottom