CDZ Need a Fact Check

We have a state level default. I don't think there are any rules for it. You could look at southern debt post civil war but that's sketchy.
The last big default wave was in 1837 and the worst hit then was PA. PA is still a tax haven for MD and NY residents. So far as I know only takings clause lawsuits are a federal jurisdiction in state defaults but with all of the interstate retirements and the no ex post facto clause in the constitution, I suspect that will run into the low trillions.
 
I don't think a federal court has jurisdiction over a state default. But I guess my question would be why couldn't a state that got itself into a fiscal bind also get themselves out of it? State laws and constitutions can be amended, no? Why couldn't a state's elected reps do what needs to be done without federal assistance?

I suppose the federal gov't could pass a law that allows states to reform their own insolvent pension or health plans or whatever by preempting state laws that prohibit the state from making reforms to laws that they created in the first place. Under this system, the federal government would allow those laws passed by state assemblies to reform pensions to take effect. Assuming the legislature can pass laws to reform pensions in the 1st place.
 
I don't think a federal court has jurisdiction over a state default. But I guess my question would be why couldn't a state that got itself into a fiscal bind also get themselves out of it? State laws and constitutions can be amended, no? Why couldn't a state's elected reps do what needs to be done without federal assistance?

I suppose the federal gov't could pass a law that allows states to reform their own insolvent pension or health plans or whatever by preempting state laws that prohibit the state from making reforms to laws that they created in the first place. Under this system, the federal government would allow those laws passed by state assemblies to reform pensions to take effect. Assuming the legislature can pass laws to reform pensions in the 1st place.
I don't think a federal court has jurisdiction over a state default. But I guess my question would be why couldn't a state that got itself into a fiscal bind also get themselves out of it? State laws and constitutions can be amended, no? Why couldn't a state's elected reps do what needs to be done without federal assistance?

I suppose the federal gov't could pass a law that allows states to reform their own insolvent pension or health plans or whatever by preempting state laws that prohibit the state from making reforms to laws that they created in the first place. Under this system, the federal government would allow those laws passed by state assemblies to reform pensions to take effect. Assuming the legislature can pass laws to reform pensions in the 1st place.

They can change future pensions. They can probably restrict the use of medical benefits to a low bidder. The question is what happens when all of the state employee unions including the police go on strike for breach of contract? Or there is a complete breakdown of public health as is happening now in CA with the hepatitis epidemic? Or the loss of any entry into the credit markets and state bank accounts are frozen under a takings cause lawsuit? The last time we had a remotely similar situation was more than a century ago when Boston and NYC teetered on the edge of bankruptcy one after the other. This will be states not cities and probably before the mid-term elections.
 
The blue states will move heaven and earth to avoid a default prior to the elections, lying and cooking the books in new and innovating ways are SOP for them. Probably in many red states too, I should add. But changing future pensions doesn't take care of the unfunded liabilities they already have, and even though Trump's economic growth policies are going to help those states out this year. But those blue states are not changing anything, in fact they seem to be doing the same stuff that got them into fiscal trouble to begin with. No telling when the shit will hit the fan when those states finally run out of road to kick that proverbial can, and their voters let them get away with it.
 
The blue states will move heaven and earth to avoid a default prior to the elections, lying and cooking the books in new and innovating ways are SOP for them. Probably in many red states too, I should add. But changing future pensions doesn't take care of the unfunded liabilities they already have, and even though Trump's economic growth policies are going to help those states out this year. But those blue states are not changing anything, in fact they seem to be doing the same stuff that got them into fiscal trouble to begin with. No telling when the shit will hit the fan when those states finally run out of road to kick that proverbial can, and their voters let them get away with it.

I pretty much agree with you but the early returns indicate that the running out of road began last year.
 
The blue states will move heaven and earth to avoid a default prior to the elections, lying and cooking the books in new and innovating ways are SOP for them. Probably in many red states too, I should add. But changing future pensions doesn't take care of the unfunded liabilities they already have, and even though Trump's economic growth policies are going to help those states out this year. But those blue states are not changing anything, in fact they seem to be doing the same stuff that got them into fiscal trouble to begin with. No telling when the shit will hit the fan when those states finally run out of road to kick that proverbial can, and their voters let them get away with it.

I pretty much agree with you but the early returns indicate that the running out of road began last year.

Yeah, well never underestimate a politician's ability to wiggle out of responsibility for what damage they've done. You'd think fiscal reality would have caught up to these people by now, but then again they have the MSM and academia in their corner too.
 
Yeah but it is difficult to wiggle when the people who got screwed start suing the crap out of you and seek criminal charges as well.
 
Yeah but it is difficult to wiggle when the people who got screwed start suing the crap out of you and seek criminal charges as well.

In a blue state, with a lib judge? Fat chance.

True but the non-insane will wait until they are residents of a red state and sue in federal court.

Would they have standing if they ain't a blue state citizen any more? Would they really bother, I'm not seeing the chances of winning such a case as being that good. I mean, can you win if you sue a state for raising taxes or writing onerous regulations? Blue state policies may suck but if they are passed by their legislation and signed by their governor, then what's your case?
 
Yeah but it is difficult to wiggle when the people who got screwed start suing the crap out of you and seek criminal charges as well.

In a blue state, with a lib judge? Fat chance.

True but the non-insane will wait until they are residents of a red state and sue in federal court.

Would they have standing if they ain't a blue state citizen any more? Would they really bother, I'm not seeing the chances of winning such a case as being that good. I mean, can you win if you sue a state for raising taxes or writing onerous regulations? Blue state policies may suck but if they are passed by their legislation and signed by their governor, then what's your case?
Trying to tax non-residents for leaving (Actually proposed in CA) raising non-resident taxes for interstate telecommuters (In effect in NYC) dubiously constitutional laws within the Blue wall are unbounded .
 
Yeah but it is difficult to wiggle when the people who got screwed start suing the crap out of you and seek criminal charges as well.

In a blue state, with a lib judge? Fat chance.

True but the non-insane will wait until they are residents of a red state and sue in federal court.

Would they have standing if they ain't a blue state citizen any more? Would they really bother, I'm not seeing the chances of winning such a case as being that good. I mean, can you win if you sue a state for raising taxes or writing onerous regulations? Blue state policies may suck but if they are passed by their legislation and signed by their governor, then what's your case?
Trying to tax non-residents for leaving (Actually proposed in CA) raising non-resident taxes for interstate telecommuters (In effect in NYC) dubiously constitutional laws within the Blue wall are unbounded .

Desperate times call for desperate measures, LOL. It is so hard to believe that a majority of voters in places like Illinois and New Jersey don't vote out the Dems en masse, how can they not see the looming fiscal disaster that's coming? My guess is that some of them are expecting a federal bailout, which a democratic president like Warren or Sanders would do, legal or otherwise.
 
What is really interesting is that all Trump, Ryan and McConnel did was they simply figured out how to invert the Chinese ghost cities GDP growth cheat. By creating a much steeper cline between the Low SALT/low cost of living states and the high SALT/high cost of living states that stimulates migration with high cost recipients of government aid recipients moving to the high cost states and the high revenue/cost citizens moving to the low cost states as is already happening in CA, IL and NYC but it is going to go into overdrive with the tax bill come Feb.

The creation of more Detroits does not count against GDP but the building of factories and houses in the red states is all GDP growth. That is more or less the royal road to double digit GDP growth.
 
I've never looked into modern laws on it, just the Penn bankruptcy you mentioned, and I don't recall who appointed the bankruptcy judges in that case, just that Penn bonds were a real bargain at around 38 cents on the dollar at one point. The state of Michigan and I think Illinois went bankrupt in the 1840's and 1850's as well, iirc, or maybe it was some other Midwest state. I think it's up to the owners of the debts and their attorneys to decide what jurisdiction to file in, but I don't know, just a guess. I can find detailed info on how much a railroad cost to build per mile in most years, right down to the cost of spikes per mile for you, though, even bridges and mountain roads and tunnels. lol ...

The claims of the railroad companies on their costs are complete fictions, over-valued by two to five times actual costs for nearly all of them, except the Camden and Amboy, by the way; they did that in order to grossly inflate their capital costs and corporate valuations, and in order to steal millions from outsider stock subscribers as well, since all states at the time required companies seeking 'limited liability' status to limit their profits and therefore their prices to customers, to 10% on average. The 10 railroads that re-organized into the New York Central in 1853 inflated its capital from a realistic $8 million or so to $25 million, even though the actual paid in capital for all 10 of them that was ever actually paid in on the capital stock by their assorted founders was around $5 million tops. Not that this has anything to do with your question, I just felt like throwing it in there. lol
 
Last edited:
Yeah but it is difficult to wiggle when the people who got screwed start suing the crap out of you and seek criminal charges as well.

In a blue state, with a lib judge? Fat chance.

True but the non-insane will wait until they are residents of a red state and sue in federal court.

Would they have standing if they ain't a blue state citizen any more? Would they really bother, I'm not seeing the chances of winning such a case as being that good. I mean, can you win if you sue a state for raising taxes or writing onerous regulations? Blue state policies may suck but if they are passed by their legislation and signed by their governor, then what's your case?
Trying to tax non-residents for leaving (Actually proposed in CA) raising non-resident taxes for interstate telecommuters (In effect in NYC) dubiously constitutional laws within the Blue wall are unbounded .

Desperate times call for desperate measures, LOL. It is so hard to believe that a majority of voters in places like Illinois and New Jersey don't vote out the Dems en masse, how can they not see the looming fiscal disaster that's coming? My guess is that some of them are expecting a federal bailout, which a democratic president like Warren or Sanders would do, legal or otherwise.

The disaster in Jersey and Illinois, essentially Chicago, is already here, and been here for over a 150 years.
 
Yeah but it is difficult to wiggle when the people who got screwed start suing the crap out of you and seek criminal charges as well.

In a blue state, with a lib judge? Fat chance.

True but the non-insane will wait until they are residents of a red state and sue in federal court.

Would they have standing if they ain't a blue state citizen any more? Would they really bother, I'm not seeing the chances of winning such a case as being that good. I mean, can you win if you sue a state for raising taxes or writing onerous regulations? Blue state policies may suck but if they are passed by their legislation and signed by their governor, then what's your case?
Trying to tax non-residents for leaving (Actually proposed in CA) raising non-resident taxes for interstate telecommuters (In effect in NYC) dubiously constitutional laws within the Blue wall are unbounded .

They already rob people who move out blind; go to their tax form site and check out the in -state forms then the 'X' form for those who have left during the year; they tax you on the entire income report on your Federal tax return, including the income you made in your new state, and allow no deductions, whether you lived in one month in Cali or 11 before you moved out. You also can't use the line on your Fed return for after adjustments like moving expenses or other itemized deductions, either; they've already won those case in Federal courts already, so no need to worry about winning any such cases against them, that's old news and the state won. That happens when you have huge Congressional delegation and everybody needs your Congressional votes for their own pork barrel stuff. This is a big reason they're desperate to keep criminal illegal aliens in the state; they are losing a big chunk of their work forces to Oregon and other states, especially now, and are facing a drastic loss in Congressional seats if the illegals leave, so they need 'amnesty' big time, and since they currently still have so many seats, the other pols will pander to them; it's a Catch-22 for the rest of us who want genuine Federal reforms. We have no pols who will risk Cali's delegation voting against their pet pork.
 
Last edited:
In a blue state, with a lib judge? Fat chance.

True but the non-insane will wait until they are residents of a red state and sue in federal court.

Would they have standing if they ain't a blue state citizen any more? Would they really bother, I'm not seeing the chances of winning such a case as being that good. I mean, can you win if you sue a state for raising taxes or writing onerous regulations? Blue state policies may suck but if they are passed by their legislation and signed by their governor, then what's your case?
Trying to tax non-residents for leaving (Actually proposed in CA) raising non-resident taxes for interstate telecommuters (In effect in NYC) dubiously constitutional laws within the Blue wall are unbounded .

Desperate times call for desperate measures, LOL. It is so hard to believe that a majority of voters in places like Illinois and New Jersey don't vote out the Dems en masse, how can they not see the looming fiscal disaster that's coming? My guess is that some of them are expecting a federal bailout, which a democratic president like Warren or Sanders would do, legal or otherwise.

The disaster in Jersey and Illinois, essentially Chicago, is already here, and been here for over a 150 years.
Disagree with the 150 years. It's been barely 100 years since the largest non-nuclear manmade explosion happened in an NJ port due to German sabotage in WWI. Chicago opened the Sanitary and Vessels canal in 1900 and ceased to be a more or less open sewer. It started to go back to the bad old days with the Volstead Act.
 
Yeah but it is difficult to wiggle when the people who got screwed start suing the crap out of you and seek criminal charges as well.

In a blue state, with a lib judge? Fat chance.

True but the non-insane will wait until they are residents of a red state and sue in federal court.

Would they have standing if they ain't a blue state citizen any more? Would they really bother, I'm not seeing the chances of winning such a case as being that good. I mean, can you win if you sue a state for raising taxes or writing onerous regulations? Blue state policies may suck but if they are passed by their legislation and signed by their governor, then what's your case?
Trying to tax non-residents for leaving (Actually proposed in CA) raising non-resident taxes for interstate telecommuters (In effect in NYC) dubiously constitutional laws within the Blue wall are unbounded .

It's crooked as hell, but hey will get away with it, for the reasons I stated in the other post.
 

Forum List

Back
Top