• 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]

justabubba said:
there is LOTS of money
just not enough to pay all the debts
so bankruptcy is the way to determine who gets paid and who does not get paid in full
and according to the state's constitution, the pensioners will get paid in full
those not protected by constitutional provisions - not so much. they will get what ever is left to divide for themselves
Click to expand...

That's right. There is LOTS of money, just not enough to pay all the debts. That same understanding of economics applies to the Federal Government as well.
 
Cephus said:
States cannot print money, they are subject to the same forces as a business or a city. Or were you not aware of that?
Click to expand...
this is a STUPID argument
no bankrupt debtor can print money
but they still extinguish debt thru bankruptcy
and in the bankruptcy court certain creditors are paid what they are due - in full - from what monies are available to the debtor
'and those that don't will receive whatever is left, if any
 
mac said:
How many of them are declaring bankruptcy following a 50 year shutout of the opposing party?
Click to expand...

the reich wing position that red states and their republican dominated governments are more financially astute is proven wrong by the facts
those red states require a substantially greater federal subsidy than the demo dominated blue states
and the reason is that republican politicians are ****ty at fiscal policy
 
Henrin said:
Why would I hide it? What part of libertarian are you not grasping?



Yes, I'm saying having pensions is a bad thing. Why would I propose a better system to provide for those that aren't providing me a service? That makes no sense.



How much can sweat from a brow buy? Is anyone in the market for sweat, and if so, would you actually want to do business with someone like that? Seriously though, I have no reason to accept the idea that I have to pay someone when they doing nothing. The years that they did provide me a service I paid them and now that is over there is no reason for me to continue to pay them. I have no reason to care for obligations made by the government they made to people at my expense.
Click to expand...


you have only proven that, like most libertarians, you have zero knowledge of basic economics

many of us have worked for a wage and the guaranty of a pension upon completion of a certain number of years working. often, the wage is at less than market rates, recognizing that the future pension benefit compensates for the diminished immediate wage income. pay me some now, and the rest later

its stunning how little about real life economics escapes people on this forum; most frequently by those who (pre)tend to espouse fiscally conservative leanings
 
Henrin said:
So a constitution should place obligations on the people and not just the government? Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...
please try to read for understanding

the state's constitution established provisions on behalf of its citizens.

can you grasp that? if not, pose a question describing what you do not understand
 
justabubba said:
the reich wing position that red states and their republican dominated governments are more financially astute is proven wrong by the facts
those red states require a substantially greater federal subsidy than the demo dominated blue states
and the reason is that republican politicians are ****ty at fiscal policy
Click to expand...

The facts are not on your side. California Goes Bankrupt - Reason.com
 
justabubba said:
you have only proven that, like most libertarians, you have zero knowledge of basic economics

many of us have worked for a wage and the guaranty of a pension upon completion of a certain number of years working. often, the wage is at less than market rates, recognizing that the future pension benefit compensates for the diminished immediate wage income. pay me some now, and the rest later

its stunning how little about real life economics escapes people on this forum; most frequently by those who (pre)tend to espouse fiscally conservative leanings
Click to expand...

It seems to me what you're saying deals with the agreement you made with your employer and since we are dealing with government workers there is no such thing as "market rates" for the work completed. In fact, in many areas there isn't even a comparison to be made. At the point the pension starts to be taken out pensioners are getting payment for doing nothing and the agreement to take less while working has no effect on this.
 
Grant said:
That's right. There is LOTS of money, just not enough to pay all the debts. That same understanding of economics applies to the Federal Government as well.
Click to expand...

duh!
when a debtor is without the means to pay their just financial obligations, then bankruptcy provisions are established just for such a circumstance

here is a clue - one lost on many others, too - the chapter 9 bankruptcy rules are already established, for instances such as this

such need for a municipality to file for bankruptcy was anticipated

and in bankruptcy actions, there are different tiers of creditors. THAT is what this is about

and if the provisions of the STATE constitution stand up in a FEDERAL bankruptcy court, the pensioners owed their retirement income by the city of detroit will receive their payments in full

and if there is not enough money to pay every other creditor in full - as is expected - some (probably most) of them will have to settle for pennies on the dollar. unsecured creditors will probably not receive those pennies

now come back and make another stupid post that does not advance this debate an iota; it has now become an expected "feature"
 
Henrin said:
It seems to me what you're saying deals with the agreement you made with your employer and since we are dealing with government workers there is no such thing as "market rates" for the work completed. In fact, in many areas there isn't even a comparison to be made. At the point the pension starts to be taken out pensioners are getting payment for doing nothing and the agreement to take less while working has no effect on this.
Click to expand...

i am a federal retiree
i was a government worker
what i said applies to federal and many state and municipal workers, who agreed to accept less than comparable market rate pay today for a better retirement tomorrow

try again. you will need a much better argument than the one i just flushed
 
justabubba said:
please try to read for understanding

the state's constitution established provisions on behalf of its citizens.

can you grasp that? if not, pose a question describing what you do not understand
Click to expand...

I understand it perfectly. The people must all pay higher taxes so people on their pension can do squat and still get paid. This arrangement is part of the states constitution putting a constitutional obligation on the people to pay the pensions of others.
 
justabubba said:
i am a federal retiree
i was a government worker
what i said applies to federal and many state and municipal workers, who agreed to accept less than comparable market rate pay today for a better retirement tomorrow

try again. you will need a much better argument than the one i just flushed
Click to expand...

And your point is?
 
Henrin said:
I understand it perfectly.
Click to expand...
it is obvious that you do not

The people must all pay higher taxes so people on their pension can do squat and still get paid. This arrangement is part of the states constitution putting a constitutional obligation on the people to pay the pensions of others.
Click to expand...
no, the government workers agree to a compensation package. one that accepts often less than market wages today for a pension benefit that will be due upon fulfilling the requirements to become vested in the retirement system

now, prudent fiscal policy would tell the government leaders that the appropriate thing to then do is place the wage savings into a sinking fund to cover future retirement costs

but too many states and municipalities - like detroit - underfunded the retirement system to cover those pension payments when they became due

which is why the state's constitutional provision is so prescient. it is intended to prevent the pensioner from being hurt by such poor fiscal governance as is evident in detroit
 
justabubba said:
it is obvious that you do not


no, the government workers agree to a compensation package. one that accepts often less than market wages today for a pension benefit that will be due upon fulfilling the requirements to become vested in the retirement system

now, prudent fiscal policy would tell the government leaders that the appropriate thing to then do is place the wage savings into a sinking fund to cover future retirement costs

but too many states and municipalities - like detroit - underfunded the retirement system to cover those pension payments when they became due

which is why the state's constitutional provision is so prescient. it is intended to prevent the pensioner from being hurt by such poor fiscal governance as is evident in detroit
Click to expand...

You already made this argument. It's not convincing and it does not work as a rebuttal towards mine. :shrug:
 
justabubba said:
that your rebuttal was entirely wrong
pity i needed to explain the obvious
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if you are a federal retiree
It doesn't matter if you were a government worker
It doesn't matter if it applies to federal and many state and municipal workers.
I'm well aware of the arrangement made and describing it does not warrant it's existence.
 
Henrin said:
It doesn't matter if you are a federal retiree
It doesn't matter if you were a government worker
It doesn't matter if it applies to federal and many state and municipal workers.
I'm well aware of the arrangement made and describing it does not warrant it's existence.
Click to expand...

let's look at your post:
Henrin said:
It seems to me what you're saying deals with the agreement you made with your employer and since we are dealing with government workers there is no such thing as "market rates" for the work completed. In fact, in many areas there isn't even a comparison to be made.
Click to expand...
there are very few positions in government service where there are not also civilian counterparts
which then tells us there are benchmarks for market value of jobs
which then tells us that your post is wrong - again

At the point the pension starts to be taken out pensioners are getting payment for doing nothing and the agreement to take less while working has no effect on this.
Click to expand...
the pension is not paid for future work, or for contemporaneous work. it was the commitment - the financial obligation of the employer to the employee - the city to the employee in this instance - for PAST work. work often performed at below market wages
 
justabubba said:
the reich wing position that red states and their republican dominated governments are more financially astute is proven wrong by the facts
those red states require a substantially greater federal subsidy than the demo dominated blue states
and the reason is that republican politicians are ****ty at fiscal policy
Click to expand...

Actually, the Fed's own websites have proved that incorrect. :shrug:
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why does this sound a lot like blame Bush for the mess that was inherited, but never mind that was not simply a couple of years ago, but 50 years ago. You needed that race card in the deck, that surely explains the lack of accounting skills to see this comming and make necessary adjustments. When the rats are fleeing the sinking ship it might be wise to see to the leak; actually, in Detroit's case, it was more like the rats stayed but the crew fled.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take an economic genius to see that if you are paying your Visa card with your Mastercard you will have a problem. Borrowing to simply to pay pensions should have been the first clue that something was a little off.
 
justabubba said:
you have only proven that, like most libertarians, you have zero knowledge of basic economics

many of us have worked for a wage and the guaranty of a pension upon completion of a certain number of years working. often, the wage is at less than market rates, recognizing that the future pension benefit compensates for the diminished immediate wage income. pay me some now, and the rest later

its stunning how little about real life economics escapes people on this forum; most frequently by those who (pre)tend to espouse fiscally conservative leanings
Click to expand...

With the exception of the military, it doesn't exist anymore. You found the holy grail if you are in your 20s - 30s and your are getting a pension.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Detroit's fiscal catastrophe has nothing to do with the U.S. constitution.
Click to expand...
But the US catastrophe that must come will be the result of government moving beyond the Constitution.

Socialism must eventually cause ruin. Detroit lets us stare our fate in the face.
 
justabubba said:
it is obvious that you do not


no, the government workers agree to a compensation package. one that accepts often less than market wages today for a pension benefit that will be due upon fulfilling the requirements to become vested in the retirement system

now, prudent fiscal policy would tell the government leaders that the appropriate thing to then do is place the wage savings into a sinking fund to cover future retirement costs

but too many states and municipalities - like detroit - underfunded the retirement system to cover those pension payments when they became due

which is why the state's constitutional provision is so prescient. it is intended to prevent the pensioner from being hurt by such poor fiscal governance as is evident in detroit
Click to expand...

So, according to your interpretation of the Michigan constitution, each resident (man, woman or child) of Michigan is now obligated to pony up about $900 to cover the shortfall of Detroit city workers' retirement benefits? When less than 30K people are able to "constitutionally" accrue over $9 billion in debt there just might be a problem with your state's oversight of Detroit's finances. You do realize that comes to an average of each Detroit city retiree being owed $3,000,000. How is that even possible? That is saying that each average Detroit city retiree will get more than $100,000/year for 30 years, assuming that the Detroit city retirement fund now contains nothing at all.
 
haymarket said:
Lets compare your posts and mine.

earlier in the day I was challenged by another poster to supply evidence for the claim that race played a major role in Detorits downfall. I supplied at least a half dozen sources to document this including several award winning books on the subject.

What do you do in your post? Attack me for one. Failing to provide any evidence that it was corruption that was the major factor in Detroit declaring bankruptcy is the second. But its not too late. Lets see the objective verifiable evidence to support your claim that



So step up and show us.
Click to expand...

Oh just stop it now. On post 383 I sourced an article which clearly and factually lays out the financial realities that Detroit is faced with. On post 398 I linked a source which provides information on specific examples of corruption and cronyism which led to significant losses in their pension funds. This part of your post is now rendered impotent. I would appreciate a little more honesty out of you if you wish to continue. After all, I should not have to waste my time pointing out dishonest tactics.

haymarket said:
As for your sensitivity about democrats - do you really think this is about you? This thread has been filled with people vilifying democrats which ignoring republicans. Got it?
Click to expand...

Again with the dishonesty, haymarket. Here are your exact words...

haymarket said:
By all means, find me an expert who agrees that the problem is not principally economic and racial.

Do it.

You wanna know what hackery is Jack. Its people who express the nonsense that you just did. Than and your denial of reality. In your blind desire to attack the Democrats you ignore the fact that the slide began with 2 republicans and then continued with the democrats. In point of fact, the problem is economic and racial and politicians of both stripes contributed to it, messed it up a bit, and sure did not help or reverse it.
Click to expand...

"In YOUR blind desire to attack Democrats". In a post that is a direct response to me the word "your" most certainly refers to me and me alone. I find the level of dishonesty that you engage in to be quite disturbing and I hope others reading along take note of it. It makes any rational discussion impossible and it is a very poor reflection, not only on you, but on the positions and issues that you choose to support. Who needs liars on their team?
 
justabubba said:
please try to read for understanding

the state's constitution established provisions on behalf of its citizens.

can you grasp that? if not, pose a question describing what you do not understand
Click to expand...
Then let the state deal with it. Either way it is not my problem. Detroit made its bed...

We could turn Detroit into an oasis of growth in less than a year. Have Congress pass a law that says Those in Detroit will pay only one-half of whatever tax rates are published for all of us. No regulatory agency regulations shall be binding. They will be advisory only. This shall be true for the next 75 years.

Problem solved. There will not be enough room to contain all of the businesses that will flock there.

Of course we could do the same for the nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom