• 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]

Peter King said:
You are misconstruing what I wrote. I did not write anything about how much governments spend, I only said that governments cannot cop out by declaring bankruptcy, if someone does business with a local, state or national government they deserve payment in full and not be short changed by the government declaring bankruptcy.

Governments should not live beyond their means but putting the heads of that government for 10 years in jail is ridiculous. Who says that head is responsible for the bankruptcy? Or do you want to put every politician/official in jail who contributed to that bankruptcy?

Governments should live within their means, tax and spend is fine by me as long as there is a mandate by the voters to do so but only if the money spent and the taxes/income of the government are balanced or that the tax/income is higher than the money spent.
Click to expand...

So when Govt really blows it badly, you say they should pay out anyway? Where specifically is the money supposed to come from?
 
Green Balls said:
Detroit should serve as a small scale model to the entire US government spending. Eventually it all collapses due to improper management, pocketing money, taking bribes, etc. So it took about 50-60 years for Detroit to collapse. The question is when do we start the clock on the US government?
Click to expand...

The clock started ticking when Congress approved deficit spending, followed by repeated increases in the debt ceiling.
 
haymarket said:
Ruined a city? What nonsense.

Why do you continue to beat the stupid political drum of blaming the Democratic Party when the real factors of Detroit's decline have nothing to do with who was the mayor and what his party was? btw - not to blow your mind with reality or anything - but the elections for mayor of Detroit are NON PARTISAN.
Click to expand...

So, are you suggesting that the people--politicians--that were running the city aren't responsible for the city going bankrupt?
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
You are incorrect. The majority of pension are paid through the employee and the investment return, and not by the taxpayer. As a matter of fact, contribution plans may be more expensive to the taxpayer than defined plans.
Click to expand...

Again, you cannot see the forest because of all those darn trees in the way. The gov't employee is paid 100% by the taxpayer - just what "contribution" can that gov't employee make without using taxpayer provided funds? Spin it any way that you like to, but every dime in your gov't take home pay and every dime in you gov't retirement fund is supplied by the taxpayer; the ONLY exception is from any investment yield when the retirement funds are invested, which may or may not be positive.
 
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...

here you go, peter:
11 USC Chapter 9 - ADJUSTMENT OF DEBTS OF A MUNICIPALITY | Title 11 - Bankruptcy | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Again, you cannot see the forest because of all those darn trees in the way. The gov't employee is paid 100% by the taxpayer - just what "contribution" can that gov't employee make without using taxpayer provided funds? Spin it any way that you like to, but every dime in your gov't take home pay and every dime in you gov't retirement fund is supplied by the taxpayer; the ONLY exception is from any investment yield when the retirement funds are invested, which may or may not be positive.
Click to expand...

Yes, my pay is through the taxpayer. I take part of that pay and put it toward retirement. That is the responsible thing to do. It is also known when my pay is negotiated. Not sure what that has to so with allowing public employees a retirement they can count on instead of relying on a crap shot.
 
Woodman909 said:
I don't need a weather report to know it's raining, I can just look out the window.
Click to expand...

then you should know the position that unions are the underlying reason for this bankruptcy filing - is all wet
 
justabubba said:
then you should know the position that unions are the underlying reason for this bankruptcy filing - is all wet
Click to expand...

"all wet..." Imaginative, I'll give you that. I did not say unions were the ONLY reason, I said they contributed to the situation.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Yes, I think you would be hard pressed to find a private place of business that offers a defined benefit plan. Once upon a time, many did. Public workers are/were offered that also. Now that the private sector has gutted all those protections and shifted its risk onto its employees, I suppose the argument becomes why not do that to public workers too? I mean the "a rising tide lifts all boats" was merely rhetoric feed to a populace too ______ to see that the opposite was happening right under their nose. Now we fight for race to the bottom policy because I suppose a sinking ship is each for their own and only the strong survive. Very few are fighting to make this country strong again. It's a shame.
Click to expand...

My argument wasn't so much what the actual pension benefits were but how they are treated legally - public sector pensions seem to be protected, and from what you post, private sector pensions were or are not. It doesn't seem constitutional that you could have two groups of employees treated differently under the law. I'm not advocating at all a race to the bottom, just seeking clarification.
 
apdst said:
So, are you suggesting that the people--politicians--that were running the city aren't responsible for the city going bankrupt?
Click to expand...

I do not suggest. I states quite clearly that the two major factors were economic and racial. I also stated quite clearly that the city fathers did indeed make some choices that contributed to the demise of the city. But again, the two main factors have been detailed and evidence supplied.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I will not cry for them. They made that choice, got to retire with more money and at an earlier age than they would have with SS. As with any choice it involves risk/reward analysis - simply because they missed the mark on risk does not entitle them to a reward. Many other folks have worked their entire lives only to have circumstances make them dependent on the dole. I am sick and tired of gov't employees being treated as super citizens, they are supposed to be our public servants not our masters.
Click to expand...

I appreciate what you're saying and I'm not in favor of big government benefit packages that bankrupt municipalities, but I have to say that I would never be in favor of taking away the vested pensions that retirees are currently receiving. These people made the commitment and held up their part of the bargain and now, in old age, they are reliant upon that pension income. I do, however, feel less concerned about those who are still working and not near retirement - their own personal payments into any plan, plus interest, should be theirs, however any government subsidy or matching funds that were expected or that are now unfunded liabilities of the government should not be guaranteed.

I look at people who are now retired as people who have, in effect, purchased an annuity and now they are collecting on that annuity. You can't yank that away from them because they've satisfied their end of the contract.
 
haymarket said:
I would be happy to look at your figures documenting this.
Click to expand...

I'd have to research it, should figures be required, but I do agree that even here in Canada we had public unions bargain for a number of benefit "perk" in lieu of income increases over the years long ago but in recent years those benefits have remained as the public unions have caught up and often surpassed the private sector in wages too, giving them the best of both worlds. It's why municipalities and states are having such a hard time with public sector compensation in a shrinking tax base.
 
haymarket said:
I do not suggest. I states quite clearly that the two major factors were economic and racial. I also stated quite clearly that the city fathers did indeed make some choices that contributed to the demise of the city. But again, the two main factors have been detailed and evidence supplied.
Click to expand...

you may have excessively diminished their responsibility for this economic dilemma
when public officials have authority for determining what is to be purchased and paid for - and this includes the purchased of labor - they then become responsible when they buy more than they have money to pay for
just like adults in a family who incur more debts than their income allows them to pay

yes, the demise of the American auto industry was a factor beyond their control
and the city fathers had little ability to affect racism and its effects
but they certainly had the fiduciary responsibility to make sure the city had enough money before they permitted the city to incur debt obligations
and they failed in those responsibilities
 
CanadaJohn said:
I appreciate what you're saying and I'm not in favor of big government benefit packages that bankrupt municipalities, but I have to say that I would never be in favor of taking away the vested pensions that retirees are currently receiving. These people made the commitment and held up their part of the bargain and now, in old age, they are reliant upon that pension income. I do, however, feel less concerned about those who are still working and not near retirement - their own personal payments into any plan, plus interest, should be theirs, however any government subsidy or matching funds that were expected or that are now unfunded liabilities of the government should not be guaranteed.

I look at people who are now retired as people who have, in effect, purchased an annuity and now they are collecting on that annuity. You can't yank that away from them because they've satisfied their end of the contract.
Click to expand...

The rub, of course, is that then the ever dwindling number of Detroit taxpayers must pay, not only for their current city services, but double that, in order to pay for those that "screwed up" long before them, thus increasing the rate of exodus from that city. In order to recover, Detriot must keep its taxation rates competittive with (or below) those of surrounding areas, to both keep its current residents/businesses and to attract new ones.

What is likley to occur is that these big, blue, disasterously mismanaged cities, that have colluded with public worker unions for decades, will get "bailed out" by mooching off of other taxpayers that were not responsible, thus rewarding failure and setting a terrible precedent that it is OK to do just as Detriot did - live for today and let others pay back that debt as they collect their "legally obtained", yet unfunded, cushy lifetime pensions.
 
haymarket said:
I do not suggest. I states quite clearly that the two major factors were economic and racial. I also stated quite clearly that the city fathers did indeed make some choices that contributed to the demise of the city. But again, the two main factors have been detailed and evidence supplied.
Click to expand...

Racial eh? Everytime the Democrats fail, it's because of whitey hatin' on the black man. Right?

This is a prime example of what I'm talking about when I say that racism will never go away, because the Libbos won't let it go away.
 
justabubba said:
you may have excessively diminished their responsibility for this economic dilemma
when public officials have authority for determining what is to be purchased and paid for - and this includes the purchased of labor - they then become responsible when they buy more than they have money to pay for
just like adults in a family who incur more debts than their income allows them to pay

yes, the demise of the American auto industry was a factor beyond their control
and the city fathers had little ability to affect racism and its effects
but they certainly had the fiduciary responsibility to make sure the city had enough money before they permitted the city to incur debt obligations
and they failed in those responsibilities
Click to expand...

I certainly cannot quarrel with you on that. I do agree that the city had an obligation NOT to purchase any more labor than was necessary. And I would certainly fault the city for NOT downsizing in certain departments over the fifty year period when the population decreased by some 60%.

I would be glad to examine any listing of such figures in various departments.

As to overpaying for labor, there is evidence of that especially in administrative and political positions. Sadly,this expenditure of money was often done at the expense of the common worker who actually delivered the services. This would include the cop on the beat, the garbage collector on the truck, or the bus driver. I would strongly join you or anyone else in condemning such waste.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I appreciate what you're saying and I'm not in favor of big government benefit packages that bankrupt municipalities, but I have to say that I would never be in favor of taking away the vested pensions that retirees are currently receiving. These people made the commitment and held up their part of the bargain and now, in old age, they are reliant upon that pension income. I do, however, feel less concerned about those who are still working and not near retirement - their own personal payments into any plan, plus interest, should be theirs, however any government subsidy or matching funds that were expected or that are now unfunded liabilities of the government should not be guaranteed.

I look at people who are now retired as people who have, in effect, purchased an annuity and now they are collecting on that annuity. You can't yank that away from them because they've satisfied their end of the contract.
Click to expand...

Someone is going to lose out; the retirees, or the tax payers. Why should the tax payers get screwed for someone else's mistake, just so some guy can sit on his ass and keep collecting his pension. Oh, and don't get me started on lazy ass municipal workers, that may not have necessarily earned it.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I appreciate what you're saying and I'm not in favor of big government benefit packages that bankrupt municipalities, but I have to say that I would never be in favor of taking away the vested pensions that retirees are currently receiving. These people made the commitment and held up their part of the bargain and now, in old age, they are reliant upon that pension income. I do, however, feel less concerned about those who are still working and not near retirement - their own personal payments into any plan, plus interest, should be theirs, however any government subsidy or matching funds that were expected or that are now unfunded liabilities of the government should not be guaranteed.

I look at people who are now retired as people who have, in effect, purchased an annuity and now they are collecting on that annuity. You can't yank that away from them because they've satisfied their end of the contract.
Click to expand...

Using your analogy the government is doing just that to people who worked for a company rather than the government. Those people for the most part have their 401Ks as their pension plan. The government, by holding down interest rates on bonds and CDs in order to be able to pay for the huge debt, have in effect cut the earnings retirees can get on their savings.

Why is there no concern for people who did not work for government?
 
CanadaJohn said:
My argument wasn't so much what the actual pension benefits were but how they are treated legally - public sector pensions seem to be protected, and from what you post, private sector pensions were or are not. It doesn't seem constitutional that you could have two groups of employees treated differently under the law. I'm not advocating at all a race to the bottom, just seeking clarification.
Click to expand...

I'll say it again. Private pension are protected under federal law. Specifically under The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. This federal law does not apply to public pensions. It is up to the states to write in laws to protect its own public pensions.
 
apdst said:
Someone is going to lose out; the retirees, or the tax payers. Why should the tax payers get screwed for someone else's mistake, just so some guy can sit on his ass and keep collecting his pension. Oh, and don't get me started on lazy ass municipal workers, that may not have necessarily earned it.
Click to expand...

Assuming the retiree pays taxes, they will also contribute to cleaning up the mess that they too did not cause. It's not really an "us" against "them" argument since both parties are not at fault and will pay for someone else's mess.
 
Last edited:
rabbitcaebannog said:
Assuming the retiree pays taxes, they will also contribute to cleaning up the mess that they too did not cause. It's not really a "us" against "them" argument since both parties are not at fault and will pay for someone else's mess.
Click to expand...

Paying taxes out of your tax payer funded pension check isn't really, "paying taxes". It's nothing more than recycling money.

However, taking money out of my pocket to pay for governmental screw ups is wrong. Basically, it's not my problem. I have my own bills to pay and shouldn't be forced to pay someone else's.
 
apdst said:
Paying taxes out of your tax payer funded pension check isn't really, "paying taxes". It's nothing more than recycling money.

However, taking money out of my pocket to pay for governmental screw ups is wrong. Basically, it's not my problem. I have my own bills to pay and shouldn't be forced to pay someone else's.
Click to expand...

There just might be an island or two for sale in the Pacific where you can officially cancel your obligations to society and your fellow Americans.
 
apdst said:
Paying taxes out of your tax payer funded pension check isn't really, "paying taxes". It's nothing more than recycling money.

However, taking money out of my pocket to pay for governmental screw ups is wrong. Basically, it's not my problem. I have my own bills to pay and shouldn't be forced to pay someone else's.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. Public sector workers pay taxes too. The same taxes you do. Automatically equating government mistakes to people who are public sector workers is a logical fallacy.
 
haymarket said:
There just might be an island or two for sale in the Pacific where you can officially cancel your obligations to society and your fellow Americans.
Click to expand...

How am I obligated to take food off my table and lower my standard of living to correct someone else's mistakes?

I didn't go to work for and support a corrupt and failed system. I didn't see you, or any other Libbo, mailing me a check when The One shut down drilling in the GOM, killing my small business; so don't give me that bull****, when it's YOU who chooses when, who and what to be obligated to.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The rub, of course, is that then the ever dwindling number of Detroit taxpayers must pay, not only for their current city services, but double that, in order to pay for those that "screwed up" long before them, thus increasing the rate of exodus from that city. In order to recover, Detriot must keep its taxation rates competittive with (or below) those of surrounding areas, to both keep its current residents/businesses and to attract new ones.

What is likley to occur is that these big, blue, disasterously mismanaged cities, that have colluded with public worker unions for decades, will get "bailed out" by mooching off of other taxpayers that were not responsible, thus rewarding failure and setting a terrible precedent that it is OK to do just as Detriot did - live for today and let others pay back that debt as they collect their "legally obtained", yet unfunded, cushy lifetime pensions.
Click to expand...

I can't argue with the points you've presented, but it doesn't change how I feel about retired people who are living on a pension they earned legally and fully. The problem lies with a government that didn't fully fund their obligations under the plan they approved and deferred contributions until better days that never came.

I don't know what part of the $18 billion debt Detroit has that is pension related or even if the pension shortfalls are included in that number. Those currently receiving a pension, however, would be my first priority in any bankruptcy settlement going forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom