• 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]

I caught your post in it's entirety before you went back and deleted the part in bold. Just wanted to preserve it.

I have no idea what you are ranting about as I deleted nothing. Nor would I delete the truth.

Perhaps you should look up the term STRAWMAN and learn about it?
 
Sure. Here it is.

Thank you for reproducing that.

But basically the poster is correct that Detroit takes in money but not enough to pay the debts. What is wrong with that? One can indeed have lots of money coming in but if the bills are even greater, it does not fix the problem.

http://www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/...k/Budget-in-Brief 12-13 -- BH changes_2_2.pdf

I think any reasonable person would agree that one could characterize 2.6 BILLION dollars as lots of money.
 
Last edited:
Why would bankruptcy need be declared if, as you claim, there is LOTS of money?
there is a LOT of money
enough to cover the pensions, certainly
not enough to pay all the other bills
so, pay the pensions first consistent with the MI constitution

having to explain the most basic information allows me to feel for the people who drive the short bus

The fact is that there is not enough money to satisfy debts, making your LOTS of money claim highly foolish.
you want to find foolish, read that ^ post. it's ****ing stupid. the USA has LOTS of money. but not enough to pay our debts without incurring a deficit - resulting in long-term debt obligations. does that fact manage to sink in?
what do i have to do to allow some folks to realize that a LOT of money does not necessarily mean ENOUGH money
but there IS enough money to cover the outstanding pension obligations. and the state constitution says those pension obligations will not be diminuated


In fact I have never heard of anyone ever claiming bankruptcy that there was still LOTS of money to go around. Now you are talking pennies on the dollar, despite LOTS of money. Democrats do appear to live in Bubbaworld.
that you - with your obvious level of experience - do not understand that businesses can have a lot of income but not enough to remain solvent without the protections afforded by filing bankruptcy, is meaningless
because such scenarios happen all the time - in the real world; not some fictitious place that operates according to your irrational, uneducated, ignorant machinations
 
Besides yourself, who did dismiss it as hackery along with evidence to show it was wrong? I will wait for the answer. by the way - you should learn how to properly count. Several people here have been supportive of positions I have taken in this thread and the argument I have put forth.

That's right!

I have not attempting to do anything other than tell the truth using the facts.

Not exactly.

It is interesting that others here saw my real point while others including yourself seemed blind to it in favor of harping the partisan line that Detroit has been ruled by Satan and is everything that is wrong with liberalism.

The Satan part is wrong.
 
I enjoy your posts. They are well written and thought provoking.

You cited this in your post



I have no idea where the Mackinaw center gets that figure as it is horribly wrong and I would bet a whole lot of money on it. I was part of the union bargaining team in DPS for several contracts. In the 890's and 90's and early 2,000's DPS was always in the bottom one third to one quarter of the tri county districts in SE Michigan. Since I retired some eight years ago, things have only gotten worse as I actually made more money in my final year than people at todays salary schedule due to three consecutive concession contracts.

Here is the latest schedule

http://www.nctq.org/docs/Detroit_Salary_Schedule_as_of_July_13,_2011.pdf

compare to this neighboring community district

http://wwcsd.net/assets/pdfs/transparency-report/WWCOAA-contract-final.pdf

or this neighboring community school district

http://www.gardencity.k12.ny.us/Use...e/2009-10webpostings/June 15, 2010 Agenda.pdf

or this district which abuts Detroit

http://www.dft681.org/documents/DFT_Tentative_Agreement_-_042611.pdf

The Mackinaw Center is a notorious right wing organ that is almost always pushing kool aid for extremism. This is just another example of their dishonesty.

Thanks for this information about the teacher compensation. I had questions about why it was so "high." Apparently, that information was not accurate. As such, the uncertain possibility that the state referenda outcomes might be helpful to addressing that issue (a non-issue) is not really relevant. I regret that I had not looked further into the details concerning Detroit's teacher compensation.
 
I have no idea what you are ranting about as I deleted nothing. Nor would I delete the truth.

Perhaps you should look up the term STRAWMAN and learn about it?
I quoted your post to respond to it. You edited it AFTER I had already clicked "reply with quote". What appears in MY post is the unedited version of what YOU posted. Not surprising that you would try to lie about that too.
 
And now you went back and edited it again.

Last edited by haymarket; Today at 12:28 PM.

My response came a minute before your SECOND edit of this post was complete.
 
That's right!



Not exactly.



The Satan part is wrong.

I plead guilty of using a bit of creative poetic license as well as having a flair for the dramatic. :3oops:
 
And now you went back and edited it again.



My response came a minute before your SECOND edit of this post was complete.

editing out typos is not a crime..... even in far right wing world now is it?

What great difference do you see in my post as it exists now and the one you reproduced?
 
there is a LOT of money

A slight modification from LOTS of money to a LOT of money. How many posts will it take before you admit that there is not near enough money? They are in debt, they are in the hole, it is all red ink.

enough to cover the pensions, certainly
That has yet to be seen.
not enough to pay all the other bills
so, pay the pensions first consistent with the MI constitution

When there is no gas left in the tank a Constitution becomes irrelevant.

having to explain the most basic information allows me to feel for the people who drive the short bus

Well those short buses aren't making Detroit any money.

you want to find foolish, read that ^ post. it's ****ing stupid. the USA has LOTS of money. but not enough to pay our debts without incurring a deficit - resulting in long-term debt obligations. does that fact manage to sink in?

Yes, the Federal government is $17 trillion in debt, and growing, but it's okay because maybe somewhere, someplace, there is some paper claiming that everyone will be paid anyway? Where will that money come from?

The sad fact is that the once great country has been brought down by the education system that has also ruined Detroit. Even basic math is like a foreign language.

what do i have to do to allow some folks to realize that a LOT of money does not necessarily mean ENOUGH money

LOTS of money means sufficient to cover all obligations. What else could it mean? An insufficient amount of money is what leads to bankruptcy, not LOTS of the stuff.
but there IS enough money to cover the outstanding pension obligations. and the state constitution says those pension obligations will not be diminuated

Yes it will certainly be "diminuated".


that you - with your obvious level of experience - do not understand that businesses can have a lot of income but not enough to remain solvent without the protections afforded by filing bankruptcy, is meaningless

I do have a great deal of business experience and plan realistically for the future without making commitments I cant fulfill. I would never ever allow unions or politicians to make a long term business plan for me, The idea is truly laughable!

because such scenarios happen all the time - in the real world; not some fictitious place that operates according to your irrational, uneducated, ignorant machinations
Spoken like a true union person.
 
It's extremely unlikely that the U.S. will abandon its constitution anytime during the foreseeable future, especially as the amending process allows for flexibility. There is no serious movement to supplant the constitution with any alternative. By serious movement, I mean one that enjoys a significant share of the population and has or is gaining significant influence. Fringe elements do not constitute a serious movement in that direction.

No, the government just ignores the Constitution when it's convenient to do so. There's no need to replace it when nobody is held accountable to it.
 
No, the government just ignores the Constitution when it's convenient to do so. There's no need to replace it when nobody is held accountable to it.

Well ignoring the State Constitution of Michigan is exactly what the bankruptcy proceeding is attempting to do.
 
Hillarious. A buddy just sent me a link to a Fox video.

Apparently they've brought in this left wing lunatic Sally Cohen to be a talking head.

She was sitting next to Charles Krauthamer,( one of my Favorite Columnist ) going through the Democrat talking points.

The look on Krauthamers face was priceless. Of course he quickly slapped down her crazy but I still think her solution to Detroits bankruptcy problem was a profound and poignant look upon the inner mind of your average Lib.

Uhm...no austerity. Yea detroits problem should reinforce just how destructive " austerity" is.

LOL !! You can't write this stuff.
 
Well ignoring the State Constitution of Michigan is exactly what the
bankruptcy proceeding is attempting to do.

Who's going to pay for it ? They're broke.
 
Well ignoring the State Constitution of Michigan is exactly what the bankruptcy proceeding is attempting to do.

So you're fine with some people ignoring it then?
 
Well ignoring the State Constitution of Michigan is exactly what the bankruptcy proceeding is attempting to do.

Do you know what accrued means? From the constitution:

§ 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

Let me explain it to you. A teacher/copper/fireman/street cleaner who's been with the city of Detroit for three years, has accrued 3 years vesting in any contractual obligation. Fifteen years tenure? Fifteen years of accrued financial benefits. That's what the constitution says.

What it doesn't say is: "From your hire date and forever onward, new contracts changing the pension plan don't apply to you."

Pay people their accrued benefits and carry on. Put them on normal Social Security like the working stiffs they serve enjoy. Or give them a 401K with a maximum taxpayer contribution of, say, 5% along with their Social Security. Those that the fund can't afford to pay off? Well, taxpayers are stuck with those. Right after the politicians who failed to fund them properly go to jail.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/constitution.pdf
 
Do you know what accrued means? From the constitution:



Let me explain it to you. A teacher/copper/fireman/street cleaner who's been with the city of Detroit for three years, has accrued 3 years vesting in any contractual obligation. Fifteen years tenure? Fifteen years of accrued financial benefits. That's what the constitution says.

What it doesn't say is: "From your hire date and forever onward, new contracts changing the pension plan don't apply to you."

Pay people their accrued benefits and carry on. Put them on normal Social Security like the working stiffs they serve enjoy. Or give them a 401K with a maximum taxpayer contribution of, say, 5% along with their Social Security. Those that the fund can't afford to pay off? Well, taxpayers are stuck with those. Right after the politicians who failed to fund them properly go to jail.

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

Okay Missy CPA (and I mean that most endearingly ;)) ..... explain it to me in very small words that a non number cruncher like me can understand. How does your post impact the people already retired that a few days ago you said they would not have to worry about any reductions? Do you still hold to that?
 
Okay Missy CPA (and I mean that most endearingly ;)) ..... explain it to me in very small words that a non number cruncher like me can understand. How does your post impact the people already retired that a few days ago you said they would not have to worry about any reductions? Do you still hold to that?

Yes, I do still hold to that. I don't think those who are retired (and close to retirement) have anything to worry about. Taxpayers cannot afford cash payouts of those costly accrued benefits, so the government is going to have to pony up. I hate being redundant, but I'll repeat: Right after the scoundrels who failed to properly fund these plans go to jail.

Taxes should have been raised. Whatever it took. Whatever it took. The years of can-kicking going on in these public sector pension deficiencies is scandalous.
 
I quoted your post to respond to it. You edited it AFTER I had already clicked "reply with quote". What appears in MY post is the unedited version of what YOU posted. Not surprising that you would try to lie about that too.

I sure hope you are coming back to meet the challenge. There is NO DIFFERENCE between my post as it now exists and the post you reproduced from me in yours where you get all angry and outraged about me editing it. People edit a post for typos all the time.

What difference do you see in the two because there is none?

So lets put aside your faux outrage and step up to the plate and state your case plain and simple with evidence comparing the two and you explaining me the difference?

I sure hope you come back to answer this.
 
Last edited:
Right after the politicians who failed to fund them properly go to jail.

This is what needs to happen! We need to remind these jackasses who works for who and show them that is crap will not be tolerated.

I don't think governmnet workers should get pensions to begin with but a contract is a contract.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I do still hold to that. I don't think those who are retired (and close to retirement) have anything to worry about. Taxpayers cannot afford cash payouts of those costly accrued benefits, so the government is going to have to pony up. I hate being redundant, but I'll repeat: Right after the scoundrels who failed to properly fund these plans go to jail.

Taxes should have been raised. Whatever it took. Whatever it took. The years of can-kicking going on in these public sector pension deficiencies is scandalous.

It was absolutely scandalous. I read an article yesterday which outlined some of the bad investments made with those pension funds. Among them were investments in development projects within the city that are now defunct. Imagine the cronyism involved with that process! City councilman gives his contractor buddy a giant contract to build "something". Buddy gets paid, councilman gets reelected, the "something" that was built is now worthless, and the pension fund is now out a couple of million bucks. The people put in charge of managing these funds also used a bogus model to project their future value. They "assumed" an 8% annual gain and then used that figure to claim that funding rates were upwards of 80% when they were really about 40% or lower.

I do feel for the pensioners that are going to get shafted by this but you are absolutely right. People need to go to jail. What happened to Detroit is a crime.
 
I sure you are coming back to meet the challenge. There is NO DIFFERENCE between my post as it now exists and the post you reproduced from me in yours where you get all angry and outraged about me editing it. People edit a post for typos all the time.

What difference do you see in the two because there is none?

So lets put aside your faux outrage and step up to the plate and state your case plain and simple with evidence comparing the two and you explaining me the difference?

I sure hope you come back to answer this.
I sure would like to but that would not be within the topic of this thread. You are encouraging me to break forum rules. Bad form on your part.
 
This is what needs to happen! We need to remind these jackasses who works for who and show them that is crap will not be tolerated.

As soon as the very first funding payment!!! was missed, appropriate unions should have been in court filing suit. I blame them for that. They just sat back and let it happen - just like the politicians.

There ought to be a law that if an entity keeps allowing shortfalls, they forfeit the right to complain. Something like our patent infringement or copyright infringement laws. Unions didn't want to make an issue of it because they didn't want sunshine on their Cadillac bennies. Well, here comes the light.
 
It was absolutely scandalous. I read an article yesterday which outlined some of the bad investments made with those pension funds. Among them were investments in development projects within the city that are now defunct. Imagine the cronyism involved with that process! City councilman gives his contractor buddy a giant contract to build "something". Buddy gets paid, councilman gets reelected, the "something" that was built is now worthless, and the pension fund is now out a couple of million bucks. The people put in charge of managing these funds also used a bogus model to project their future value. They "assumed" an 8% annual gain and then used that figure to claim that funding rates were upwards of 80% when they were really about 40% or lower.

I do feel for the pensioners that are going to get shafted by this but you are absolutely right. People need to go to jail. What happened to Detroit is a crime.

And how does this somehow mean more than sixty years of declining population from 1.8 million to 720,000?

How does all this mean more than the loss of a million plus people and all the taxes that they would have paid over those decades>

How does all this mean more than all the companies who left the city and took the jobs and taxes with them?

How does this mean more than over a century of racial animosity in the city which contributed significantly to the exodus leaving the city depopulated and cash strapped with a mostly poor population?

Explain to us how pension investments killed the city of Detroit?
 
Back
Top Bottom