Which still doesn't change the reality that THERE IS NO MONEY!
When are you going to get that through your head?
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?
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.
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
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.
The section you quoted refers to bonds issued by the State or by school districts.
Which Detroit is a part of. Why would they be separate?
"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."
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.
signs of progressBoth 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.
so, are you saying that having pensions is a bad thing?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.
and it's obvious you have no understanding of basic economicsObviously, I hate paying for people when they are NOT working and not providing me a thing in return for it.
Good question. I expect some would support it while others would not. It would be divisive.
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.
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?
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.
really? you were asking a question and not making a statement?That does nothing to answer my question.
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 itHow is putting obligations on the people in a constitution a good thing?
how much less could you careI could care less about the promises made to workers of the state.
so, you could care less about itReally, I could care less.
that the city is insolvent does NOT mean it is without the means to cover these pension obligationsThe city is broke, so such promises are moot.
And when the state goes bankrupt? What then?
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?
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.
I work for the state. Do you know something that I do not know about this possibility?
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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 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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?