BREAKING: Detroit CAN file bankruptcy; pensions CAN be reduced forcibly

WXYZ-TV ^ | 12/3/2013 | Ross Jones

[A CA Guy]

Fair IMO depends on whether they were reasonable and whether they gave up SS IMO.

[Chode]

sweet...

You were all fat dumb and happy as long as your snout was in the PublicTrough up past your eyeballs,

but now…

Now… that the food level has dropped below Your eyes, even YOU can see the writing on the wall as well as the rest of us.

There WILL be reduced benefits to be sure, if not outright eliminations…

And guess what???

I, DON’T, CARE!!!

[gogeo]

That's not complete, and therefore misleading.

The pension haircuts are on the unfunded portion of the pensions.

So...if a pension was 85% funded, the "haircut" would only apply to the 15% not fully funded.

[gogeo]

Government pensions, unfortunately, are held to a lower standard of required funding.

[Lurker]

I’m actually happy as hell about this. The “workers” are directly reaping the benefits of decad of voting patterns. It’s nice to see reality bit a bunch of union liberal voters right in the balls.

I love it.

[boxlunch]

ONLY TERM LIMITS CAN BEGIN TO ADDRESS THIS. Incumbency is the single greatest corrupting influence of our entire political system.

[grania]

Somebody suggested a seriously good way to solve the problem. Lease the bridge(s), the shoreline, and an enterprise zone around it to Canada for 99 years or whatever. Move out all of the people now residing there. Canada could pay the lease amount to Detroit annually and develop and keep the profits from their enterprise zone.

That money from Canada could be dedicated to specific expenses, such as pensions and public safety. The idea's brilliant but too far out of the box for anyone to have the courage to go that way. JMHO

[Chode]

100%

[SunkenCiv]

No one in a labor negotiation participates in good faith — that’s one of those catch-all terms used by union goons to bully people out of their money with the full cooperation of the NLRB. Thanks cc.

[PGalt]

States need to assert their independence from the Feral Government.

Well-stated, Paladin2. This one tracks back to the Federalists/Anti-Federalists…Brutus comes to mind.

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

The signers of the Declaration (above) had an inkling in their list of grievances...pre-dating the anti-federalists.

Amazing.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Govt pensions should be reduced prospectively but not against those workers who have already earned them. ( That would really be unfair. )

It's unfortunate, but who else is responsible, besides the city of Detroit?

[PGalt]

LOL! Comments BUMP!

[PGalt]

The politicians pay no price. They are off the hook. They took the money and ran. The creditors take the hit—including bond holders, vendors, contractors and retirees.

The politicians/socialists/con-men/elitists/criminals/totalitarians. TOP-OF-THE-PYRAMID ALERT

Well-stated SC_Pete. The root cause of all of this BS.

Life, liberty and the pursuit and destruction of totalitarians.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

The politicians pay no price. They are off the hook. They took the money and ran.

They escaped with their lives...for the moment. There are more than just a few PO'd wild-@$$ union thugs floating around.

[REPANDPROUDOFIT]

Union workers and retirees boohoo about cutting pensions. Their argument is always that they were promised that amount and those promises must be kept. I understand why they feel that way. But, there isn't any money to pay them and it isn't fair to tax private sector workers more, just so union workers can get their full benefits.

What about the private sector worker who gets no pension at all. Also, he loses his health insurance if he retires before age 65 (Medicare)? Many, many union workers retire early (at age 50, 53 etc.). They continue to get health insurance from the employer or union until they reach Medicare age.

The private sector worker had to save and invest his own money to prepare for the lifestyle he desired after retirement. He determined what it would take and made it happen. If he is burdened with extra taxes (so the government can pay the union pensions) it's the same thing as "cutting his pension". Why is it fair for one and not the other?

[VideoPaul]

I interviewed a Chicago Public School teacher who was attending a hearing in Springfield, IL about their pensions. That teacher’s solution was very simple and immediate: Raise taxes. Raise taxes high and raise them now. Raise them without the voters’ consent by court decree if need be. (Not understanding that that isn’t legal...I hope she wasn’t a civics teacher). When asked about what she would do about people who are on fixed incomes and can’t afford the kind of tax increases needed to erase that deficit, her answer was equally as specific and immediate: “They they just hafta move. Give me my money”.

Also included in her commentary was, “I worked like a SLAVE for 40 years...”

Oh, that’s right...SLAVES had 14 paid holidays a year, every weekend off, heavily subsidized health care coverage, paid vacations, pensions.....

[REPANDPROUDOFIT]

She said she “worked like a slave”! Better call Martin Basheere to tell her what’s going to happen to her for saying the word s-l-a-v-e.