• 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]

Which still doesn't change the reality that THERE IS NO MONEY!

When are you going to get that through your head?

Time will tell about that since pension obligations are payable in drips and drops over a very long period of time.

And it changes nothing regarding the Constitutional provision against diminishing a pension. If the city cannot raise the funds, it is the State Constitution which will be used to make the State pay.
 
I don't know. Bankruptcy courts typically have a lot of latitude in their rulings. My concern is that I don't know the alternatives being proposed by those who filed to block the bankruptcy. It would seem to me that if the city can't pay and the item in the state constitution says that public pensioners must be kept whole, then they would want to have the state pay up. How would that go over in the rest of Michigan?

Good question. I expect some would support it while others would not. It would be divisive.
 
The State of Michigan isn't obligated to pay for the debts of Detroit, any more than they are obligated to pay for the mortgages of the people of Michigan. They didn't sign the contracts, they are not financially responsible. Try again.

The city is a creation of the state. They only operate with the blessing of the state. They imposed certain conditions on the city and one of them was cited in the State Constitution.

Financial responsibility is intrinsic in that relationship.
 
So if it's Unconstitutional to cut pensions because the Michigan Consitution prohibits it, why is it ok to default on Bonds, when the Michigan Constitution prohibits it?

"Rights and obligations to remain unimpaired.
All rights acquired under Sections 27 and 28 of Article X of the Constitution of 1908, by
holders of bonds heretofore issued, and all obligations assumed by the state or any school
district under these sections, shall remain unimpaired."

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/constitution.pdf

The section you quoted refers to bonds issued by the State or by school districts.
 
Your'e justifying the lowering of the general standards of education and failing to realize it's a huge part of Detroits problem.

Your'e justifying a man who heads up the Detroit School System who is practically functionally illiterate.

It's surreal. One indicator after another was ignored for years as that City slid down into bankruptcy and we STILL have people in denial.

No, I don't know that his public school education is the reason. That is your assumption. He did graduate college so he isn't stupid. He does have some sort of issue in writing. It might be a medical problem instead of an educational one. I don't know. Neither do you. I once had a black woman as an employee who grew up in Cabrini Green which was one of those horrible housing developments in Chicago. She not only lived through it and the horrible education she received in the local Chicago Public School system but she went on not only to graduate from college but to earn masters degree in mechanical engineering. She had no communication problems but she did grow up in an environment similar to the DPS President or even worse. She was a person deserving of respect and admiration. What she did was tough. A lousy public primary and secondary education makes matters worse but not impossible.

I think you guys are jumping to conclusions. You don't know anything about the man other than that he has a problem forming sentences accurately. That might mean he can't manage or it might not. It is not enough to suppose he has to be incompetent. Heaven knows there were obviously plenty of incompetent folks in city management.
 
Which Detroit is a part of. Why would they be separate?

Because Detroit issues its own bonds backed by its own faith and credit. The State issues its own bonds. School districts issue their own bonds. The part of the Constitution you quoted seems to indicate that municipal bonds are not included in the State guaranty since it only mention State and school district bonds.



"Rights and obligations to remain unimpaired.
All rights acquired under Sections 27 and 28 of Article X of the Constitution of 1908, by
holders of bonds heretofore issued, and all obligations assumed by the state or any school
district under these sections, shall remain unimpaired."


I am saying this however without the earlier constitution in front of me.
 
This article combined with a few facts I learned earlier today give a pretty clear picture of how bad this really is.

Detroit hoping to cut pension, retiree health obligations | LifeHealthPro

According to this source...
More than 42 percent of Detroit's 2013 revenues went to required bond, pension, health care and other payments. If the city continues operating the way it had before Orr arrived, those costs would take up nearly 65 percent of city spending by 2017, Orr's team said.

Currently, Detroit collects about $1.1 billion in revenue annually. Dumping the bond holders won't be enough. Not even close.
 
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.
signs of progress
you can now admit that republicans as well as democrats are responsible for welfare, in its various forms. kudos for being able to finally admit that reality
now that you know about the kool aid, lay off of it



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, are you saying that having pensions is a bad thing?
if so, tell us why ... and explain what would be a better system to provide for those who are no longer employed



Obviously, I hate paying for people when they are NOT working and not providing me a thing in return for it.
and it's obvious you have no understanding of basic economics
those employees already paid for those pensions
with years of their labor
now that they have satisfied their obligation to earn that income stream in their twilight years, when they are beyond the ability to return to their careers, you would opt to deny them the benefits they have paid for: with the sweat of their brow
your brand of compassionate conservatism has been found to be an illogical sham
based on your posts, you have yet to figure that out
 
Good question. I expect some would support it while others would not. It would be divisive.

You have claimed you live in Michigan, would you support it?

I would think it would be more divisive. I would think this could destroy the autonomy of cities/towns if they could create obligations for which everyone in the state would be on the hook.

I have heard that the total debt is $18 billion and pensions were about $3.5 billion. For what is the other $14.5 billion?
 
Because Detroit issues its own bonds backed by its own faith and credit. The State issues its own bonds. School districts issue their own bonds. The part of the Constitution you quoted seems to indicate that municipal bonds are not included in the State guaranty since it only mention State and school district bonds.






I am saying this however without the earlier constitution in front of me.

Well it if gets to be to much for them to pay they can always change the Constitution! :)
 
You have claimed you live in Michigan, would you support it?

I would think it would be more divisive. I would think this could destroy the autonomy of cities/towns if they could create obligations for which everyone in the state would be on the hook.

I have heard that the total debt is $18 billion and pensions were about $3.5 billion. For what is the other $14.5 billion?

One point to remember is that cities and towns ARE NOT autonomous. They are creations of the state and operate under the watchful eye of the state and are subject to takeover - as many cities and towns now are by the state.

I believe the numbers are something that people cannot even agree on. The last time we were presented the numbers in Lansing they were all over the map depending on how well the pension funds do with their investments. if they get back 7 or 8% a year - they are in great shape. If they only return 1 or 2% a year - they are in trouble. The numbers then depend on that return.
 
Time will tell about that since pension obligations are payable in drips and drops over a very long period of time.

And it changes nothing regarding the Constitutional provision against diminishing a pension. If the city cannot raise the funds, it is the State Constitution which will be used to make the State pay.

And when the state goes bankrupt? What then?
 
That does nothing to answer my question.
really? you were asking a question and not making a statement?

How is putting obligations on the people in a constitution a good thing?
it is a fabulous thing. its a constitutional provision to assure that those who have earned a pension can expect to receive it. ALL of it
it says pensioners have a right to the pension income they have earned by their labors

I could care less about the promises made to workers of the state.
how much less could you care
and why would you want to tell this to us
it has no bearing on the topic of discussion
i don't give a **** what you care about or how much or little you care about it

Really, I could care less.
so, you could care less about it
i could give a **** what you care about

The city is broke, so such promises are moot.
that the city is insolvent does NOT mean it is without the means to cover these pension obligations
it just means that those pension obligations will be paid first from the available monies
only then can whatever remains be used to pay other creditors
they will take a larger haircut so that the pensioners - consistent with the state constitution - take none
didn't any wingers study economics of civics? why so much ignorance about that which should be found basic?
 
And when the state goes bankrupt? What then?

I work for the state. Do you know something that I do not know about this possibility?
 
so, you could care less about it
i could give a **** what you care about


that the city is insolvent does NOT mean it is without the means to cover these pension obligations
it just means that those pension obligations will be paid first from the available monies
only then can whatever remains be used to pay other creditors
they will take a larger haircut so that the pensioners - consistent with the state constitution - take none
didn't any wingers study economics of civics? why so much ignorance about that which should be found basic?

Exactly. It is rather shocking to see those on the right go to such great lengths to express their contempt for the working person.
 
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.

Absolutely. Every single ounce of my retirement planning is being done with the notion that my government pention will not actually occur. If it ends up still being something that is supported by the time I retire...excellent, bonus. But I'm RESPONSABLE enough and REALISTIC enough to understand that banking on being paid in perpetuity while I don't do a damn thing is a dumb exercise and not one I plan to partake in.

As a kid in his mid to late 20's I was already working with my wife in planning how we were going about planning for our retirement, and we're doing it without any expectation of my government pension. To me, that pension is a gamble just like any other form of retirement...not something I'm guaranteed.
 
I work for the state. Do you know something that I do not know about this possibility?

States cannot print money, they are subject to the same forces as a business or a city. Or were you not aware of that?
 
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.

Yeah, that's rediculous. You are going to basically fall back on the "inherited a mess" mantra and claim that two Mayors, over 50 years ago, created a mess that 50+ years of Democrats couldn't fix? Laughable.

Also laughable is that 50 plus years of Democrats couldn't prepare for the steady decline that was ongoing. As far as "deeply ingrained racial problems" the majority of those Democrats in power were African-Americans. Are you claiming that they're racists?
 
what i can do is offer the facts
and the facts show us that red/republican states require more federal subsidy than blue/demo states
showing us that demo governments are more fiscally responsible than republican governments
like the other fellow who keeps insisting otherwise, i also offer you the opportunity to prove my facts wrong
or to explain why those facts do not indicate republican dominated states to be less fiscally responsible

How many of them are declaring bankruptcy following a 50 year shutout of the opposing party?
 
you make such a good point

NOT!

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?

maybe you can specify for us what exactly these "federal subsidies" are.
if you are successful, you'll be the very first person to ever do so.... to a person, everyone who has ever spouted this "statistic" has failed to specify, including the person who came up with the "statistic" in the first place.

good luck...

while you are at it, can you explain what in the wide wide world of sports this has to do with Detroit?
 
Well, well, well... corruption and mishandling of Detroit pension funds is contributing to the fiasco? Say it ain't so!

The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Detroit's Bankruptcy and Public-Sector Pensions


Authorities have been looking into the Detroit pension funds for years and have already charged city and union officials, and investment advisers, with fraud. While the city is responsible for the funds, day-to-day control lies with others. “Much of the money was managed by people who had no business managing it,” said one adviser to the city.

Mr Orr and his advisers claim that about 30 per cent of the investments in the general fund fall into the category of “other” – riskier, less transparent – investments, and include real estate transactions and development deals in Detroit itself that lacked sufficient oversight and vetting from professional investment advisers.

Such projects included funding for unprofitable real estate developments and Tradewinds Airlines, a US cargo airline, which is now defunct and lost all its value two years ago, Mr Orr told the Financial Times.

Hmmm.... so city officials take money from the pension fund and "invest" it with their cronies. Money is lost because of these bad "investments" but no one realizes it until it is too late because they are using an unrealistic model to calculate future gains. Great. The cities pension fund is drastically underfunded because of corruption and mismanagement and it's the bond holders that are the bad guys that should expect nothing and like it.:roll:
 
States cannot print money, they are subject to the same forces as a business or a city. Or were you not aware of that?

That I knew. I was speaking about your mentioning of a possible state bankruptcy proceeding.
 
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.
Detroit has had a Democrat in the Mayor's office since January 2, 1962. That's 51 years! Your 2 points are also gross misrepresentations. Detroit has suffered from corruption and financial mismanagement for decades. They put all of their eggs in one basket with the auto industry and they lacked any vision what so ever once it became clear that the auto industry could not carry their water. Bringing up two republican governors from more than half a century ago is just plain hackery... and really, REALLY stupid hackery at that.
 
Back
Top Bottom