Let States Go Bankrupt

[Gadawg73]

How many millions of old ladies hold bonds issued by the states?
Small businesses owed $?
Times a million.

 

[Gadawg73]

Alabama is 90% non-union. [1]

It's not a union problem here. I'm not pro-union...hell I think they're entrenched and outdated power monopolies, but trying to make such a broad statement oversimplifies the matter, while scoring you points that you don't deserve.

Public sector unions and illegal immigration are the two primary factors causing California's problems.

Those are #3 and #4 Taz.

#2: Dumbass Politicians
#1: Dumbass Citizens

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Sure lets talk of cutting off military pensions and see what happens?

Or maybe the firemen just quit and your house burns down, you will be runing for a lawyer.

As long as it is someone else...

Oh good grief. You always want to stick it to the military as a first resort.. why?

Because it's a sacred cow of the Republicans.

Hmmm, how better to put it. Dems see Republicans as wanting to "have their cake and eat it too". Republicans want to talk big about cutting...but they only want to cut what their opponents cherish. Think of it as a sign of good faith...you're serious about cutting? dont just cut what you want to cut...cut something that would be hard for you personally to cut.

Make sense?

No. And we see libs as wanting their cake, their health care, their this and their that and wanting to pass the bill along to the "other guy".

I know very few conservatives that see the military as off limits. But there are plenty of other areas that are colossal wastes of money. Start there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.

As far as i know the Federal government is not required to be on the hook for insolvent states....(altho it has been helping them thus far)....they can be put into receivership...much like a bankruptcy....

The reason that the states are in such poor fiscal postitions is the promises to the unions.

The Democrat Party is joined at the hip to said unions.

Yes....which is why i did my little muahaha happy dance earlier....bankruptcy makes for a great union buster and Democrat waterloo.......

What do you see as the scenario if the states reneg on contracts, how do you think the Dems in Congress will react?

Of course they are going to toe the union line.....that is where Obama's big battle line is....but if a state is broke and simply cannot pay the exhorbitant pensions.....what will they do instead of bankruptcy.....?.....hand out worthless IOUs....? One way or another it has to be resolved.....because as that old saying goes...you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip...(although you can print worthless money...)

It does of course remain to be seen whether or not the new Republican House will legislate to bail or not to bail out the states....paid for of course by the other states who managed their money properly....i doubt those states will vote for it....


“After unions spent more than $400 million on the election and mounted massive voter-turnout efforts for Mr. Obama, ...
Labor Wants Obama to Take on Big Fight - WSJ.com

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, AFSCME is the United States' largest single contributor to political campaigns, having donated more than US$38 million since 1990.[12] The organization contributes almost exclusively to Democratic Party campaigns; since 1990 the ratio of Democratic to Republican contributions by the AFSCME has exceeded 98:1. In addition to combating the privatization mentioned above, key political objectives for the group include raising the minimum wage and opposing the substitution of vacation time for overtime pay due workers.[12] In June 2008, AFSCME, along with MoveOn.org, spent over US$500,000 on a television advertisement critical of the presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain.[13]
1. ^ a b Center for Responsive Politics retrieved 21 June 2007
2. ^ "The Swamp: John McCain vs. baby in anti-war ad". Chicago Tribune. John McCain vs. baby in anti-war ad: The Swamp. Retrieved 2008-06-19.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tuesday, August 10, 2010
States test whether public pension benefits given can be taken away
By Stephen C. Fehr, Stateline Staff Writer

State legislators are beginning to challenge one of the ironclad tenets of public pension policy: that states cannot legally reduce pension benefits for current and future retirees.

Lawmakers in Colorado, Minnesota and South Dakota voted earlier this year to limit cost-of-living increases they previously had promised to thousands of current and future retirees, who courts historically have protected from benefit reductions. Not surprisingly, retirees in each state have filed lawsuits asking judges to restore their annual benefit increases to what they were previously.
States test whether public pension benefits given can be taken away

Interesting article....but from what i've read if a state voluntarily goes bankrupt it does not interfere with the Constitution...and municipalities within states already are going bankrupt....so ultimately where would the state get its money in a timely manner anyhow....?

"Start with the issue of constitutionality. The main objection to bankruptcy for states is that it would interfere with state sovereignty—the Constitution’s protections against federal meddling in state affairs. The best known such barrier is the Tenth Amendment, but the structure of the Constitution as a whole is designed to give the states a great deal of independence. This concern is easily addressed. So long as a state can’t be thrown into bankruptcy against its will, and bankruptcy doesn’t usurp state lawmaking powers, bankruptcy-for-states can easily be squared with the Constitution. But the solution also creates a second concern. If the bankruptcy framework treads gingerly on state prerogatives, as it must to be constitutional, it may be exceedingly difficult for a bankruptcy court to impose the aggressive measures a state needs to get its fiscal house in order.

Neither of these considerations—state sovereignty or the limited force of a bankruptcy framework that gives wide berth to governmental decision-makers—is hypothetical. We now have more than 70 years of experience with a special chapter of the bankruptcy code—now called Chapter 9—which permits cities and other municipal entities to file for bankruptcy. For decades, this chapter did not get a great deal of use. But since the successful 1994 filing for bankruptcy by Orange County, California, after the county’s bets on derivatives contracts went bad, municipal bankruptcy has become increasingly common. Vallejo, California, is currently in bankruptcy, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is mulling it over. The experience of these municipal bankruptcies shows how bankruptcy-for-states might work, what its limitations are, and why we need it now."

Give States a Way to Go Bankrupt | The Weekly Standard

Notice that the article lists cities, which become the responsibilities of the state to which they belong....

In any case, the contracts with the unions must be honored...which probably means that ongoing costs will be cut: police, fire, education.

In fact, I recall reading that the SC has ruled that citizens are not entitled to police protection...
got your shotgun?

 

[Jroc]

What would be the point of bailing out any of the States? Their union pension plans are unsustainable, Just like Social security and Medicare, without reform and renegotiation they'll just be coming back for more. WE HAVE NO FRIKEN MONEY GET IT? THIS COUNTRY IS BORROWING Its WAY TO DEFAULT WE NEED REFORM OF ALL ENTITLEMENTS AND TAX REFORM, WE CAN'T BAIL OUT ANYBODY! So we who are not getting these lavish pension plans and benefits are going to blindly pay for those who are getting these benefits? What a joke that would be. These states need to renegotiate with these public sector unions and down size state government, it’s the only way

 

[ScreamingEagle]

.

The reason that the states are in such poor fiscal postitions is the promises to the unions.

The Democrat Party is joined at the hip to said unions.

Yes....which is why i did my little muahaha happy dance earlier....bankruptcy makes for a great union buster and Democrat waterloo.......

What do you see as the scenario if the states reneg on contracts, how do you think the Dems in Congress will react?

Of course they are going to toe the union line.....that is where Obama's big battle line is....but if a state is broke and simply cannot pay the exhorbitant pensions.....what will they do instead of bankruptcy.....?.....hand out worthless IOUs....? One way or another it has to be resolved.....because as that old saying goes...you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip...(although you can print worthless money...)

It does of course remain to be seen whether or not the new Republican House will legislate to bail or not to bail out the states....paid for of course by the other states who managed their money properly....i doubt those states will vote for it....


“After unions spent more than $400 million on the election and mounted massive voter-turnout efforts for Mr. Obama, ...
Labor Wants Obama to Take on Big Fight - WSJ.com

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, AFSCME is the United States' largest single contributor to political campaigns, having donated more than US$38 million since 1990.[12] The organization contributes almost exclusively to Democratic Party campaigns; since 1990 the ratio of Democratic to Republican contributions by the AFSCME has exceeded 98:1. In addition to combating the privatization mentioned above, key political objectives for the group include raising the minimum wage and opposing the substitution of vacation time for overtime pay due workers.[12] In June 2008, AFSCME, along with MoveOn.org, spent over US$500,000 on a television advertisement critical of the presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain.[13]
1. ^ a b Center for Responsive Politics retrieved 21 June 2007
2. ^ "The Swamp: John McCain vs. baby in anti-war ad". Chicago Tribune. John McCain vs. baby in anti-war ad: The Swamp. Retrieved 2008-06-19.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Tuesday, August 10, 2010
States test whether public pension benefits given can be taken away
By Stephen C. Fehr, Stateline Staff Writer

State legislators are beginning to challenge one of the ironclad tenets of public pension policy: that states cannot legally reduce pension benefits for current and future retirees.

Lawmakers in Colorado, Minnesota and South Dakota voted earlier this year to limit cost-of-living increases they previously had promised to thousands of current and future retirees, who courts historically have protected from benefit reductions. Not surprisingly, retirees in each state have filed lawsuits asking judges to restore their annual benefit increases to what they were previously.
States test whether public pension benefits given can be taken away

Interesting article....but from what i've read if a state voluntarily goes bankrupt it does not interfere with the Constitution...and municipalities within states already are going bankrupt....so ultimately where would the state get its money in a timely manner anyhow....?

"Start with the issue of constitutionality. The main objection to bankruptcy for states is that it would interfere with state sovereignty—the Constitution’s protections against federal meddling in state affairs. The best known such barrier is the Tenth Amendment, but the structure of the Constitution as a whole is designed to give the states a great deal of independence. This concern is easily addressed. So long as a state can’t be thrown into bankruptcy against its will, and bankruptcy doesn’t usurp state lawmaking powers, bankruptcy-for-states can easily be squared with the Constitution. But the solution also creates a second concern. If the bankruptcy framework treads gingerly on state prerogatives, as it must to be constitutional, it may be exceedingly difficult for a bankruptcy court to impose the aggressive measures a state needs to get its fiscal house in order.

Neither of these considerations—state sovereignty or the limited force of a bankruptcy framework that gives wide berth to governmental decision-makers—is hypothetical. We now have more than 70 years of experience with a special chapter of the bankruptcy code—now called Chapter 9—which permits cities and other municipal entities to file for bankruptcy. For decades, this chapter did not get a great deal of use. But since the successful 1994 filing for bankruptcy by Orange County, California, after the county’s bets on derivatives contracts went bad, municipal bankruptcy has become increasingly common. Vallejo, California, is currently in bankruptcy, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is mulling it over. The experience of these municipal bankruptcies shows how bankruptcy-for-states might work, what its limitations are, and why we need it now."

Give States a Way to Go Bankrupt | The Weekly Standard

Notice that the article lists cities, which become the responsibilities of the state to which they belong....

In any case, the contracts with the unions must be honored...which probably means that ongoing costs will be cut: police, fire, education.

In fact, I recall reading that the SC has ruled that citizens are not entitled to police protection...
got your shotgun?

Why uphold union contracts as some sort of sacred contracts......? That is reminiscent of how Obama trashed the contracts of the GM secured creditors while upholding the fat union pay scale and gold-plated bennies....are union contracts somehow holier than private citizen contracts....?

short of bankruptcy there should be ways to revise the union obligations.....it probably can be proven in court that their fat paychecks are the result of political self-dealing....

you're right....get your guns ready....or else move to a better state....if states like California and New York prefer to stop paying their current policemen in order to pay the fat pensions of their retired policemen i guess that is their perogative...

 

[Gadawg73]

.

Notice that the article lists cities, which become the responsibilities of the state to which they belong....

In any case, the contracts with the unions must be honored...which probably means that ongoing costs will be cut: police, fire, education.

In fact, I recall reading that the SC has ruled that citizens are not entitled to police protection...
got your shotgun?

Why hold up union contracts as some sort of sacred contracts......? That is reminiscent of how Obama trashed the contracts of the GM secured creditors while upholding the fat union pay scale and gold-plated bennies....are union contracts somehow holier than private citizen contracts....?

short of bankruptcy there should be ways to revise the union obligations.....it probably can be proven in court that their fat paychecks are the result of political self-dealing....

you're right....get your guns ready....or else move to a better state....if states like California and New York prefer to stop paying their current policemen in order to pay the fat pensions of their retired policemen i guess that is their perogative...

Current policeman will one day be retired policeman.
So take a wild guess who supports the fat pensions of retired policeman.
Ditto that for all retired gummint workers.
Defined benefit plans are the problem. End them immediately for all gummint workers and the problem is solved.

 

[Sallow]

European nations have no standing military on par with the US, and they have all the new and higher taxes American socialists want.

And they are insolvent.

So it's not the military.

Um..no.

But thanks for playing.

 

[Sallow]

Oh good grief. You always want to stick it to the military as a first resort.. why?

Because it's a sacred cow of the Republicans.

Hmmm, how better to put it. Dems see Republicans as wanting to "have their cake and eat it too". Republicans want to talk big about cutting...but they only want to cut what their opponents cherish. Think of it as a sign of good faith...you're serious about cutting? dont just cut what you want to cut...cut something that would be hard for you personally to cut.

Make sense?

No. And we see libs as wanting their cake, their health care, their this and their that and wanting to pass the bill along to the "other guy".

I know very few conservatives that see the military as off limits. But there are plenty of other areas that are colossal wastes of money. Start there.