Detroit goes bankrupt, largest municipal filing in U.S. history - Hmm... I wonder...

216 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Detroit filed the largest municipal bankruptcy in the nation's history...
I wonder if other municipalities will declare bankruptcy even though it may be illegal?

I wonder if many public sector union members will lose their retirement and health benefits?

I wonder if municipal bond investors will be offered pennies-on-the-dollar for their "Safest of Investments?"

This is huge!!! If government bond investors bail on the bond market because they think they may get screwed by municipalities, it's over! The financial markets will collapse... in hours.

I was just wondering... :rolleyes:

Detroit goes bankrupt, largest municipal filing in U.S. history


Joe Mobley
  • Profile picture of the author lcombs
    No surprise. Detroit pretty much tanked when the auto industry went bust.
    But, not to worry.
    You, me, and every other tax paying American will chip in, (whether we like it or not), and bail them out.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8297301].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Joe,

      Detroit hasn't gone completely bankrupt.

      The city of Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection in federal court Thursday, laying the groundwork for a historic effort to bail out a city that is sinking under billions of dollars in debt and decades of mismanagement, population flight and loss of tax revenue...The bankruptcy petition would seek protection from creditors and unions who are renegotiating $18.5 billion in debt and other liabilities.
      The bold is mine especially for Larry.

      Also, it isn't the first, there are 7 other cities that have filed since January, 2010 although Detroit is the largest city to do so.

      You can see it all here. Detroit Files Chapter 9 Bankruptcy Protection

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8297338].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8300679].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I think the ruling will move to a higher court perhaps?

      It's interesting - Detroit has tried now for some time to crawl out of the hole it dug - and so far the unions have not been willing to compromise.

      What happens now?: If the money isn't there - it can't be paid. Do the rest of us get to pay for Detroit's mess???
      Signature
      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8300786].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      What a bunch of GARBAGE! A bankruptcy is good for, and BENEFITS the bankrupted entity! WHY do you think they do it?!?!?

      You can NOT simply say a bankruptcy is illegal. REGARDLESS of what YOU might think, SOMEBODY must pay! A bankruptcy simply says the debtor entity CAN'T pay, and is relieved. The CREDITORS must then pay!

      If a bankruptcy is not allowed, the entity would owe it endlessly and the creditors, short term at least, would actually generally get LESS. The entity would not be forced to cut back, and would not be given freedoms it would otherwise have, and things could get WORSE! ALSO, as they got worse, they would get even worse STILL.

      I am at a loss to determine the final result because, frankly, I don't think it has ever happened. I can see how it could affect ANY entity, from an 18yo just starting out to a multi century municipality or country. AGAIN, LOOK AT GREECE!!!!!!!!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8300993].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
        Governing Magazine has a useful interactive map showing all of the cities, towns, countries, utilities, and other municipalities that have filed for bankruptcy since 2010. There are 36 in all:
        Detroit isn't alone. The U.S. cities that have gone bankrupt, in one map

        Joe Mobley
        Signature

        .

        Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8301057].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        What a bunch of GARBAGE! A bankruptcy is good for, and BENEFITS the bankrupted entity! WHY do you think they do it?!?!?

        You can NOT simply say a bankruptcy is illegal. REGARDLESS of what YOU might think, SOMEBODY must pay! A bankruptcy simply says the debtor entity CAN'T pay, and is relieved. The CREDITORS must then pay!

        If a bankruptcy is not allowed, the entity would owe it endlessly and the creditors, short term at least, would actually generally get LESS. The entity would not be forced to cut back, and would not be given freedoms it would otherwise have, and things could get WORSE! ALSO, as they got worse, they would get even worse STILL.

        I am at a loss to determine the final result because, frankly, I don't think it has ever happened. I can see how it could affect ANY entity, from an 18yo just starting out to a multi century municipality or country. AGAIN, LOOK AT GREECE!!!!!!!!

        Steve

        Steve; Brother....could you do everyone a favor and not write WORDS in ALL capitol letters? It really MAKE it hard TO read your POST.

        And one exclamation point gets the point across. REALLY!!!!!!!

        If you italicize words you want to emphasize, you get the same effect, but the post is much easier to read. OK, Kemosabe?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8301062].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        What a bunch of GARBAGE! A bankruptcy is good for, and BENEFITS the bankrupted entity! WHY do you think they do it?!?!?

        You can NOT simply say a bankruptcy is illegal. REGARDLESS of what YOU might think, SOMEBODY must pay! A bankruptcy simply says the debtor entity CAN'T pay, and is relieved. The CREDITORS must then pay!

        If a bankruptcy is not allowed, the entity would owe it endlessly and the creditors, short term at least, would actually generally get LESS. The entity would not be forced to cut back, and would not be given freedoms it would otherwise have, and things could get WORSE! ALSO, as they got worse, they would get even worse STILL.

        I am at a loss to determine the final result because, frankly, I don't think it has ever happened. I can see how it could affect ANY entity, from an 18yo just starting out to a multi century municipality or country. AGAIN, LOOK AT GREECE!!!!!!!!

        Steve
        Steve what really happened is the judge delayed the bankruptcy until it is guaranteed pensions won't be touched.
        She also sent a letter to the president asked if he would guarantee that. That's because of the auto industry bail out that was suppose to save the city.
        The white house has already said today that the federal govt. will not bail out Detroit.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8301084].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          Steve what really happened is the judge delayed the bankruptcy until it is guaranteed pensions won't be touched.
          She also sent a letter to the president asked if he would guarantee that. That's because of the auto industry bail out that was suppose to save the city.
          The white house has already said today that the federal govt. will not bail out Detroit.
          Well, why should THEIR pensions be so guaranteed? HECK, look at ENRON! The president can't guarantee that unless somehow he gets taxpayers on the hook!

          They STOLE MONEY from ALL for the GM bailout. The PRIMARY beneficiary? The AUTO WORKERS UNION PENSIONS!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8301165].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            Well, why should THEIR pensions be so guaranteed? HECK, look at ENRON! The president can't guarantee that unless somehow he gets taxpayers on the hook!

            They STOLE MONEY from ALL for the GM bailout. The PRIMARY beneficiary? The AUTO WORKERS UNION PENSIONS!

            Steve
            I'm just a messenger Steve
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8301218].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              until it is guaranteed pensions won't be touched.
              She also sent a letter to the president asked if he would guarantee that. That's because of the auto industry bail out that was suppose to save the city.
              The white house has already said today that the federal govt. will not bail out Detroit.
              Could it be a "bailout for Detroit" will have a different definition than a "guarantee for Detroit"?

              All over the country in that past few years, companies have gone under and employees have LOST their pensions. In cities where unions were willing to work with the city - pensions have been cut but not lost. A bankruptcy would allow union contracts/pensions to be renegotiated at least for the future.

              In Detroit, the high pensions ($100k/yr) for many ex-city officials is one of the sticking points.

              Big pension payouts threatened by Detroit crisis | The Detroit News
              Signature
              Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

              Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8301249].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                Could it be a "bailout for Detroit" will have a different definition than a "guarantee for Detroit"?

                All over the country in that past few years, companies have gone under and employees have LOST their pensions. In cities where unions were willing to work with the city - pensions have been cut but not lost. A bankruptcy would allow union contracts/pensions to be renegotiated at least for the future.

                In Detroit, the high pensions ($100k/yr) for many ex-city officials is one of the sticking points.

                Big pension payouts threatened by Detroit crisis | The Detroit News
                Isn't it funny how an SSA worker wants a PENSION, and may get over $100K/year with NO conditions, and someone that has a VERY worthwhile and helpful career and mad say $100K a year may be left with ONLY an ~$12K social security that is CONDITIONAL? And the SSA worker feels CHEATED if they even have to contribute 1%! People have actually striked at the SUGGESTION of 3%!

                I am FINALLY contributing 12%(most experts suggest 20%), I am less than 2 decades away from an average retirement, and it is NOT enough!

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8301787].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                  It's a problem we've been encountering in many urban areas in the past few years.

                  Good times led to fat public worker pensions - especially for those at the top, of course. When a company goes out of business pensions are often lost. The employee MAY recoup the amount HE contributed to his pension but the company share may evaporate.

                  Just 30 years ago, a "public worker" was someone on a city, county, state or federal payroll. It was well known those jobs paid LESS than private sector jobs for similar work. The balance was the job stability of a govt job and the benefits of insurance and pension that were "reliable".

                  Today public sector jobs often pay far more than the same work in the private sector - and the pensions and benefits have also gotten richer.

                  I understand state constitutions may prohibit cities from filing bankruptcy - but if they do, the state must be willing to bail out those cities. Can Michigan afford to support Detroit?

                  Reality has to come into play somewhere - and simply stating "it's illegal to declare bankruptcy and restructure" doesn't accomplish anything unless there's money there to back it up.
                  Signature
                  Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                  Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8302720].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                    It's a problem we've been encountering in many urban areas in the past few years.

                    Good times led to fat public worker pensions - especially for those at the top, of course. When a company goes out of business pensions are often lost. The employee MAY recoup the amount HE contributed to his pension but the company share may evaporate.

                    Just 30 years ago, a "public worker" was someone on a city, county, state or federal payroll. It was well known those jobs paid LESS than private sector jobs for similar work. The balance was the job stability of a govt job and the benefits of insurance and pension that were "reliable".

                    Today public sector jobs often pay far more than the same work in the private sector - and the pensions and benefits have also gotten richer.

                    I understand state constitutions may prohibit cities from filing bankruptcy - but if they do, the state must be willing to bail out those cities. Can Michigan afford to support Detroit?

                    Reality has to come into play somewhere - and simply stating "it's illegal to declare bankruptcy and restructure" doesn't accomplish anything unless there's money there to back it up.
                    EXACTLY! WELL SAID!

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8302762].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Sumit Menon
                    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                    It's a problem we've been encountering in many urban areas in the past few years.

                    Good times led to fat public worker pensions - especially for those at the top, of course. When a company goes out of business pensions are often lost. The employee MAY recoup the amount HE contributed to his pension but the company share may evaporate.

                    Just 30 years ago, a "public worker" was someone on a city, county, state or federal payroll. It was well known those jobs paid LESS than private sector jobs for similar work. The balance was the job stability of a govt job and the benefits of insurance and pension that were "reliable".

                    Today public sector jobs often pay far more than the same work in the private sector - and the pensions and benefits have also gotten richer.

                    I understand state constitutions may prohibit cities from filing bankruptcy - but if they do, the state must be willing to bail out those cities. Can Michigan afford to support Detroit?

                    Reality has to come into play somewhere - and simply stating "it's illegal to declare bankruptcy and restructure" doesn't accomplish anything unless there's money there to back it up.
                    Meanwhile in Greece - Thousands of Greeks Join Strike Against Public Sector Layoffs

                    I don't understand why public sector unions don't pose a conflict of interest. They are employed by the government. How many private sector employees get to vote-in their management? Unions are formed to prevent monopoly of the corporations, I am told. The two most monopolistic factions, I believe, in any country is the government and public sector unions. Why don't people 'GET' it?
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8302930].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                      The public sector unions gained prominence during "good" economic times - when money appeared to be flowing freely and no one was considering the potential of an economic downturn.

                      The stability of public service jobs is threatened by the very protections the unions claimed. People don't get it - because they don't want THEIR status changed.

                      I don't think we've heard the last of Greece and it's economic turmoil...or of Cyprus...or of other countries still teetering on the brink of economic chaos. Pouring money into the system without making the changes necessary will accomplish little.
                      Signature
                      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8302970].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              I'm just a messenger Steve
              Yeah, I know. I am just saying.

              I saw a documentary about the full enron debacle. I wish I could remember the name of the company, but there was a company that was reliably producing power, had a GREAT pension plan, etc.... Well, one of the better ideas ENRON had(At least it WOULD have been better, if they were actually going to be a proper power company.), was to buy that company. This was likely only one of many companies, but STILL, t is an example.

              The pension was tied up in the stock of a reliable company that had a good history, etc... When enron bought them, the stock was changed to enron.

              There are a LOT of reasons to avoid a pension plan invested in ONE thing and there are ALSO a number of reasons to not have a large amount be an item that is proprietary to where you work. So having a pension plan that is maybe more than 10% of your companies stock/bonds is a BAD idea! Still, a good LOCAL UTILITY company that has a good history and a monopoly in the area is about as safe a bet as you can get. ENRON was NOT a utility company, or local, and was bound to be broken up if they succeeded.

              BTW, today, it is ALSO a good idea to not trust one company/industry, with your investment. I have it with maybe 8 companies, and three industries. I may not have enough, but if the banks collapse, or the stock market dies, etc... I will have something.
              Of course, my investments are diversified. So I don't have to worry about the exact problem that the workers at enron had.

              Suffice it to say that Employees of that company had their funds GUTTED! Some were on the CUSP of retiring! IMAGINE! One day you look back on your career. You think NO REGRETS! I DID WELL! Another year, and I RETIRE! YEAH! The NEXT week you think OH NO! ALL THAT MONEY LOST! I HAVE NO BACKUP! I HAVE TO LOOK FOR A NEW JOB! WHO WILL HIRE A LAID OFF 65yo? I WILL HAVE TO WORK UNTIL I DIE!

              Such things just don't come with guarantees! Before the government guarantees any pensions, they should make good on the guarantee of SOCIAL SECURITY! THAT was guaranteed, and TODAY, if you are lucky, you get a paltry amount BACK! It is WORSE than a whole life insurance policy, and most whole life insurance policies cost LESS!!!!!!

              My little poll says that workers get about $1000/month. The range was from like $900 to a week or so ago where a guy claimed $1600. He said his wife got about $1200. So what does the SSA say?

              AVERAGE AFTER 3.6% COLA 1,229/mo (ALL)
              AVERAGE MARRIED COUPLE 1,994/mo(married couple)
              RETIRING AFTER FULL AGE, MAX AMOUNT 2,513/mo(NOTE, this MIGHT be for COUPLES ONLY!)

              SO, if you want to retire at 70(IIRC, from SSAs site. One part says 67 for those born 1960 or later.), and make an average of about $100K($110,100 in 2012), and are over 55, you can get a whopping $30,156, or about $14.78/hour(assuming comparison with 2040 WHPY. At 2088, it drops to $14.44)! IF you are lucky! And don't try working to improve it, as your Social Security may be reduced, or eliminated. Of course, statistically, you will get HALF of that, or about $7.22/hour. Minimum wage is $7.25/hour! NO WONDER so many really old people work at mcdonalds!

              BTW don't expect COLA or increases to help. They are driven by whim and then only by inflation, so they are more likely to seem like decreases.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8302914].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        You can NOT simply say a bankruptcy is illegal.
        Oh, yes I can.

        bankruptcy is illegal
        bankruptcy is illegal
        bankruptcy is illegal
        Okay... More to the point, some state constitutions prohibit municipal bankruptcy.

        Joe Mobley
        Signature

        .

        Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8301094].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

          Oh, yes I can.



          Okay... More to the point, some state constitutions prohibit municipal bankruptcy.

          Joe Mobley
          MAYBE! Ideally, they should STOP doing what would lead them there, but they are often FORCED to! Look at what happened in Wisconsin, when the governor said NO MORE!

          His detractors even removed one bit of information, renamed income, and then had a propaganda campaign LYING to discredit him!

          The US has broken the sherman antitrust act a LOT! HOW do they THEN react? "TOO BIG TO FAIL". YEP, because THEY made them that way! THEN, the try to get the behemoths out of the trouble, and end up hurting EVERYONE!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8301177].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        SOMEBODY must pay!
        I'm not sure I agree with that statement but I am a big proponent of the "Joe not paying for the choices of other stupid b^stards" program.

        Not only do I think that these bankruptcies will continue but grow in size and scope. It is possible that entire states will file for bankruptcy protection.

        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        AGAIN, LOOK AT GREECE!!!!!!!!
        You mean East California?


        Joe Mobley
        Signature

        .

        Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8301151].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    How many other cities are in dire situations, one wonders. How many can go bankrupt before collapse and chaos is inevitable?
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8300832].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Detroit history has a trend that repeats itself, same exact thing happened to Gary Indiana.
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8302803].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8312690].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author fin
    No wonder none of us want a real job lol

    What a mess!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8312839].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by fin View Post

      No wonder none of us want a real job lol

      What a mess!

      Yea! It's all the fault of freeloaders and of course the unions.

      And the loss of about 300K good paying jobs has nothing to do with Detroit's problems either.


      I'm also wondering how could Michigan state and city officials possibly talk about cutting the

      average...

      ... $19,000-a-year pension benefit for municipal workers while...

      ...reaffirming their pledge of $283 million in taxpayer money to a professional hockey stadium?
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8313830].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
        Detroit has had corruption for decades. Way back in the 1930's there was a huge corruption scandal called the Janet McDonald Affair.

        Back then it involved extorting payoffs from houses of prostitution, gamblers, slot machine operators and other underworld types. It produced criminal charges and convictions against more than 150 people, including an ex-mayor, a county prosecutor and sheriff, city council members, the superintendent of police and scores of Detroit cops.

        The probe into the case began in August 1939 when Janet McDonald killed herself and her daughter. Authorities weren't sure what prompted the murder-suicide. But when they found letters describing gambling activities and police payoffs involving her ex-lover, investigators started asking questions.

        Indictments and convictions were brought against a prosecutor, the Wayne County Sheriff, and Detroit Mayor, who was sentenced to 4½-to-5 years in prison for conspiring with scores of Detroit cops to take bribes from Detroit’s underworld, totaling $400,000.

        It's all laid out in a book called “The Michigan One-Man Grand Jury” by Robert Scigliano.

        Corruption goes way back. I guess it's finally catching up to them.

        Terra
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8313950].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Detroit schools have lost 1/2 to 2/3 of the students they had 20 years ago - but the teacher's union resists any effort to cut positions or consolidate schools or remove tenure or reduce benefits.

        The city has been declining since the mid-70's. This wasn't a new problem brought on by recent economic struggles. At some point the can reaches the end of the road and you can't kick it any more.

        I don't think the blame falls on automakers as much as it does on pols and public workers. Car manufacturers built Detroit to begin with but when the decay set in, they began to exit.

        Automakers did not lose 300k jobs unless you include other companies that make parts, etc - and those are often in other regions of the country. Detroit has lost too many people - not just jobs.

        The city's response when population began to decrease years ago was to raise taxes again and again. That only drove out more people. Another factor is the spreading out of jobs as described in this article...

        Metro Detroit job sprawl worst in U.S.; many jobs beyond reach of poor | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

        This is not a simple problem where blame can be attached easily. The Detroit problem is multi faceted and the solution will have to be the same. It may be necessary to tear down Detroit in order to rebuild it.

        I think the longer the parties in Detroit remain unwilling to compromise - the worse the final outcome will be for all.

        Obama ‘car czar’ wants to bail out Detroit — again | TheBlaze.com
        Signature
        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8314178].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Yea! It's all the fault of freeloaders and of course the unions.

        And the loss of about 300K good paying jobs has nothing to do with Detroit's problems either.


        I'm also wondering how could Michigan state and city officials possibly talk about cutting the

        average...

        ... $19,000-a-year pension benefit for municipal workers while...

        ...reaffirming their pledge of $283 million in taxpayer money to a professional hockey stadium?
        Well, I have NEVER been in favor of a government giving ******ANY****** subsidies for sports! There are SO MANY corporations, RICH people, PLAYERS, TEAMS, and FANS that will READILY pay for it! Let THEM! THEY all benefit!

        $19,000? It must include part time workers, low end workers, ****VERY**** old, and new workers.

        As for the lost jobs and government? They got a TON of money! A TON! WHERE did it go? FOLLOW THE MONEY!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8315930].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Sumit Menon
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          $19,000? It must include part time workers, low end workers, ****VERY**** old, and new workers.
          Not to mention they are not working- producing anything of value or providing a service. Are low-end municipal workers in other parts of the US making that much these days? Just curious.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8317453].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Sumit Menon View Post

            Not to mention they are not working- producing anything of value or providing a service. Are low-end municipal workers in other parts of the US making that much these days? Just curious.
            By low end, I mean even a person serving food. $19,000 may sound like very little, but it is a LOT to a person that, in a private sector job, may have made less than $15138/year! That is a year at the ******CURRENT****** minimum wage! In MY first job, I made FAR less! I made approx $6324/year. HEY, I was a KID! BTW I STILL had to pay taxes, so my takehome pay was even LESS!!!!! AND, let's say I had a job back then paying with the same relationship, and made what I did in my last job, it would be about $20,000! SO then, if I retired in 1980 I might have been lucky to make over $19K/year.

            So you can see how one can't just look at average average pension payouts and say HEY, that is LOW!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8318013].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by Sumit Menon View Post

            Not to mention they are not working- producing anything of value or providing a service. Are low-end municipal workers in other parts of the US making that much these days? Just curious.

            These are people who already worked for the city gov and earned their retirement pensions of an average of 19K per year.

            I hope everyone involved shares the equal brunt of the solution, not just the retirees as it has been in other similar situations.
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8318028].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              There's more to it than $19k average. The pensions in
              Detroit are about 75% of the persons working pay but most of these pensions kick in much earlier than retirement funds in private sectors.

              You may only get $19k a year - but you can collect that for 15 or more years before you reach "official" retirement age.

              Public workers may retire at 48-50 and begin collecting pensions. They can then work other jobs and qualify for Social Security payments. They can opt for somewhat smaller pension checks when they retire - and guarantee a lifetime pension to their spouse even if the retiree is deceased.

              In Detroit, pensions also include health care benefits - though even automakers have discontinued that benefit for many retirees.

              A retired firefighter in Detroit - worked 26 yrs. He took the pension that would also include his wife and receives $2500/month. Payouts will continue through his lifetime and his wife's lifetime. This firefighter retired before age 50 and then worked a private sector job for ten years so will also collect some income from social security in his later years.

              Perhaps it's not that pensions in Detroit are overly generous - but the terms of collecting them are quite generous. Can any pension plan pay retirees 75% of their pay for what might be twice as long as the years they worked?

              Some of these questions should be asked of other public employee retirement plans BEFORE they go bust. In SS and in public sector pensions - is there really a need for full spousal benefits considering most women also work these days and can build their own pensions?

              Pension plans did not become common until the 1950s and 60s and initially were retirement funds paid to workers only after they reached retirement age which was usually the same as required by SS.

              Seems to me the increase in pension promises began to occur shortly after the federal govt got involved by passing ERISA in 1974.
              Signature
              Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

              Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8318478].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Sumit Menon
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                By low end, I mean even a person serving food. $19,000 may sound like very little, but it is a LOT to a person that, in a private sector job, may have made less than $15138/year! That is a year at the ******CURRENT****** minimum wage! In MY first job, I made FAR less! I made approx $6324/year. HEY, I was a KID! BTW I STILL had to pay taxes, so my takehome pay was even LESS!!!!! AND, let's say I had a job back then paying with the same relationship, and made what I did in my last job, it would be about $20,000! SO then, if I retired in 1980 I might have been lucky to make over $19K/year.

                So you can see how one can't just look at average average pension payouts and say HEY, that is LOW!

                Steve
                I was asking because it seemed counter-intuitive to pay someone more for a work that they formerly used to do than someone who is doing it right now.

                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                These are people who already worked for the city gov and earned their retirement pensions of an average of 19K per year.

                I hope everyone involved shares the equal brunt of the solution, not just the retirees as it has been in other similar situations.
                My point is pension contracts must be flexible. The world just went through a recession. People are not making as much as they used to 10-20 years ago. You cannot expect to be paid the same amount as you were promised when the economy was well off. The pensions must be paid on the average current wage rates in the country. If they are more, great. If they are less, retirees should agree to take a cut.

                Also, I agree that everyone involved must pay. Giving retirees 10 cents on the dollar is ridiculous. Might as well cut the whole pension supply. But, the situation should not have been created in the first place. It is better the world learns from Detroit's mistakes. If Detroit during its heydays had used its money to promote other industries rather than funding lavish pay-packages and retirement benefits, maybe they'd still be at the top. But, the cruelty of the situation is that the ones who are going to bear the brunt of this, aren't probably the ones who benefited from the lax pro-union policies. They just bought into a system that wasn't sustainable and one can only feel sorry for them.

                Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                There's more to it than $19k average. The pensions in
                Detroit are about 75% of the persons working pay but most of these pensions kick in much earlier than retirement funds in private sectors.

                You may only get $19k a year - but you can collect that for 15 or more years before you reach "official" retirement age.

                Public workers may retire at 48-50 and begin collecting pensions. They can then work other jobs and qualify for Social Security payments. They can opt for somewhat smaller pension checks when they retire - and guarantee a lifetime pension to their spouse even if the retiree is deceased.

                In Detroit, pensions also include health care benefits - though even automakers have discontinued that benefit for many retirees.

                A retired firefighter in Detroit - worked 26 yrs. He took the pension that would also include his wife and receives $2500/month. Payouts will continue through his lifetime and his wife's lifetime. This firefighter retired before age 50 and then worked a private sector job for ten years so will also collect some income from social security in his later years.

                Perhaps it's not that pensions in Detroit are overly generous
                - but the terms of collecting them are quite generous. Can any pension plan pay retirees 75% of their pay for what might be twice as long as the years they worked?

                Some of these questions should be asked of other public employee retirement plans BEFORE they go bust. In SS and in public sector pensions - is there really a need for full spousal benefits considering most women also work these days and can build their own pensions?

                Pension plans did not become common until the 1950s and 60s and initially were retirement funds paid to workers only after they reached retirement age which was usually the same as required by SS.

                Seems to me the increase in pension promises began to occur shortly after the federal govt got involved by passing ERISA in 1974.
                If what you say is true, then the pensions are overly generous. The money I'd make in interests and my other job over the years would be much more than if I had gotten a 125% pension. But, somebody is paying for all this!
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8319947].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Actually you can and should expect to be paid what you were promised Sumit. The money was put away in the past and often comes from the employee also. It is considered deferred compensation for work already done in the past. It's a contract and people plan their retirement around it.
                  Originally Posted by Sumit Menon View Post




                  You cannot expect to be paid the same amount as you were promised when the economy was well off. The pensions must be paid on the average current wage rates in the country. If they are more, great. If they are less, retirees should agree to take a cut.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8320121].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                    I agree about the promises and I don't think some of the pension are overly generous...but some are.

                    I think what is overly generous are the terms of these pensions that allow you to start collecting long before you reach what most consider retirement age. In Detroit there's an automatic cost of living raise yearly of about $500/yr. That's a bigger increase than many workers have seen in recent years.

                    Some states and cities pay out pensions only when the worker reaches 62 or more - while others allow a worker to retire at a relatively young age and start collecting. That is extremely costly and in Detroit it's resulted in 2 retirees on pensions for each worker on the job.

                    I don't want to see promises broken but truth is compromise of some sort will be necessary on all sides. The city has come to the end of the road and something will have to give.

                    I hope other cities on the brink will wake up and make changes and unions will cooperate to make sure other promises can be kept going forward.
                    Signature
                    Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                    Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8320190].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      According to the news today the problem isn't who gets what, the problem is the city doesn't have any money.
                      Plus it's not like they can sell more municipal bonds or borrow any money. Just like our dollars value is based on the faith and credit of the federal govt., cities get loans and sell bonds based on the faith and credit of that city.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8320227].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                        One problem - if true - is that the focus is on saving bondholders before saving pensions. I think that's a wrong approach as any investment may carry a loss - even municipal bonds.
                        Signature
                        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8320283].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                          I love you Kay, but I disagree with you here. The bond holders gave the money up front in order to get things bought and done. They should be paid in full before any pensions or benefits are paid to any current or former municipal employees.

                          Joe Mobley


                          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                          One problem - if true - is that the focus is on saving bondholders before saving pensions. I think that's a wrong approach as any investment may carry a loss - even municipal bonds.
                          Signature

                          .

                          Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8320767].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                            Why? They put up money up front and the workers worked already and are waiting to be fully compensated for their work. I agree with Kay on this one.

                            Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

                            I love you Kay, but I disagree with you here. The bond holders gave the money up front in order to get things bought and done. They should be paid in full before any pensions or benefits are paid to any current or former municipal employees.

                            Joe Mobley
                            Signature
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8321130].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        According to the news today the problem isn't who gets what, the problem is the city doesn't have any money.
                        Plus it's not like they can sell more municipal bonds or borrow any money. Just like our dollars value is based on the faith and credit of the federal govt., cities get loans and sell bonds based on the faith and credit of that city.
                        A bond is actually a LOAN! When you buy a bond, you are a LENDER! That DEBT is paid off by the issuer of the bond.

                        So a bankrupt city, EVEN if they could pay it, shouldn't issue more bonds, because they DON'T create money.

                        Stock is different in that, ****AT THE IPO****, the company gets a PORTION of the money invested. If they sell a million shares at $20, they make something less than $20,000,000. If the stock goes up to $1000 a share, they can only get quite a bit less than $1000 for each share they are holding. MOST would want to hold a controlling interest. HOWEVER, if the stock is sold, or drops to zero, the company doesn't lose money.

                        Steve
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8320535].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Actually you can and should expect to be paid what you were promised...
                    Actually, if a promise to you is not fulfilled, you should look to those who made the promise. I am under no moral obligation to satisfy any debts to which I am not a party.

                    Joe Mobley
                    Signature

                    .

                    Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8325316].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                      Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

                      Actually, if a promise to you is not fulfilled, you should look to those who made the promise. I am under no moral obligation to satisfy any debts to which I am not a party.

                      Joe Mobley
                      I feel the same way, Joe, and so does the Detroit Institute of Art and the Detroit Historical Museum. That's why they're not keen on selling off the art.

                      To me that is along the lines of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

                      In so doing, they would be robbing the innocent next generations of culture to pay for the past generations' idiocy and irresponsibility.

                      Terra
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8325368].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Promised wasn't the right word. Pensions are legal contracts. Morality has nothing to with it and by paying taxes you already satisfy debts to which you are not a party.

                      Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

                      Actually, if a promise to you is not fulfilled, you should look to those who made the promise. I am under no moral obligation to satisfy any debts to which I am not a party.

                      Joe Mobley
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8325490].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        Promised wasn't the right word.
                        Fair enough.


                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        Pensions are legal contracts.
                        Which, if they don't involve me... shouldn't involve me.


                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        Morality has nothing to with it...
                        Morality has a lot to do with it for me. Although it pains me that a lot of people are going to be hurt, at some point they have to take responsibility for themselves. Wanting me, and others to pay for their poor choices indicates that they are still in entitlement mode.


                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        and by paying taxes you already satisfy debts to which you are not a party.
                        And, as you well know, I am working aggressively to remedy that. In 2012, expats enjoyed no taxes on their first $97,500 of income. Not a damn dime for Detroit!

                        Come and join me.

                        Joe Mobley
                        Signature

                        .

                        Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8327030].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                  Originally Posted by Sumit Menon View Post

                  I was asking because it seemed counter-intuitive to pay someone more for a work that they formerly used to do than someone who is doing it right now.



                  My point is pension contracts must be flexible. The world just went through a recession. People are not making as much as they used to 10-20 years ago. You cannot expect to be paid the same amount as you were promised when the economy was well off. The pensions must be paid on the average current wage rates in the country. If they are more, great. If they are less, retirees should agree to take a cut.

                  Also, I agree that everyone involved must pay. Giving retirees 10 cents on the dollar is ridiculous. Might as well cut the whole pension supply. But, the situation should not have been created in the first place. It is better the world learns from Detroit's mistakes.

                  If Detroit during its heydays had used its money to promote other industries rather than funding lavish pay-packages and retirement benefits, maybe they'd still be at the top.

                  But, the cruelty of the situation is that the ones who are going to bear the brunt of this, aren't probably the ones who benefited from the lax pro-union policies. They just bought into a system that wasn't sustainable and one can only feel sorry for them.



                  If what you say is true, then the pensions are overly generous. The money I'd make in interests and my other job over the years would be much more than if I had gotten a 125% pension. But, somebody is paying for all this!

                  Yes the pension plan seems very generous and...

                  ...you seem to have the impression that lavish salaries and overly generous pension plans are the only reason for Detroit's problems.

                  (gee, I wonder how you got that impression?)

                  Of the 18 bill owed the pension plan accounts for 3.5 bill- a little more than 20%.

                  There are about 100 people getting pensions of about 100K per year but for most everyone else the average is about $1,600 per month or 19K per year.

                  There are many causes to Detroit's problems including...

                  ... de-industrialization, globalization, the city under-funding the pension plan while giving out massive and unnecessary tax breaks to corps, bad planning by the pols, The Great Recession, suburban sprawl, people simply leaving the city - over the last 30 years, for many reasons including to save 1 or 2% on taxes- which they have every right to do etc.


                  If there must be pain, I'd simply like for it to be equally spread among the claimants.

                  I'm waiting to see how this situation shakes out.

                  All The Best!!

                  TL
                  Signature

                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8320282].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    People in Detroit knew their reps there are thugs. That town was being looted by their head honchos back when I lived in the state. Nobody wanted to do anything about all the embezzling then, or the waste.

    The car companies pulled out predictably. They were paying 25 bucks an hour to people on the assembly line (benefits, etc). Workers could fall down drunk or high on the job and the union would keep putting those workers right back on the line. It was inevitable that the companies would get fed up sooner or later and move. The gov there was so busy looting every cent they could get their grubby little hands on they didn't have time to think about a plan B. When I went back there in 2007 it might as well have had the name changed to Welfare City. Never seen so many people in one location on the dole.

    There's been warnings of financial crashes for a long time. I don't know why people were so convinced they wouldn't happen. This whole country is macro and micro mismanaged.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8313567].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Challenges to Detroit bankruptcy will be decided in bankruptcy court, judge rules...

    From the story...

    A federal bankruptcy judge...

    ... sided with Detroit emergency manager Kevyn Orr Wednesday, ruling that bankruptcy court, rather than state courts, is where challenges to Detroit's bankruptcy filing will be handled.

    That doesn't mean he's saying the city is definitely eligible for bankruptcy, let alone whether he'll approve the specifics of Orr's plan.

    But Judge Steven Rhodes is taking challenges to the bankruptcy filing out of the state courts, ...

    ...where Judge Rosemarie Aquilina had ruled against the bankruptcy filing while strongly criticizing the emergency manager and governor's actions along the way.

    More...

    Daily Kos: Challenges to Detroit bankruptcy will be decided in bankruptcy court, judge rules
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8320325].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cjagodka
    Fair warning this is totally a rant about my beloved state.

    I live just south of Detroit and I hear all the news and politics going on around here all the time! It drives me nuts being a lonley conservative in a very liberal state.

    What really irks me the most is the sense of entitlement that everyone thinks they deserve. When I mean everyone, I mean everyone from the city council, the rich a' holes, the welfare bums (they are everywhere), and the normal day to day citizen.

    This bankruptcy has been a long time coming. I remember listening to the radio and hearing them taking about the city of Detroit having to hire a seperate police department for just the downtown area. This department was funded by all the local corporations and they were only allowed to deal with matters with certain boundries. It was put in place to make people feel safe in the city and corporations were willing to pay their salaries because it would bring people back into Detroit. If this not an indicator of the decline of the city's budget than I don't know what is.

    Also I knew the budget was in trouble because when you are driving into the city from the side roads most of the street lights are out. They have been like this for a long time!

    Another tid bit of info. The previous Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick makes some felons look like juvenile. He had stolen millions upon millions of dollars and has been found guilty of at least 24 federal felony accounts to include wire fraud, mail fraud, and racketeering. What is really crazy here is that the 700,000 people or so left in Detroit would vote him back in office. This is no joke! The local news actually had a segment asking the locals if Kwame were able to run for office again would they vote him back in and it was shocking how many people said yes.

    To me the bankruptcy comes at no surprise and I honestly know that this not good for anyone. There is apart of me though that is smiling from to ear to ear because they deserve what they have had coming to them! Yeah, I will probably have to pay something for the mistakes of several, but if they are cleaned out and things turn around I will be happy in the long run.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8320829].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by cjagodka View Post

      Another tid bit of info. The previous Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick makes some felons look like juvenile. He had stolen millions upon millions of dollars and has been found guilty of at least 24 federal felony accounts to include wire fraud, mail fraud, and racketeering. What is really crazy here is that the 700,000 people or so left in Detroit would vote him back in office. This is no joke! The local news actually had a segment asking the locals if Kwame were able to run for office again would they vote him back in and it was shocking how many people said yes.
      I saw that news cast and the only thing I could think to say was that you just can't fix stupid! :rolleyes:

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8321099].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Joe -

        Muni bonds were popular due to tax breaks and the low risk - but that could change. I've read several financial gurus in the past 4-5 years who have said to move away from municipal bonds due to state and city financial problems.

        Detroit didn't just "fail" - it's been failing for a long time. Why would anyone or any investment group continue sending bond funds to that city? Because those bonds were paying premiums....higher risk pays higher premiums. I know ratings on Detroit bonds have been downgraded several times.

        Maybe I'm crazy (I'm not a finance person) but with the Fed Reserve buying 85 billion dollars of bonds a month to keep the economy afloat ---- wouldn't that action have the effect of encouraging bond investment and bond issues? Maybe it doesn't - but seems like it would be a rush to issue bonds for the feds to buy.
        Signature
        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8321242].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          Terra -

          The story you mentioned is similar to Anthony Weiner who was still leading the candidate race in New York.

          I think there are people who become wedded to pols who tells them what they want to hear and what they will be given - and for those people, nothing else matters. Considering the huge number of intelligent and accomplished people in this country - it's too bad we require so little in the way of character from our officials.
          Signature
          Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

          Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8321247].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Vincent van Gogh's Self-Portrait with Straw Hat (1887) could be worth more than $100 million.



    Read more: Bankrupt Detroit Could Sell Its Billion-Dollar Art Collection - Business Insider
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8321248].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Interesting article - maybe the collection could be transferred to the state of Michigan for some bailout money from the state?
      Signature
      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8321257].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      That would cause a helluva lot more lawsuits as the DIA's officials remain resolute in their determination to protect their collection.

      "Our position hasn't changed. We only sell works of art to buy works of art," Beal said. "We are not given works of art so that we can settle debts made (during) decades of mismanagement and corruption."


      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8321276].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Well, yes, he has a point but then again I would rather sell a dozen paintings and not screw people out of their pensions. The city can always buy new art when it has more money or receive new pieces from donors.
        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

        That would cause a helluva lot more lawsuits as the DIA's officials remain resolute in their determination to protect their collection.

        "Our position hasn't changed. We only sell works of art to buy works of art," Beal said. "We are not given works of art so that we can settle debts made (during) decades of mismanagement and corruption."


        Terra
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8321893].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Sumit Menon
      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

      Actually you can and should expect to be paid what you were promised Sumit. The money was put away in the past and often comes from the employee also. It is considered deferred compensation for work already done in the past. It's a contract and people plan their retirement around it.
      I understand that it's a contract. I would be all for a system were money was cut from your paycheck and stored in a locker with your name printed on it. But, that's not how it really works, is it? The first batch of money was probably (I don't know for sure) used to fund the pensions of people who did not pay into the system. Or it was used for something else totally unrelated. In either case, the money was not put away as you say it was. Someone got a free meal, and the current generation of retirees will pay for it. It's sad.

      The question is not whether the contract should be kept- in principle. Given the choice, it absolutely should be. But, there is NO money. Detroit cannot pay back. And if the state government bails out Detroit, the taxpayers of Michigan paid for something they had nothing to do with.

      I do not mean to say that the retirees should not receive their payments and the bankers should have their way. The pensioners counted on this all their lives and they can't just go back to work. I am merely pointing out that the system is unsustainable and the next time any country goes through a recession, this will happen again.

      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Yes the pension plan seems very generous and...

      ...you seem to have the impression that lavish salaries and overly generous pension plans are the only reason for Detroit's problems.

      (gee, I wonder how you got that impression?)

      Of the 18 bill owed the pension plan accounts for 3.5 bill- a little more than 20%.

      There are about 100 people getting pensions of about 100K per year but for most everyone else the average is about $1,600 per month or 19K per year.

      There are many causes to Detroit's problems including...

      ... de-industrialization, globalization, the city under-funding the pension plan while giving out massive and unnecessary tax breaks to corps, bad planning by the pols, The Great Recession, suburban sprawl, people simply leaving the city - over the last 30 years, for many reasons including to save 1 or 2% on taxes- which they have every right to do etc.


      If there must be pain, I'd simply like for it to be equally spread among the claimants.

      I'm waiting to see how this situation shakes out.

      All The Best!!

      TL
      I never said lavish salaries/pensions was the only reason. All the articles I've read pointed to 3 major reasons - mismanagement/corruption, pensions and a free market.

      I don't understand the free market reasoning. If Detroit had a free market, industries would be coming into Detroit rather than leaving it. Or did the articles mean free market in other cities/states? In that case, it is none of Detroit's business what the other cities do or not do.

      So we are left with mismanagement and pensions. No one is denying that there was a mismanagement and that is not a point of debate. Pension, hence, must be the next largest contributor apart from corruption.

      Let me reason about all the reasons that you mention -

      de-industrialization - Industries left. They had a right to do so. I suspect there was any tax breaks given to them given that they chose to leave. If it was profitable to move their plants to another place, why shouldn't they do it? If Detroit had incentivised them to stay, perhaps we wouldn't have this problem.

      globalization - I fail to understand the logic. Left-wing supporters (I assume you are one too. Even if you aren't, at least we can consider for the sake of argument, that you are to the left of me) have always called for a more equal distribution of wealth among the people. So, for the first time in 200 or so years, we in Asia who are considerably poorer than you, have a level playing field, and you guys oppose that? It just doesn't make sense.

      the city under-funding the pension plan while giving out massive - I don't see how this changes the scenario. Even if Detroit over-funded the pension plans, they still wouldn't have enough money to pay their debtors.

      and unnecessary tax breaks to corps - I highly doubt it but let me just agree with you on this one.

      bad planning by the pols - No debate here.

      The Great Recession - No debate here.

      suburban sprawl - Don't know what you mean.

      people simply leaving the city - But why? Taxation, right? Who are the beneficiaries of this taxation? Public Sector Unions.

      Like I said, I agree that everyone involved should pay the same. But, the system doesn't work and that's been proven now.

      Sumit.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8322751].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        As cities go, Detroit has always been unique - and not always in a good way. The auto industry was the making of Detroit - but industry did not spread from there.

        Detroit had a narrow range of jobs and one of the lowest education levels of any city in the country. Decades of corruption among officials and unions - over spending and over taxing. In the past few years of this economy we've seen things happen that we KNEW might happen - but somehow thought we could avoid. Detroit was in trouble 20 years ago - and ten years ago - at some point you hit the wall.

        "Our position hasn't changed. We only sell works of art to buy works of art," Beal said. "We are not given works of art so that we can settle debts made (during) decades of mismanagement and corruption."
        That sounds noble and had the museum collection been composed of private donations, I might agree with that.

        But - some of the art was purchased with city funds in years when money was flowing freely in Detroit. Beal's position is much like the position taken by unions and by teachers...."no way - don't touch our stuff". I think it ignores the reality of the Detroit situation.

        Again - I think compromise is in order. Pieces of art that were purchased with city funds belong to the people of Detroit. I'd hate to see that huge collection sold off - but it may be necessary to sell off some pieces to save the rest.

        What we are seeing are various factions defending their own turf and making demands. In time, this needs to change to all of the factions giving up what they can to save the whole of the city. If this doesn't happen, the courts will make the decisions for them.
        Signature
        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8322891].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          As cities go, Detroit has always been unique - and not always in a good way. The auto industry was the making of Detroit - but industry did not spread from there.

          Detroit had a narrow range of jobs and one of the lowest education levels of any city in the country. Decades of corruption among officials and unions - over spending and over taxing. In the past few years of this economy we've seen things happen that we KNEW might happen - but somehow thought we could avoid. Detroit was in trouble 20 years ago - and ten years ago - at some point you hit the wall.

          That sounds noble and had the museum collection been composed of private donations, I might agree with that.

          But - some of the art was purchased with city funds in years when money was flowing freely in Detroit. Beal's position is much like the position taken by unions and by teachers...."no way - don't touch our stuff". I think it ignores the reality of the Detroit situation.

          Again - I think compromise is in order. Pieces of art that were purchased with city funds belong to the people of Detroit. I'd hate to see that huge collection sold off - but it may be necessary to sell off some pieces to save the rest.

          What we are seeing are various factions defending their own turf and making demands. In time, this needs to change to all of the factions giving up what they can to save the whole of the city. If this doesn't happen, the courts will make the decisions for them.
          I see where you are coming from, but my fear is that if it is deemed that the art will be sold, then there goes the last remnants of "culture and class" that Detroit has. Then what will be next? The historical pieces in the Henry Ford Museum?


          Then from Greenfield Village?



          There goes the very things that draw people from all over the world to Detroit. How in the heck could they ever recover after that?

          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8322924].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            I agree, Terra - but I'm not sure anything is untouchable in this mess.

            What has Detroit done to protect this precious art?

            Is anyone flocking to Detroit these days for anything? I doubt it. It's almost impossible to preserve culture and beauty when it's surrounded by chaos.

            I wouldn't condone selling art to pay debts of a city - but I would do it to save people. The last people I talked to who were going to Detroit were two businessmen who were planning how they could arrive, do the business and get out of the city in one day as they didn't want to spend any time there. That was a couple months ago.

            The art won't disappear or be destroyed - it will exist but be owned by someone else. It would be displayed in another museum.

            The reactions we see are normal turf protection. You can't touch my pension, you can't touch my benefits, you can't take my bond debt, you can't sell my art. Detroit is an example of what happens when substitute spending for growth and the rest of us need to learn a lesson from this. There is an end to that road and at some point there are consequences to making commitments you can't afford to keep.

            But isn't the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn - not in Detroit?
            Signature
            Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

            Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323004].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
              Kay,

              According to the Library of Congress more than one million people visit the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village each year.

              That's an awful lot of revenue that I don't think Detroit can afford to lose.

              But yeah, the whole thing sucks. It's a pity that the stupidity and corruption of others hurts a lot of innocent people.

              Again, too bad you can't fix stupid!

              Terra
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323051].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                That's an awful lot of revenue that I don't think Detroit can afford to lose.
                Do you mean the revenue for hotels, etc? Dearborn is not in bankruptcy and though near Detroit is not part of the city of Detroit is it? You live in the area so know more than I do about it.

                Dearborn is a large city and I expect most of the visitor revenue goes into that city's hotels and restaurants. Is that wrong?

                Dearborn selling historic City Hall building | The Detroit News
                Signature
                Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323193].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                  Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                  Do you mean the revenue for hotels, etc? Dearborn is not in bankruptcy and though near Detroit is not part of the city of Detroit is it? You live in the area so know more than I do about it.

                  Dearborn is a large city and I expect most of the visitor revenue goes into that city's hotels and restaurants. Is that wrong?

                  Dearborn selling historic City Hall building | The Detroit News
                  Kay,

                  It's more than just the hotels and restaurants. Things like the airport, transportation, and the list goes on and on. Many things surrounding Detroit are taking a hit as well.

                  As a matter of fact, just today it was announced that Detroit's Tunnel to Canada follows the city into bankruptcy.

                  Detroit's Tunnel To Canada Follows The City Into Bankruptcy


                  Terra
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323243].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                    I did wonder if this would affect surrounding cities and I'm sure in some sense it will.

                    I guess what I don't understand is the shock being expressed by some in the area. Who didn't see this coming? To assume Detroit could continue to operate in a deficit with no jobs and no growth year after year defies logic.

                    When I think of Dearborn and Detroit I have two different impressions - I enjoyed Dearborn and Detroit made me uncomfortable....and that was years ago.
                    Signature
                    Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                    Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323270].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                      I did wonder if this would affect surrounding cities and I'm sure in some sense it will.

                      I guess what I don't understand is the shock being expressed by some in the area. Who didn't see this coming? To assume Detroit could continue to operate in a deficit with no jobs and no growth year after year defies logic.

                      When I think of Dearborn and Detroit I have two different impressions - I enjoyed Dearborn and Detroit made me uncomfortable....and that was years ago.
                      Yeah, that confounds the heck out of me as well. The handwriting has been on the wall for years, seriously.

                      I don't know how long ago it was you visited Dearborn, but lately, I'm not comfortable there either. It isn't the same Dearborn as it was even a decade ago. Both places scare the crap out of me now.

                      Terra
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323295].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        You may be thinking about how social security works Sumit. Most pensions have to be earned. You have to work a certain amount of years to get vested. I worked as a Teamster for 17 years and you needed to work 10 years I believe to become vested. If you woked only 9 years, too bad. You don't get a pension. No free meals as you say. Plus, most unions have trust funds where they have assets. The trust fund for my ex union has assets of several billion dollars. I'm not sure how the public trusts are handled.
        Originally Posted by Sumit Menon View Post

        I understand that it's a contract. I would be all for a system were money was cut from your paycheck and stored in a locker with your name printed on it. But, that's not how it really works, is it? The first batch of money was probably (I don't know for sure) used to fund the pensions of people who did not pay into the system. Or it was used for something else totally unrelated. In either case, the money was not put away as you say it was. Someone got a free meal, and the current generation of retirees will pay for it. It's sad.
        Detroit can pay back their debts but their debts will have to be restructured somehow. Although Detroit is in bad financial shape it will remain a city and keep collecting taxes. It's not like a company or an individual.

        The question is not whether the contract should be kept- in principle. Given the choice, it absolutely should be. But, there is NO money. Detroit cannot pay back.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323766].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Sumit Menon
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          You may be thinking about how social security works Sumit. Most pensions have to be earned. You have to work a certain amount of years to get vested. I worked as a Teamster for 17 years and you needed to work 10 years I believe to become vested. If you woked only 9 years, too bad. You don't get a pension. No free meals as you say. Plus, most unions have trust funds where they have assets. The trust fund for my ex union has assets of several billion dollars. I'm not sure how the public trusts are handled.

          Detroit can pay back their debts but their debts will have to be restructured somehow. Although Detroit is in bad financial shape it will remain a city and keep collecting taxes. It's not like a company or an individual.
          I don't know exactly how the American system works. You could understand my confusion as people make the same arguments for Social Security. In India, government employees get pensions and the government pays them. But, the pensions are not as extravagant as in the US. It certainly not 75%.

          So, exactly how does the system work? Or rather, how did it start? There had to be a first batch of money and something must have happened to it. Where do the unions get the money from to have billions in assets? And I ask only of public sector unions.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323879].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Detroit can pay back their debts but their debts will have to be restructured somehow. Although Detroit is in bad financial shape it will remain a city and keep collecting taxes. It's not like a company or an individual.
            Tim you do realize that Detroit is broke, right? It has no money and is in fact running on a $265 million deficit. They can't raise taxes and if they could who would pay them? They can't borrow any money, no one will give them any with their piss poor credit rating.
            Because of it's high taxes, shoddy services, and corruption, businesses and residents have left in droves. All that are left are either on welfare or are city employees. Not much of a tax base there.
            So how do they pay back their debts? Who do they collect taxes from when there simply aren't many tax payers left (except for city employees)?
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323955].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Broke is a kind of relative term. The city still brings in over $1 billion a year in revenue. That was my point. If they restructure the debt they could possibly get out of the deficit and start paying down the debt. Yes, that may include taking cuts to the pensions and deferred payments to bond holders, but it can be done. Hey, the US budget was actually a surplus in 2001.
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              Tim you do realize that Detroit is broke, right? It has no money and is in fact running on a $265 million deficit. They can't raise taxes and if they could who would pay them? They can't borrow any money, no one will give them any with their piss poor credit rating.
              Because of it's high taxes, shoddy services, and corruption, businesses and residents have left in droves. All that are left are either on welfare or are city employees. Not much of a tax base there.
              So how do they pay back their debts? Who do they collect taxes from when there simply aren't many tax payers left (except for city employees)?
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324251].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Broke is a kind of relative term. The city still brings in over $1 billion a year in revenue. That was my point. If they restructure the debt they could possibly get out of the deficit and start paying down the debt. Yes, that may include taking cuts to the pensions and deferred payments to bond holders, but it can be done. Hey, the US budget was actually a surplus in 2001.
                Tim the cities revenues like everything else there is declining.
                Thanks in large part to the corruption of the cities government.
                After decades of fiscal mismanagement; plummeting population, employment and revenues; decaying City infrastructure... Detroit today is a shell of the thriving metropolis that it once was.
                Detroit files for bankruptcy - Chicago Tribune
                Keep in mind the city is currently working under a $265 million deficit. That means after they take in money from their current revenues they are still $265 million short. Also their revenues are declining not growing.
                What the U.S. budget had in a surplus 12 years ago has nothing to do with Detroit today. Why even mention that ?
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324317].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  I mentioned the 2001 US surplus to show things can turn around when it looks bad as it did in the early 90s with the US deficits.
                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                  Tim the cities revenues like everything else there is declining.
                  Thanks in large part to the corruption of the cities government.

                  Keep in mind the city is currently working under a $265 million deficit. That means after they take in money from their current revenues they are still $265 million short. Also their revenues are declining not growing.
                  What the U.S. budget had in a surplus 12 years ago has nothing to do with Detroit today. Why even mention that ?
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324480].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    I mentioned the 2001 US surplus to show things can turn around when it looks bad as it did in the early 90s with the US deficits.
                    You really can't compare them Tim.
                    Even though a few variables are the same like corruption and a bloated government, the important revenue creating variables are different.
                    For example it's easy to move out of Detroit to avoid high taxes. Anyone can do that. It is much more difficult to move out of the U.S. to avoid high federal taxes. Other countries actually have immigration laws that they enforce. If you are a corporation you can do it because you are bringing in an income, if your a regular person and aren't bringing in an income with you, chances are they'll boot you out. Even Countries like Thailand and Costa Rico require you to already have a provable monthly income to live there as an Ex-Pat or to gain citizenship.
                    Even if you move to another country you still have to pay federal income tax on your earning unless you denounce your citizenship and become a citizen of that country.
                    Also Detroit can't print more money when it needs it, the Federal govt. can and does.
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324549].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Picky picky picky. Well, there have been other large cities who have rebounded. It's true that Detroit is probably in worse shape than any large city in our history and that a turnaround could take decades, but it is possible.

                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                      You really can't compare them Tim.
                      Even though a few variables are the same like corruption and a bloated government, the important revenue creating variables are different.
                      For example it's easy to move out of Detroit to avoid high taxes. Anyone can do that. It is much more difficult to move out of the U.S. to avoid high federal taxes. Other countries actually have immigration laws that they enforce. If you are a corporation you can do it because you are bringing in an income, if your a regular person and aren't bringing in an income with you, chances are they'll boot you out. Even Countries like Thailand and Costa Rico require you to already have a provable monthly income to live there as an Ex-Pat or to gain citizenship.
                      Even if you move to another country you still have to pay federal income tax on your earning unless you denounce your citizenship and become a citizen of that country.
                      Also Detroit can't print more money when it needs it, the Federal govt. can and does.
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324601].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                        Interesting - I looked up US debt in the 1990's and found this comment in an article published in 1990:

                        the budget deficit, after dwindling to manageable proportions in the late 1980's, surged to a near-record $220.4 billion in the last fiscal year.
                        That amount sounds good now when we have almost reached 17 Trillion, doesn't it?:p

                        Broke is a kind of relative term.
                        In most cases, I'd agree with that. Often we use "broke" to describe "not able to buy what I want". But there are times when broke means "I may not survive".

                        It's said 50% of homeowners in Detroit don't pay property taxes. The city does nothing about it because they don't want to take over those properties and no one will buy them. A couple years ago 25% of the homes were vacant in the city. Average home sales price now is about $15k or less. Want to buy a foreclosure for $1? Go to Detroit - they've had those sales happen there.

                        In this case, broke may not be a relative term. The city takes in over a billion a year - but owes 18 times that in debt...and no way to increase revenue to cover it.

                        It's going to be an interesting story to watch as it unfolds - I can say "interesting" because I don't live there. Feel sorry for those who do.
                        Signature
                        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324726].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        Picky picky picky. Well, there have been other large cities who have rebounded. It's true that Detroit is probably in worse shape than any large city in our history and that a turnaround could take decades, but it is possible.
                        You know me well Tim
                        Different situation (in a way) but NYC almost went bankrupt in the 70's. The problem then was with short term loans becoming due.
                        The city also learned that you don't finance your budget with loans, you tailor your budget to your income. Of course that means the city is one of the most expensive places to live in the US.
                        As for Detroit, it deserves what it gets.
                        The governor there offered to bail them out but there where to stipulations that the mayor and city consul balked on. One was the city pension program would be reigned in and the other was the cities finances would be handled by a state appointed board.
                        Seems greed is more important to those running the city then the city is.
                        Signature

                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324904].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                          You know me well Tim
                          Different situation (in a way) but NYC almost went bankrupt in the 70's. The problem then was with short term loans becoming due.
                          The city also learned that you don't finance your budget with loans, you tailor your budget to your income. Of course that means the city is one of the most expensive places to live in the US.
                          As for Detroit, it deserves what it gets.
                          The governor there offered to bail them out but there where to stipulations that the mayor and city consul balked on. One was the city pension program would be reigned in and the other was the cities finances would be handled by a state appointed board.
                          Seems greed is more important to those running the city then the city is.
                          Unfortunately Thom, you are correct. Greed has been a theme running throughout the elected officials of Detroit for decades. It's a crying shame that they weren't even smart enough to recognize that greed got them into this mess and it certainly wasn't going to get them out. :rolleyes:

                          Terra
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8325359].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Broke is a kind of relative term. The city still brings in over $1 billion a year in revenue. That was my point. If they restructure the debt they could possibly get out of the deficit and start paying down the debt. Yes, that may include taking cuts to the pensions and deferred payments to bond holders, but it can be done. Hey, the US budget was actually a surplus in 2001.
                Everyone keeps sayig the US ******BUDGET****** was a surplus, but don't think about what that means, with all those projections and estimates. They didn't actually have a surplus. HECK, I always thought the idea of a social security surplus is STUPID. You can NEVER have a surplus!

                OBVIOUSLY, with the SS surplus garbage, they estimate based on past estimated growth, MAYBE estimated fertility, estimated taxes, MAYBE estimated growth, and figure what they must pay for EACH MONTH and if they ESTIMATE that they will get enough in taxes to replace that, they figure that they have a surplus. The FACT is that they would owe me maybe $480,000 when I retire. That is a shame, as my house ALONE will likely be priced higher than that, and it would NOT be a retirement! Maybe 1/8+ of the US may have that average. OK, that means about $19,800,000,000,000! NOT accounting for inflation, growth, greed, etc..... Do you think they have $20 TRILLION lying around? NOPE? Then they shouldn't talk about an SS surplus!

                And you can NEVER make them pay more! If they pay one PENNY more, they will probaby print more money or raise taxes, and make the little that you have worth SO much less that what they add won't even make you break even.

                So what do they plan to do? Apparently what they have already done! INCREASE TAXES, INCREASE the eligibility date, DECREASE payouts, and BREAK PROMISES!

                As for detroit? They are losing a LOT of resources. Some they may NEVER get back! The government and people like you should remember a phrase that is REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW on investments to non institutional customers. "Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results". SURE, THEY make it sound like a good thing they add to remind you, out of the niceness of their hearts, but the SEC and NASD REQUIRE IT!

                Fisher Investments MarketMinder

                People say governments are different. It should be OBVIOUS now that they AREN'T! People said homes were different. People said BONDS were different. MADOFF said it was different. To many are like the often spoken of goldfish or frog.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8325573].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                  paying taxes you already satisfy debts to which you are not a party.
                  Yet the purpose of taxes is to provide safety and services to the citizens....not to pay off debt run up by spendthrift pols.
                  The exception would be in times of war - but I think that was intended to be debt for wars declared by Congress.
                  Signature
                  Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                  Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8325872].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
                    Canadians are watching Detroit and wondering how this will affect Canadian cities like Windsor.

                    When a big city like Detroit (home to one of the original 6 hockey teams!) goes bankrupt, it is shocking and makes any intelligent person question whether this is just the start of a crumbling house of cards not just in the US, but here in Canada, and even world-wide.
                    Signature
                    ---------------
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8325984].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by Karen Blundell View Post

                      Canadians are watching Detroit and wondering how this will affect Canadian cities like Windsor.

                      When a big city like Detroit (home to one of the original 6 hockey teams!) goes bankrupt, it is shocking and makes any intelligent person question whether this is just the start of a crumbling house of cards not just in the US, but here in Canada, and even world-wide.
                      Yeah, a lot of people NEVER think about that! I have been saying for DECADES that the countries are too closely tied together. I was asking does anyone REALLY think that the worldwide depression around 1929-1933 was a coincidence? The answer always seemed to be YES!

                      OK, I have a NEW question! If you DID think that, after the new one around 2008, do you STILL believe so?

                      I have read that this was even an INTENTIONAL conspiracy created around 1913 to tie the countries together ECONOMICALLY so one country wouldn't attack another, because THEY would be hurt also! Works well, huh? We've only had 2 recognized world wars since then!

                      Steve
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8326701].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                        Sometimes cities - and whole countries for that matter - remind me of the young person who drinks too much at a party and is shocked by how bad the hangover is the next day.

                        This has been predicted for a long time yet so many are shocked at the bankruptcy. We have a blind faith that "something will happen" to save the day and Detroit is proof it doesn't always go that way. I expect there will be a ripple effect in the entire region - but isn't it true Detroit has been sending those ripples for some time?
                        Signature
                        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8327031].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                          Is anyone else utterly stupefied by this headline today?

                          New $444 million hockey arena is still a go in Detroit - Jul. 26, 2013

                          Fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind.
                          Signature
                          Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                          Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8327940].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                            Is anyone else utterly stupefied by this headline today?

                            New $444 million hockey arena is still a go in Detroit - Jul. 26, 2013

                            Fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind.
                            "The state legislature approved the taxpayer funding for the arena in December."So easy to spend other peoples money:rolleyes:
                            I'll bet if they let the taxpayers vote on this it would of failed.
                            But then why would govt. let the people decide where their money should go.
                            Signature

                            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                            Getting old ain't for sissy's
                            As you are I was, as I am you will be
                            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8328006].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                              According to that article, the fund are from a bond issue by the city - and the state is to make up money that will be taken from the school funds.

                              It's one of those issues that make me go "huh?". You can't pay the bonds you have but either state or city is issuing bonds for a stadium and that will take money from the schools....but it's ok because the state will give city back that money.

                              In the end it's one of those ideas that arrives at the conclusion...."in the end it costs us nothing so let's do it".

                              Unlike the old stadium - this one will be in downtown Detroit. One of the most dangerous areas in a dangerous city where police take an hour to respond. Right. Works for me.
                              Signature
                              Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                              Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8328153].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                                According to that article, the fund are from a bond issue by the city - and the state is to make up money that will be taken from the school funds.

                                It's one of those issues that make me go "huh?". You can't pay the bonds you have but either state or city is issuing bonds for a stadium and that will take money from the schools....but it's ok because the state will give city back that money.

                                In the end it's one of those ideas that arrives at the conclusion...."in the end it costs us nothing so let's do it".

                                Unlike the old stadium - this one will be in downtown Detroit. One of the most dangerous areas in a dangerous city where police take an hour to respond. Right. Works for me.
                                Kay my quote was from the article as is this one. "The arena will be paid for with a $450 million bond issue that will be repaid over the next 30 years. Taxpayers will be paying almost two-thirds of the cost of the arena -- $283 million" The bold in both cases was mine.Even the money taken from the school funds is taxpayer money.
                                One question is will the new stadium pay property taxes?
                                Also they talk about it creating 8,000 construction jobs. Which is good for the short term, but those jobs will be gone after the stadium is completed.
                                Sounds like they are trying to revive the city using the same old game plan.
                                I liked the link Tim posted where they let nature reclaim parts of the city and they utilize the waterways. They would end up with a smaller city that could be managed properly and could actually attract small businesses and residents.
                                Signature

                                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8328307].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                                  Gotcha! I was thinking "city taxpayers" and clearly that wouldn't work.

                                  I liked that waterways link, too. If Detroit is to become a vibrant city again - building a stadium isn't going to do it. The whole place has be reorganized - abandoned buildings razed or renovated - perhaps put money into serious trade schools to raise the level of skilled workers to attract business.

                                  Big push began today for a federal bailout but I don't people will tolerate it. Even if happened just paying off debt won't fix the problems. The debt is an end result, not the core problem.
                                  Signature
                                  Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                                  Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8328882].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                  "The arena will be paid for with a $450 million bond issue...
                                  You mean that they are looking to those pesky Bond Holders for the financing???

                                  Bold is mine.

                                  Joe Mobley
                                  Signature

                                  .

                                  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8329029].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                              It's not all doom and gloom. Some entrepreneurs are seeing opportunities in Detroit.

                              "The entrepreneurial community has grown because young people have decided to stay and build their companies here," Cohen said.

                              Entrepreneurs point to several pro-business initiatives. In 2007, Michigan eliminated its 4.95% tax on small businesses, and it has started phasing out its property tax.

                              In addition, companies can tap into an expanding talent pool, because more state college graduates are sticking around. While 51% stayed in 2007, that has jumped to 63%, according to a recent study by iLabs at the University of Michigan.

                              Marsh's company has benefited from the flood of investment into Detroit by financiers like Dan Gilbert. The Quicken Loans founder lays claim to some 30 buildings there. He also poured money into Detroit Ventures, which alone has invested in more than a dozen startups.

                              Additionally, Marsh points to the excitement that comes from being part of Detroit's turnaround.

                              That sense of purpose creates motivation that "gets people pretty revved up," Marsh said. "Most people who are excited about being part of a startup -- building something -- are really attracted to Detroit."
                              Detroit entrepreneurs make a case for their bankrupt city - Jul. 23, 2013
                              Signature
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8328172].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            There's different types of pensions. SS is actually considered a pension and does fit the description you posted. I'm not sure how public sector pensions work, but for a union like the Teamsters it started by collecting funds and putting them into trusts with a certain time table set for vested members to start receiving them.
            Originally Posted by Sumit Menon View Post


            So, exactly how does the system work? Or rather, how did it start? There had to be a first batch of money and something must have happened to it. Where do the unions get the money from to have billions in assets? And I ask only of public sector unions.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8324265].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    TWO things *****NOBODY***** here has said!

    1. The bankruptcy law DEMANDS that CREDITORS GET PAID, and BOND HOLDERS ARE CREDITORS, and SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED!
    2. MANY bond holders are PENSIONS, or RETIRED! You see, bonds are SUPPOSED to be SAFE! Michael Milken - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Michael milken was THROWN IN JAIL! WHY? For understating the risk of bonds! THEY, like FICO SCORES, have a RATING. The lower interest ones tend to have a higher rating. But such bonds are supposed to be SAFE! You invest $5000, and may only get $25 a month for 30 years, BUT, at the end of 30 years, you are supposed to get the $5000 BACK!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8322519].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323607].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I'm not sure that was an incorrect approach - the bankruptcy option has been on the table for Detroit for a long time.

      I'm sure there was a lot of positioning behind the scenes to provide political cover but I doubt any negotiations would have come to anything. What happens is that every group wants compromise from other groups without giving up anything themselves.

      I really feel for the retirees and hope the bankruptcy court will protect the current retirees receiving the lower pensions. Not sure about protecting those with 6 figure pensions.

      Interesting new article about public service pensions. Points out one thing I'd thought of - for years increased pension benefits were used as a carrot to workers in lieu of increased salaries. The result is one big "oops".

      Retirement benefits: Who pays the bill? | The Economist

      What is seldom mentioned is that for many years public service was "service". When you worked for a govt you had better job security but were paid at lower salaries than similar jobs in the private sector.

      Somehow we've turned it upside down. Govt workers are now paid better in many cases than similar private sector jobs - and the pensions and benefits are superior to those offered by private businesses. How did that happen?
      Signature
      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8323647].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8338216].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    What Unions and many companies offered back in the day with their retirement plans was literally a ponzi scheme. They promised and made payments based on money they didn't have, and they relied on those payments based on a future that was and is uncertain. Like any pyramid based scheme, once the base starts to crumble, it's over. And if the Government wastes more money trying to shore up the base of this pyramid Unions built, then we'll all become a part of this crumbling failure of a structure we call Unions.

    ps - let's not forget that we've already thrown nearly a trillion dollars in bail out money at Detroit in the past decade already.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8338565].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      How do you come up with that figure Gary?

      Originally Posted by garyv View Post


      ps - let's not forget that we've already thrown nearly a trillion dollars in bail out money at Detroit in the past decade already.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8338670].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        How do you come up with that figure Gary?
        Tim many claimed and the president said that the auto industry bailouts saved Detroit.
        Between what the two presidents gave them it comes close to a trillion dollars.
        I think the problem with saying the bailouts where for Detroit is that little of the industry is left in Detroit.
        The bailouts may have saved jobs, but the majority of those jobs where outside of Detroit.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8339384].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          I don't think even if you count the auto bailouts it is anywhere near close to a $trillion.
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          Tim many claimed and the president said that the auto industry bailouts saved Detroit.
          Between what the two presidents gave them it comes close to a trillion dollars.
          I think the problem with saying the bailouts where for Detroit is that little of the industry is left in Detroit.
          The bailouts may have saved jobs, but the majority of those jobs where outside of Detroit.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8339613].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            I don't think even if you count the auto bailouts it is anywhere near close to a .

            About 17 bill from the Bush Admin and about 80 bill from the Obama admin.
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8339636].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author garyv
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            I don't think even if you count the auto bailouts it is anywhere near close to a .
            You are most likely right that it's probably not near a trillion - However when you consider the 1100 car dealerships that were forced to close down to pay unions during GMs forced chapter 11, and the fact that they'll no longer be providing tax revenue, and then you consider the many parts manufacturers that were stiffed a great amount of money during the restructuring and were forced to close down, and you consider the thousands of people that likely lost pensions and received other government benefits, it's likely to be in the hundreds of millions easy.

            And yes I realize that those dealerships are not in Detroit. However they were thriving businesses that had to shut their doors because of the Unions that are in Detroit. The same Unions that are destroying it.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8342523].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Oh, so you are just making stuff up. I get it.

              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

              You are most likely right that it's probably not near a trillion - However when you consider the 1100 car dealerships that were forced to close down to pay unions during GMs forced chapter 11, and the fact that they'll no longer be providing tax revenue, and then you consider the many parts manufacturers that were stiffed a great amount of money during the restructuring and were forced to close down, and you consider the thousands of people that likely lost pensions and received other government benefits, it's likely to be in the hundreds of millions easy.

              And yes I realize that those dealerships are not in Detroit. However they were thriving businesses that had to shut their doors because of the Unions that are in Detroit. The same Unions that are destroying it.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8342550].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Oh, so you are just making stuff up. I get it.

                What did I not post a link to huffington post up there?? Then yes I just made all of that up...:rolleyes:
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8342576].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Oh, so you are just making stuff up. I get it.
                I though maybe, just maybe Gary had the stimulus - which was around a trillion mixed up with the auto bailout but I was wrong.

                LOL!
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8342748].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        How do you come up with that figure Gary?
        I'd love to know also.
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8339633].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    Is it just me, or are their two definitions of "Detroit"? One is the city, the other is the auto industry.

    When Obama spoke about "baling out Detroit", I always felt he was talking about the auto industry, which has national implications, and is different from bailing out the city itself.

    And he didn't "give" the auto industry anything. He LOANED them the money and they are doing a good job of paying it back. Hasn't either Ford and/or GM already paid back the loans?
    Signature
    Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
    Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8339429].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      Is it just me, or are their two definitions of "Detroit"? One is the city, the other is the auto industry.

      When Obama spoke about "baling out Detroit", I always felt he was talking about the auto industry, which has national implications, and is different from bailing out the city itself.

      And he didn't "give" the auto industry anything. He LOANED them the money and they are doing a good job of paying it back. Hasn't either Ford and/or GM already paid back the loans?
      It's not just you Kurt. But on the other hand it's easy enough to find videos on youtube of the president saying the bailouts saved the city.
      They may of paid back what he gave them, but have they paid back the 80+ billion Bush gave them?
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8339495].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        It's not just you Kurt. But on the other hand it's easy enough to find videos on youtube of the president saying the bailouts saved the city.
        They may of paid back what he gave them, but have they paid back the 80+ billion Bush gave them?
        If Obama said the city of Detroit, then he was obviously wrong.

        I for one am not sure Detroit can survive. The only way I see it is to bring back the manufacturing jobs we've lost to Asia. And I don't think that will happen.
        Signature
        Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
        Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8339686].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          If Obama said the city of Detroit, then he was obviously wrong.

          I for one am not sure Detroit can survive. The only way I see it is to bring back the manufacturing jobs we've lost to Asia. And I don't think that will happen.
          Again I agree Kurt.
          I thought this link Tim mentioned early had a lot of merit.
          Detroit 2025: After the Recession, a City Reimagined - Popular Mechanics
          Instead of trying to make Detroit what it once was, why not downsize it and make it manageable and better.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8339710].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            That's a good way to look at it isn't it Thom? Downsize it big time. Bulldoze the abandoned homes that nobody wants and put in parks or just let nature takes it's course. There'a already entrepreneurs starting new businesses. Perhaps the city has hit bottom and now is on the way back. If that is the case, others will recognize and want to take advantage of the cheap real estate and jump in also.

            I just don't see Detroit not surviving. I'm not even sure what not surviving means for a city this size. Will it be broken up into smaller cities? Will it be sold off to the highest bidder and the name changed? Not trying to be a smart a$$, just wondering.

            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post


            Instead of trying to make Detroit what it once was, why not downsize it and make it manageable and better.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8340641].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              That's a good way to look at it isn't it Thom? Downsize it big time. Bulldoze the abandoned homes that nobody wants and put in parks or just let nature takes it's course. There'a already entrepreneurs starting new businesses. Perhaps the city has hit bottom and now is on the way back. If that is the case, others will recognize and want to take advantage of the cheap real estate and jump in also.

              I just don't see Detroit not surviving. I'm not even sure what not surviving means for a city this size. Will it be broken up into smaller cities? Will it be sold off to the highest bidder and the name changed? Not trying to be a smart a$$, just wondering.
              It would not be the first time that an entire city was run by a single industry, or even COMPANY. Sometimes, they actually DO survive.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8340680].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              That's a good way to look at it isn't it Thom? Downsize it big time. Bulldoze the abandoned homes that nobody wants and put in parks or just let nature takes it's course. There'a already entrepreneurs starting new businesses. Perhaps the city has hit bottom and now is on the way back. If that is the case, others will recognize and want to take advantage of the cheap real estate and jump in also.

              I just don't see Detroit not surviving. I'm not even sure what not surviving means for a city this size. Will it be broken up into smaller cities? Will it be sold off to the highest bidder and the name changed? Not trying to be a smart a$$, just wondering.
              For some reason that article made me think of Austin.
              Probably because I'm partial to artisan enclaves

              As for your second paragraph, all we can do is wait and see.
              Nothing would surprise me.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8342669].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          I for one am not sure Detroit can survive.
          I see this as a microcosm of the United States. And I do not think the US will survive.

          Joe Mobley
          Signature

          .

          Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8340298].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

            I see this as a microcosm of the United States.


            And I do not think the US will survive.

            Joe Mobley

            When this thread began, I wondered how long it would be before someone uttered something of this sort.


            What exactly do you mean by the US will not survive?

            Thanks,

            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8341815].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
              That's a fair question, TL. One that I have given some thought to.

              I believe that the United States is quickly becoming a country similar to a 60's era, East European, Soviet block country. The people living with struggle and toil without much hope of improving their situation. The finances of the country in the toilet and only a few of the well-connected doing okay financially.

              One of the things I am moving away from, at least in my thinking, is the blame game. "It's Obama's fault! It's the Republicans, Democrats, whoever... Blah, blah, blah." I just don't care.

              Another thing is that I am NOT at all interested in is "fixing-it", whatever "it" is. At some point the insurance company writes the car off as a total loss, cuts a check and calls it a day. There are simply to many issues with the country, it's people, and it's finances to allow a reasonable recovery.

              Where I am spending my energies is looking at the options available and picking the best ones for me.

              I call them "Cards on the table." Look at the cards on the table in your life and play the best hand you can, for you. Be aware that the cards are constantly changing and that options that were available yesterday may not be available tomorrow. Also be aware that some options that you might not want may be forced upon you. Do not tarry.

              There is, of course more detail but it is not my intent to start a pissing contest or to call down the "ban-finger of Paul." Also, it is not my intent to evangelize. If this is not a fit for someone, I'm fine with that. We both (all) should be free to chose. Although that freedom may not last long.

              Will the country survive? In name only.

              Joe Mobley


              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              When this thread began, I wondered how long it would be before someone uttered something of this sort.


              What exactly do you mean by the US will not survive?

              Thanks,

              TL
              Signature

              .

              Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8343518].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

                That's a fair question, TL. One that I have given some thought to.

                I believe that the United States is quickly becoming a country similar to a 60's era, East European, Soviet block country. The people living with struggle and toil without much hope of improving their situation. The finances of the country in the toilet and only a few of the well-connected doing okay financially.

                One of the things I am moving away from, at least in my thinking, is the blame game. "It's Obama's fault! It's the Republicans, Democrats, whoever... Blah, blah, blah." I just don't care.

                Another thing is that I am NOT at all interested in is "fixing-it", whatever "it" is. At some point the insurance company writes the car off as a total loss, cuts a check and calls it a day. There are simply to many issues with the country, it's people, and it's finances to allow a reasonable recovery.

                Where I am spending my energies is looking at the options available and picking the best ones for me.

                I call them "Cards on the table." Look at the cards on the table in your life and play the best hand you can, for you. Be aware that the cards are constantly changing and that options that were available yesterday may not be available tomorrow. Also be aware that some options that you might not want may be forced upon you. Do not tarry.

                There is, of course more detail but it is not my intent to start a pissing contest or to call down the "ban-finger of Paul." Also, it is not my intent to evangelize. If this is not a fit for someone, I'm fine with that. We both (all) should be free to chose. Although that freedom may not last long.

                Will the country survive? In name only.

                Joe Mobley
                I just wanted an answer and IMHO you are a person that sees the glass as less than half empty instead of half full.


                Quickly The Differences Between Detroit & The USA...

                - Detroit can't borrow any money and the USA can borrow all the money it will ever need for any purpose it desires.

                - Detroit's tax base is rotten and dry but the USA tax base is huge and also has about 200-400 billion, maybe more, in yearly gravy giveaways to the wealthy and corps that can be reclaimed without it hurting the economy.

                - Detroit's policy options are limited but the USA's policy options are not.

                - USA national debt is under control (holding at a declining 77% of GDP) but Detroit's debt is not.

                - The USA has all the resources we need to get out of this mess and eventually rebuild the middle class.

                But Detroit does not and will probably have to scale back to a smaller leaner Detroit.


                Because of the factors listed above, I'll see the glass as half full.

                All The Best!!


                TL
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8348066].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post


                  - USA national debt is under control

                  TL
                  Okay, I'm sorry, but that made me laugh. USA national debt is under control?

                  Hahahahahahahaha! Snort! Hahahaaaaaa!

                  And I had dinner last night with the Easter Bunny.

                  Terra
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8348085].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post


                  Because of the factors listed above, I'll see the glass as half full.

                  All The Best!!


                  TL

                  All the best to you and yours, TL. Thank you for asking.

                  Joe Mobley
                  Signature

                  .

                  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8348088].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

                    All the best to you and yours, TL. Thank you for asking.

                    Joe Mobley
                    You're right that we all have to make decisions that are right for us.

                    Joe, did I hear you say you're living overseas?

                    If so, can you share in what country?

                    If so, how's the TV over there?
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8348805].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                      I currently live in Florida, near Juno beach. (I had a nice run and swim this afternoon. :rolleyes I am looking to move to Thailand, probably Chiang Mai. That doesn't mean I'll end up there but I am looking to start there.

                      I can not speak to the TV situation as I don't watch much here and it's not a priority for me.

                      For those who might consider leaving the US but would like to stay a bit closer, you may want to consider Panama.

                      Joe Mobley


                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      You're right that we all have to make decisions that are right for us.

                      Joe, did I hear you say you're living overseas?

                      If so, can you share in what country?

                      If so, how's the TV over there?
                      Signature

                      .

                      Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8351960].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  Quickly The Differences Between Detroit & The USA...

                  - Detroit can't borrow any money and the USA can borrow all the money it will ever need for any purpose it desires.
                  MAN TL are YOU ever wrong! Detroit can, has, and DOES borrow money! I guess you never heard of municipal bonds. And YEP, the US could borrow a quintillion dollars! That is $1,000,000,000,000,000,000! Did YOU know that, during the height of the depression, germany had a LOT of multi billionares? It's TRUE!!!!!! OH, you don't believe me. OK.... Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It dhoes in 1923 how they had $1TRILLION marks! In 1980, NOT allowing for inflation!, that is about $500BILLION! In 1923? IMAGINE! Too bad it wasn't worth that much.

                  - Detroit's tax base is rotten and dry but the USA tax base is huge and also has about 200-400 billion, maybe more, in yearly gravy giveaways to the wealthy and corps that can be reclaimed without it hurting the economy.
                  With only about half the population paying taxes, and dwindling, the USA taxbase is NOT large enough for all the garbage.

                  - Detroit's policy options are limited but the USA's policy options are not.
                  Actually, there IS supposed to be the constitution!

                  - USA national debt is under control (holding at a declining 77% of GDP) but Detroit's debt is not.
                  OK, are you a bot or on some drug?

                  - The USA has all the resources we need to get out of this mess and eventually rebuild the middle class.
                  NOPE, and the federal government can't do that and it is not its job.

                  But Detroit does not and will probably have to scale back to a smaller leaner Detroit.
                  Detroit DID!


                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8348256].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                    MAN TL are YOU ever wrong! Detroit can, has, and DOES borrow money! I guess you never heard of municipal bonds. And YEP, the US could borrow a quintillion dollars! That is $1,000,000,000,000,000,000! Did YOU know that, during the height of the depression, germany had a LOT of multi billionares? It's TRUE!!!!!! OH, you don't believe me. OK.... Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It dhoes in 1923 how they had $1TRILLION marks! In 1980, NOT allowing for inflation!, that is about $500BILLION! In 1923? IMAGINE! Too bad it wasn't worth that much.



                    With only about half the population paying taxes, and dwindling, the USA taxbase is NOT large enough for all the garbage.



                    Actually, there IS supposed to be the constitution!



                    OK, are you a bot or on some drug?



                    NOPE, and the federal government can't do that and it is not its job.



                    Detroit DID!


                    Steve
                    You and I clearly disagree on the role of the federal gov.

                    You believe that no matter what is happening to the general public, (especially economically)...

                    ...the feds should stay out of it and I simply don't.

                    ( what am I paying federal taxes for anyway? )

                    I guess (in your mind) there are also many ways to interpret the part of the preamble of the constitution which says...

                    "promote the general Welfare"

                    Here's the whole preamble for context...

                    [We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,...
                    promote the general Welfare,and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.]


                    BTW...

                    Also, you made me laugh when you thanked Joe Mobley for this...

                    Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

                    "I see this (Detroit) as a microcosm of the United States.


                    And I do not think the US will survive."

                    I knew you'd be one of the people (the only one so far) in here that would thank him for those sentiments but I'm not sure which of of them you agree with.

                    Is it the first statement and/or the second?

                    Let me know.
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8348788].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      You and I clearly disagree on the role of the federal gov.

                      You believe that no matter what is happening to the general public, (especially economically)...

                      ...the feds should stay out of it and I simply don't.

                      ( what am I paying federal taxes for anyway? )
                      YEAH, what ARE we paying taxes for? HECK, YOU said the US can borrow money forever with NO repercussions! If you TRULY believe that, than WHY are we paying a penny?

                      guess (in your mind) there are also many ways to interpret the part of the preamble of the constitution which says...

                      "promote the general Welfare"

                      Here's the whole preamble for context...

                      [We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,...
                      promote the general Welfare,and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.]
                      Well HEY, why don't we look at the WHOLE SECTION!

                      The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

                      To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

                      To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

                      To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

                      To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

                      To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

                      To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

                      To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

                      To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

                      To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

                      To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

                      To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

                      To provide and maintain a Navy;

                      To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

                      To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

                      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

                      To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

                      To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



                      You see the word welfare, and think CHARITY FOR PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT TO WORK! I see *******GENERAL welfare******* and see providing for the COUNTRY and infrastructure! Let's take that to transportation! I see the federal involvement as roads, trains, and other related things. ****YOU**** see it as them buying everyone an SUV or 18 wheeler! In MANY parts of the constitution, it tells the government to STAY OUT OF PRIVATE AND STATE BUSINESS!!!!! This section seems to agree with THAT view! It EVEN makes it ILLEGAL to use more than 10 square miles of land for its operations!

                      You could ALSO look at the statement, To borrow money on the CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES. Do you think MAYBE they are saying it should be responsible? ESPECIALLY since those that AREN'T responsible, by definition, have NO credit?

                      Also, you made me laugh when you thanked Joe Mobley for this...

                      Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

                      "I see this (Detroit) as a microcosm of the United States.


                      And I do not think the US will survive."

                      I knew you'd be one of the people (the only one so far) in here that would thank him for those sentiments but I'm not sure which of of them you agree with.

                      Is it the first statement and/or the second?

                      Let me know.
                      It was BOTH! I use "thanks" if I agree, or something is funny, or they make a point. How can the US survve anyway, in my mind at least, if I already see it as DEAD! It is NOT the same country AT ALL.

                      Steve
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8349431].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                        YEAH, what ARE we paying taxes for? HECK, YOU said the US can borrow money forever with NO repercussions! If you TRULY believe that, than WHY are we paying a penny?



                        Well HEY, why don't we look at the WHOLE SECTION!

                        The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

                        To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

                        To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

                        To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

                        To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

                        To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

                        To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

                        To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

                        To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

                        To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

                        To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

                        To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

                        To provide and maintain a Navy;

                        To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

                        To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

                        To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

                        To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

                        To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



                        You see the word welfare, and think CHARITY FOR PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT TO WORK! I see *******GENERAL welfare******* and see providing for the COUNTRY and infrastructure! Let's take that to transportation! I see the federal involvement as roads, trains, and other related things. ****YOU**** see it as them buying everyone an SUV or 18 wheeler! In MANY parts of the constitution, it tells the government to STAY OUT OF PRIVATE AND STATE BUSINESS!!!!! This section seems to agree with THAT view! It EVEN makes it ILLEGAL to use more than 10 square miles of land for its operations!

                        You could ALSO look at the statement, To borrow money on the CREDIT OF THE UNITED STATES. Do you think MAYBE they are saying it should be responsible? ESPECIALLY since those that AREN'T responsible, by definition, have NO credit?



                        It was BOTH! I use "thanks" if I agree, or something is funny, or they make a point.

                        How can the US survive anyway, in my mind at least, if I already see it as DEAD! It is NOT the same country AT ALL.

                        Steve
                        "Promote The General Welfare"

                        Actually I don't see the word "welfare" and think of giving away free stuff.

                        I think of a fed gov looking out for the population and country in general - in many ways.

                        So what It's not the same country - I agree.

                        I heard someone - age 67, say that a couple months ago.

                        And IMHO, it's a little early in the game to write off the USA especially with those major diffs in the nation's situation verses Detroit's (#154 of this thread)...

                        ...but to each its own.
                        Signature

                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8349874].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    OK, there is snow in hell! Anyway, apparently the federal government has said that they will NOT bail out detroit again.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8339942].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      OK, there is snow in hell!

      Steve
      Yep!





      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8340165].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

        Yep!





        Terra

        LOL - I've been there. When people tell me to go there, I know exactly how to get back there.

        Detroit might be the largest city affected by the auto industry - but I've been back home a few times in the 2000's and Flint and Saginaw are just shells of what they once were, too. It wouldn't be a bad time to buy property there since it's going for almost nothing now that so many have moved away - but that would take a bet that they are going to find a way to restore those cities - and I sure wouldn't trust this admin to figure out how to do it. They used to just convert the factories to war equipment. That's not something we want to see happen either. It would just be indication of more slaughter coming.

        In the gold rush towns of tens of thousands rose up only to be not much more now that a couple hundred people - if that - and a lot of ruins. The population was around 10 times smaller then. It looks like ghost towns are going to take on some bizarre dimensions in the 2000's. How long does it take that much pavement to grow over?
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8340368].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          LOL - I've been there. When people tell me to go there, I know exactly how to get back there.
          Ha!

          When people tell me to go to Hell, I always tell them been there done that and have the T-Shirt to prove it!

          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8340521].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    We were in worse shape than this in the late 70s and manged to recover nicely. You'd be surprised at how fast the economy can recover with a few business friendly laws and tax-breaks put into place.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8343980].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      We were in worse shape than this in the late 70s and manged to recover nicely. You'd be surprised at how fast the economy can recover with a few business friendly laws and tax-breaks put into place.
      That's completely true, Gary.

      One great thing about the US is we always have a way of reinventing ourselves. Since Detroit is part of the US, I ask why not?

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8344003].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
        Terra, Gary, (Ladies first.)

        Perhaps you are right. It would be great if I am proved wrong. My ego does not need for this to work out this way. But I would be remiss if I did not prepare for the future based on what I see as the writing on the wall.

        Joe Mobley
        Signature

        .

        Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8344132].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      We were in worse shape than this in the late 70s and manged to recover nicely. You'd be surprised at how fast the economy can recover with a few business friendly laws and tax-breaks put into place.
      I agree the 70's were one of the worst economic times in this country's history. 18,000 businesses went bankrupt, including hundreds of banks, and even ten states went bankrupt. Plus, it was the longest period of contraction in our history at 65 months! What happened in 2007 to 2009 wasn't nearly as bad, although it was definitely worse than anything since the great depression of the 1930s. Umm... errr... you were talking about the 1870s weren't you? Because what happened in the 1970s was a minor recession compared to what we just went through and are recovering from.

      By the way, we had quite a few business friendly laws and tax breaks before this last recession.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8344374].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    How old are you again Tim? lol - Just about anyone that had a job and put gas in their car can tell you that the late 1970s /early 80s were worse. The only thing worse now is the recovery...
    Why This Recession Seems Worse Than '70s and '80s
    Why the U.S. Economy Feels Worse Than It Actually Is | TIME.com
    http://business.time.com/2013/07/26/...omic-recovery/
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8344398].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      How old are you again Tim? lol - Just about anyone that had a job and put gas in their car can tell you that the late 1970s /early 80s were worse. The only thing worse now is the recovery...
      Why This Recession Seems Worse Than '70s and '80s
      Why the U.S. Economy Feels Worse Than It Actually Is | TIME.com
      Who Isn’t Being Left Behind During the Economic Recovery? | TIME.com
      You're WRONG! In the 70s, and even the early to later 80s, the US was a powerhouse that had lots of life. As time passed, starting in maybe the 80s and going on, the US has become weaker and weaker!

      OH you say..... What about the BALOON payments of the 1970s? THEY'RE BACK! OH, you say, what about INFLATION? Well, it really is pretty bad now, and getting FAR worse! What about GAS? Well, I don't really know WHAT happened! OBVIOUSLY, we had enough gas. As expensive as it was, it was less than now. What about the CREDIT CRUNCH? It is here IN SPADES!

      And YEAH, I was there in the 1970s. I rode through the 1987 crash. But the US that existed then is apparently not here now.

      As for the dealerships, etc? If a dealership could even BREAK EVEN in a year, they should have been allowed to stay open. Even selling a car AT COST helps the brand, in the long run. And dealers simply WON'T sell at cost. Even when they claim they do, and "prove it", they don't allow for COOPS, HOLD BACKS, REBATES, ETC.... They could sell "at cost" and STILL make a bundle.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8344527].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      How old are you again Tim? lol - Just about anyone that had a job and put gas in their car can tell you that the late 1970s /early 80s were worse. The only thing worse now is the recovery...
      Why This Recession Seems Worse Than '70s and '80s
      Why the U.S. Economy Feels Worse Than It Actually Is | TIME.com
      Who Isn’t Being Left Behind During the Economic Recovery? | TIME.com
      Exactly Gary.

      I remember back in 1980 when I was moving to Texas for my first acting gig, there was a mass exodus out of Michigan and all you saw on the freeways were cars from Michigan with bumper stickers that read ~ Will the last one out of Michigan please turn out the lights?

      Yep, I remember. It was bad for Michigan anyway. Yet in Texas, all of the restaurants had application forms as their place mats. It seems they couldn't keep staff because they kept leaving for better paying positions. Houston Texas was booming at that same time.

      But seeing as how this thread is about Detroit and Detroit is in Michigan, yeah, it was bad back then.

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8344535].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    I lived in Houston in the 70s and can remember waiting in line for gas with my dad during the oil crisis. And then in 1980 inflation peaked at above 13%. During the recession of 2007 - 2009 inflation barely went above 4%. - Unemployment rates were similar - but slightly higher in the early 80s peaking at 10.8% unemployment. With 2009 peaking at 10.2% unemployment. - Again, the only thing worse about this one is the slow recovery.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8344635].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      Again, the only thing worse about this one is the slow recovery.
      This last one was the longest since the great depression and the economy contracted by 8.9% in one quarter in 2008, the biggest drop since the great depression. Yes, the mid 70's and early 80s recessions had much higher inflation but this last one had more people losing their houses and equity in their houses. I realize the recessions from the mid 70's and early 80s were bad, but to say that everyone agrees they were worse than this last one is really reaching. Also, why do you think there is a slow recovery? Are you going to blame that one the unions also. :/ I would blame it on those who think austerity, not stimulus, is the right path when we face a world economic downturn. Plus, when one party in the US is more interested in making sure the President isn't reelected than making sure the economy can recover more quickly you have a stalled recovery. It's still going on now. No compromise. No working together. Just politics.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8345336].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garyv
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        I would blame it on those who think austerity, not stimulus, is the right path when we face a world economic downturn. Plus, when one party in the US is more interested in making sure the President isn't reelected than making sure the economy can recover more quickly you have a stalled recovery.
        Except for the fact that our largest and quickest recovery days came right on the heels of the sequester - You remember, the one all of the democrats screamed would cause catastrophe? We had a huge economic spike because of it. - Also making sure that the President isn't reelected and making sure the economy can recover are mutually synonymous. You'll find out after they actually let ObamaCare kick in. Isn't it obvious why they don't want it to start until after the elections? Anyone hanging on to his promises by now are just those with an obstinate personality... hmm that could explain some things.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8345951].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Still making stuff up I see. Perhaps I am not the only one who is stubborn.

          OK, first of all 1.8 growth compared to 1.1 can't really be called a significant increase. Second, it isn't the highest in the recovery. We have had a quarter as high as 4.9 and 8 different quarters with higher growth since the end of the recession. Third, to say the small jump in growth is because of the sequester is ridiculous. Hey, I could say the growth was because of the tax increases if I wanted to be partisan and stubborn but I won't.

          Obamacare has already started and the individual mandates will start on time with only a small part of the law being delayed. The law could be implemented more smoothly and actually improved while doing so if one side wasn't so stubborn as shown by 40 different votes to repeal the bill.

          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          Except for the fact that our largest and quickest recovery days came right on the heels of the sequester - You remember, the one all of the democrats screamed would cause catastrophe? We had a huge economic spike because of it. - Also making sure that the President isn't reelected and making sure the economy can recover are mutually synonymous. You'll find out after they actually let ObamaCare kick in. Isn't it obvious why they don't want it to start until after the elections? Anyone hanging on to his promises by now are just those with an obstinate personality... hmm that could explain some things.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347042].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            Democrats' New Argument: It's A Good Thing That Obamacare Doubles Individual Health Insurance Premiums - Forbes

            For many years I've supported the idea of universal health care.

            What I envisioned was a straight forward plan that eliminated paperwork and panels and permissions and restrictions - and allowed every legal resident to be treated by a doctor when needed. I didn't have in mind universal insurance requirements or layers of bureaucracy between doctors and patients. I didn't envision plans so complex that thousands of community organizers would be hired to explain the insurance to people. I didn't envision plans so expensive that the groups like unions that fought to get it passed would then request exemptions for themselves.

            Interesting thing to watch, isn't it?
            Signature
            Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

            Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347335].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              When it comes to growth there's a bit of smoke and mirrors. The new method of figuring GDP went into effect in July so it's apples and oranges time. When you change the equation it's hard to compare results.

              U.S. economy to 'grow' 3% under new GDP calculation | Marketplace.org

              Predictions were the growth would be 3% in July due to the change....so we're behind the curve if that's true.
              Signature
              Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

              Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347354].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                When it comes to growth there's a bit of smoke and mirrors.

                The new method of figuring GDP went into effect in July so it's apples and oranges time. When you change the equation it's hard to compare results.

                U.S. economy to 'grow' 3% under new GDP calculation | Marketplace.org

                Predictions were the growth would be 3% in July due to the change....so we're behind the curve if that's true.
                Not really Kay... ( the apples & oranges and smoke & mirrors stuff )

                From that article...

                "Still, economists say that while the new additions will boost GDP, they will be too small

                to...

                ... fundamentally change our view of how the economy is doing."

                What's so nefarious about... (from the article)


                "From now on, government statisticians will take into account...

                ... money earned from creative works including movies, television shows, books, theater and music.

                Money spent on research and development, which has, until now, been considered a cost of doing business will also be included."

                I can hardly believe they didn't already include output from creative works in past GDP.

                But you can read the smoke & mirrors and apples & oranges stuff into it, if you like.

                You'd make a much better case for smoke & mirrors and apples and oranges talking about the adjustments we've made to the inflation indexes over the years.
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347670].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Believe me, I was in favor of what you describe, a true universal health care system. However, what we got or will get seems to be some sort of improvement over what we had and is a lot better than any alternatives being put forward by those who want to repeal, which are non existent really.
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              For many years I've supported the idea of universal health care.

              What I envisioned was a straight forward plan that eliminated paperwork and panels and permissions and restrictions - and allowed every legal resident to be treated by a doctor when needed. I didn't have in mind universal insurance requirements or layers of bureaucracy between doctors and patients. I didn't envision plans so complex that thousands of community organizers would be hired to explain the insurance to people. I didn't envision plans so expensive that the groups like unions that fought to get it passed would then request exemptions for themselves.

              Interesting thing to watch, isn't it?
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347469].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Believe me, I was in favor of what you describe, a true universal health care system. However, what we got or will get seems to be some sort of improvement over what we had and is a lot better than any alternatives being put forward by those who want to repeal, which are non existent really.
                As long as the government runs it, it will be much more beauracracy. As long as you have some one else paying for your medical there will always be too much regulation.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347530].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              Democrats' New Argument: It's A Good Thing That Obamacare Doubles Individual Health Insurance Premiums - Forbes

              For many years I've supported the idea of universal health care.

              What I envisioned was a straight forward plan that eliminated paperwork and panels and permissions and restrictions - and allowed every legal resident to be treated by a doctor when needed. I didn't have in mind universal insurance requirements or layers of bureaucracy between doctors and patients. I didn't envision plans so complex that thousands of community organizers would be hired to explain the insurance to people. I didn't envision plans so expensive that the groups like unions that fought to get it passed would then request exemptions for themselves.

              Interesting thing to watch, isn't it?
              Very interesting.

              I'll have to wait and see if this is really the truth since so many anti-ACA talking points and memes in the past have proven to be not remotely close to the truth even when they come from fine publications such as Forbes and the WSJ.

              If true, I can still say that...

              #1: The average American need never fear anymore...

              ...the sword of an overhanging possible health problem wrecking their family finances like our friends in most of Europe.

              600K Americans were filing for bankruptcy each and every year thanks to our former health care system - and these folks had a health insurance policy.

              And I can also detail the kaleidoscope new health care benefits of the American people and conclude that after adding all the pluses and minuses...

              ( The Ben Franklin Method )


              ... the ACA is a big plus for the people of the nation and will add to the quality of life in the USA.


              Yes, I would have liked a simple single payer system and the house did vote for it but proponents couldn't get more than 45 signatures out of the senate.
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347722].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                I'll just stop at "waiting to see if this is true" as Forbes is usually a good source and I see nothing to gain in arguing the issue over and over and over.

                It will work or it won't. We will be able to afford it or we won't. That's the bottom line and we have to wait and see.
                Signature
                Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347762].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post


                600K Americans were filing for bankruptcy each and every year thanks to our former health care system - and these folks had a health insurance policy.
                I find it hard to believe that 600K Americans filed for bankruptcy because of health care.

                Weren't there other factors like the crash in the housing market, lost jobs due to downsizing, pay cuts, etc.?

                I'm also on the wait and see list but I have a problem with being pessimistic about it although I'm normally a very optimistic person.

                Terra
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347787].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                  Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                  I find it hard to believe that 600K Americans filed for bankruptcy because of health care.

                  Weren't there other factors like the crash in the housing market, lost jobs due to downsizing, pay cuts, etc.?

                  Terra
                  The thing about "facts" is that what you believe still depends on personal beliefs. If one believes the 600K, largest reason for bankruptcy facts, it's because it aligns with their beliefs - and conversely they would "poo-poo" other "facts" such as what's stated in this article:

                  RealClearMarkets - The Healthcare Bankruptcy Myth

                  It's really a pick your poison kind of thing. Frankly, the jury is still out for me on the health care thing - although my glasses are less rose-colored than others...
                  Signature

                  Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347798].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                    Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                    The thing about "facts" is that what you believe still depends on personal beliefs. If one believes the 600K, largest reason for bankruptcy facts, it's because it aligns with their beliefs - and conversely they would "poo-poo" other "facts" such as what's stated in this article:

                    RealClearMarkets - The Healthcare Bankruptcy Myth

                    It's really a pick your poison kind of thing. Frankly, the jury is still out for me on the health care thing - although my glasses are less rose-colored than others...

                    Bless You Mike!

                    My favorite part of the article was this last paragraph.

                    More and more Americans understand that adding $1 trillion to government spending for health care reform won't fix our economic crisis. So proponents of single-payer health care bring out poor Elizabeth Edwards to justify their made-up numbers on medical bankruptcy. Shame on them.
                    The part that disturbed me the most was this part.

                    House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers of Michigan, who should know better, said "This surge in medical bankruptcies demonstrates why health care reform is urgently needed right now. So many people's lives are uprooted, and their financial security destroyed, by unexpected medical costs."
                    Did you read that? He's from Michigan. Where is Detroit? In Michigan. Go figure. :rolleyes:

                    Am I the only one seeing a pattern in the elected officials from Michigan?

                    Terra
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347825].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                    The thing about "facts" is that what you believe still depends on personal beliefs.

                    If one believes the 600K, largest reason for bankruptcy facts, it's because it aligns with their beliefs - and conversely they would "poo-poo" other "facts" such as what's stated in this article:

                    RealClearMarkets - The Healthcare Bankruptcy Myth




                    It's really a pick your poison kind of thing. Frankly, the jury is still out for me on the health care thing - although my glasses are less rose-colored than others...

                    Not necessarily Mike.

                    But what is true is that...

                    ... on any big issue anyone can find some type of counter argument on the internet.

                    Many times it comes down to who's source is more trusted but for some people even that won't matter.

                    For example my article is from the American Journal Of Medicine and yours is from Real Clear Markets.

                    Anyways...

                    In 2008, there were 1,117,771 bankruptcies in the USA.

                    Here's an article for a condensed version and the source of the article.

                    Daily Kos: Medical bills cause 62 percent of*bankruptcies

                    Here's something from the American Journal Of Medicine that the article references.

                    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...edicine_09.pdf


                    I say...

                    It's a big nation with lots of people and...

                    If this nation is averaging 1 million bankruptcies each year why is it so hard to believe that at least 60% of them are the result of a medical problem??

                    The medical problem is what drove them to file.

                    It's probably more.

                    The 600K are people who had medical insurance and you can add more for people that didn't have insurance.

                    So OK,

                    I'm not saying it is, but would you settle for only 300K per year???

                    Isn't that still too many?
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347890].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      Not necessarily Mike.

                      But what is true is that...

                      ... on any big issue anyone can find some type of counter argument on the internet.

                      Many times it comes down to who's source is more trusted but for some people even that won't matter.

                      For example my article is from the American Journal Of Medicine and yours is from Real Clear Markets.

                      Anyways...

                      In 2008, there were 1,117,771 bankruptcies in the USA.

                      Here's an article for a condensed version and the source of the article.

                      Daily Kos: Medical bills cause 62 percent of*bankruptcies

                      Here's something from the American Journal Of Medicine that the article references.

                      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...edicine_09.pdf


                      I say...

                      It's a big nation with lots of people and...

                      If this nation is averaging 1 million bankruptcies each year why is it so hard to believe that at least 60% of them are the result of a medical problem??

                      It's probably more.

                      The 600K are people who had medical insurance and you can add more for people that disn't have insurance.

                      So OK,

                      I'm not saying it is, but would you settle for only 300K per year???

                      Isn't that still too many?
                      Like I said - some will poo-poo ANY other resource. Don't think for a second that AJM doesn't have an agenda of their own Plus - they need to get their facts from somewhere - I doubt a medical journal does their own bankruptcy research...unlikely.

                      But keep in mind that just because you (or I) trust a source, that doesn't mean it's completely right. The IDEA is to keep an open mind - which right now on THIS subject my mind is wide open. I don't necessarily disbelieve the 600K number you have stated in MANY threads. I am just suspect of it when it's used to ram an agenda through channels.

                      In any case, like Kay said earlier - I will wait and see. No point in rehashing this over and over. I already know, for example, that your mind is made up - lock stock and barrel. Me? I just don't see what you see. Yet.
                      Signature

                      Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8348087].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                        Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                        Like I said - some will poo-poo ANY other resource. Don't think for a second that AJM doesn't have an agenda of their own Plus - they need to get their facts from somewhere - I doubt a medical journal does their own bankruptcy research...unlikely.

                        But keep in mind that just because you (or I) trust a source, that doesn't mean it's completely right. The IDEA is to keep an open mind - which right now on THIS subject my mind is wide open. I don't necessarily disbelieve the 600K number you have stated in MANY threads. I am just suspect of it when it's used to ram an agenda through channels.

                        In any case, like Kay said earlier - I will wait and see. No point in rehashing this over and over. I already know, for example, that your mind is made up - lock stock and barrel. Me? I just don't see what you see. Yet.
                        Understood.

                        It ain't perfect, but it has many, many good benefits for the nation and the people of the nation - so I'd like the law to work.

                        You said above...

                        "I don't necessarily disbelieve the 600K number you have stated in MANY threads. I am just suspect of it when it's used to...

                        ... ram an agenda through channels."

                        I say...

                        If you're talking about the 18 full months of debate, (that's a whole year and one half)...

                        ... that lead to the passage of the ACA, I say, if you have the votes, you have the votes.

                        A little history about the ACA:

                        Since not one GOP vote would be available,...

                        ... the biggest fight was dems fighting with the "blue dog" wing of their party to get passage of the law.

                        At the time about 5 or 6 senate dems were considered by other dems as D.I.N.O.s...

                        (... that means...)


                        ... Dems In Name Only.

                        They tricked a few blue dogs in the senate (Landreau and Nelson) by having them believe their state would receive special deals in exchange for their votes.

                        But through some slick parliamentary maneuvers the promised special deals were taken out of the law in final, final passage and boy were they upset.

                        BTW...

                        Just because the ACA isn't bi-partisan legislation does not necessarily mean that it is bad legislation.

                        When the GOP passed the 90 Billion per year Medicare Prescription Drug program back in 2003, they acted like they would include some dem suggestions in the law.

                        BTW: It wasn't paid for so it also added 90 billion yearly to the yearly deficit.

                        They received a bunch of Dem votes but they then came back and deleted the dem suggestions via slick parliamentary maneuvers. (LOL!)

                        The dems felt double-crossed and fumed - a while, ...

                        ...but didn't try to repeal and/or sabotage the law ( when they gained control of congress)...

                        ...like the GOP and its friends are trying to do now with the ACA.

                        Here's an article from a long time and well respected conservative writing about this unprecedented and unseemly level of obstruction to the ACA...

                        The Unprecedented?and Contemptible?Attempts to Sabotage Obamacare - NationalJournal.com
                        Signature

                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8350050].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                          TL,

                          Please, oh please don't bring partisan into this thread and get it nuked or closed. The thread is supposed to be about Detroit filing for bankruptcy, not about differing political parties.

                          Terra
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8350145].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author garyv
                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                      Not necessarily Mike.


                      Many times it comes down to who's source is more trusted but for some people even that won't matter.

                      For example my article is from the American Journal Of Medicine and yours is from Real Clear Markets.

                      Anyways...

                      In 2008, there were 1,117,771 bankruptcies in the USA.

                      Here's an article for a condensed version and the source of the article.

                      Daily Kos: Medical bills cause 62 percent of*bankruptcies

                      Here's something from the American Journal Of Medicine that the article references.

                      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...edicine_09.pdf


                      Irony - you make that statement, and then go on to link to Daily Kos, and an American Journal Poll that has a less than 1% sampling. :rolleyes:
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8350179].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                        Those are some of the "facts" that worry me.

                        #1-6 are new "freebies" and benefits/entitlements. Most insurance plans already covered preventive care, mammograms and colonoscopies. #7 is changing back to compensation that was lowered previously and resulted in many doctors not accepting Medicare patients.

                        #8 is a benefit for those with huge medical costs - but what you don't mention are 21 new taxes being added to pay for these bennies.

                        It may work or it may not - and talking it up doesn't change that.
                        Signature
                        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8350468].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author garyv
                          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                          but what you don't mention are 21 new taxes being added to pay for these bennies.
                          Yes I love how the word "free" is used here. There's not one thing in this bill that's going to be free. You may not pay for it, but someone surely will.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8350738].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Obamacare has already started and the individual mandates will start on time with only a small part of the law being delayed. The law could be implemented more smoothly and actually improved while doing so if one side wasn't so stubborn as shown by 40 different votes to repeal the bill.

            WHOA! Obama care has STARTED? PLEASE let m know how to get info! The coworker that sits behind me is literally *****BEGGING***** to know! He has called eeryone he can think of! and the newspapers and states don't seem to have the info.

            HOW can we find out!?!?!?

            As to the 40 votes? LET ME GUESS! They work at a place called the S.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347628].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              what we got or will get seems to be some sort of improvement over what we had and is a lot better than any alternatives being put forward by those who want to repeal, which are non existent really.
              I began by believing it was better than nothing - but the more I've learned and watched the costs spiral and some other things going on with it, the less I believe that.

              We can do better - we should have taken our time and done better. The focus was on what bigwigs wanted to do and on one side wanting to win over the other - not on the level and quality of medical care the public wanted to have. It could have been a true legacy legislation for any president - but I fear history will show it to have been one of the biggest mistakes we've made.

              I've seen some stories about doctors who are forming membership medical practices where people pay a reasonable fee monthly - no insurance is accepted and all tests and meds and treatment are charged at cost.

              It could be if this legislation ends up horribly it will have a side effect of inspiring a better way to access health care that bypasses insurance and big pharma and big government.
              Signature
              Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

              Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347682].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Parts of it have started. You knew that already. :/

              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              WHOA! Obama care has STARTED? PLEASE let m know how to get info! The coworker that sits behind me is literally *****BEGGING***** to know! He has called eeryone he can think of! and the newspapers and states don't seem to have the info.

              HOW can we find out!?!?!?

              As to the 40 votes? LET ME GUESS! They work at a place called the S.

              Steve
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8347695].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Parts of it have started. You knew that already. :/
                Well, you made it sound like there was something relatively tangible.

                1. Have they selected the panel?(Required by the law!)
                2. Have the determined the benefits and procedures?(Required for an insurance company and organizations)
                3. Have they formalized the premiums?(Required by the law and orgs.)
                4. Have they started the exchanges?(Required by the law)
                5. Have they listed the requirements?(Required by just plain SANITY!)


                From what I understand, the answer to all those questions is NO! Until ALL that happens, there is NOTHING tangible!

                BTW the questions that coworker asked the places he called?
                1,2 WHAT is he coverage and limits?
                3, WHAT is the premium?
                4. He wanted to be able to look at the exchanges, etc...
                5. HOW do they qualify?

                The answer he got from several office, etc? We have NO idea! Maybe NEXT year!

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8348279].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  Well, you made it sound like there was something relatively tangible.
                  There are tangible parts already in place:

                  1. Free preventative care for women
                  2. Insurance company rebates
                  3. Free mammograms and colonoscopies
                  4. Staying on your parents' plan
                  5. Get insurance for kids with pre-existing conditions
                  6. Increased free preventive services to Medicaid.
                  7. Doctors that take Medicaid patients got a pay raise as of January 1 2013.
                  8. The medical expense ceiling for which Americans can get a tax deduction was raised from 7.5% to 10%

                  There's many more. I'm sure you will say something like "*******BIG DEAL**********!!!!!!!", but these are all very tangible and affect millions of Americans who would be upset if they lost these parts of Obamacare.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8350148].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    There are tangible parts already in place:

                    1. Free preventative care for women
                    AND they reduced the standard policies! Such care may be given less often, and with fewer options.

                    2. Insurance company rebates
                    INCREASED PREMIUMS! ALREADY happening.

                    3. Free mammograms and colonoscopies
                    FREE colonoscopies? Do they have DRIVERS too? SERIOUSLY! Did you know, at least in virginia, that you are NOT allowed to drive yourself, or use paid or public transportation? for a colonoscopy?

                    4. Staying on your parents' plan
                    They had that BEFORE! Up to a certain age if in school or dependent.

                    5. Get insurance for kids with pre-existing conditions
                    I wonder how long it will last.

                    6. Increased free preventive services to Medicaid.
                    after the 750B cut, one wonders. MA is due to be GONE!

                    7. Doctors that take Medicaid patients got a pay raise as of January 1 2013.
                    How come even DOCTORS are telling me they got a pay CUT!?

                    8. The medical expense ceiling for which Americans can get a tax deduction was raised from 7.5% to 10%
                    That's a GOOD thing!?!?!?!? Maybe you don't understand. Let me quote the IRS!

                    If, for a taxable year, you itemize your deductions on Form 1040, Schedule A (PDF), you may be able to deduct expenses you paid that year for medical and dental care for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents. You may deduct only the amount by which your total medical care expenses for the year exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income. For years beginning after December 31, 2012, you may deduct only the amount by which your total medical expenses exceed 10% of your adjusted gross income.
                    Tax Topics - Topic 502 Medical and Dental Expenses

                    So that is a ****REDUCTION**** in insurance benefits!

                    There's many more. I'm sure you will say something like "*******BIG DEAL**********!!!!!!!", but these are all very tangible and affect millions of Americans who would be upset if they lost these parts of Obamacare.
                    WOW, you called THAT one!

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8351876].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post


                      So that is a ****REDUCTION**** in insurance benefits!
                      OK, I agree, that wasn't a good one, but it is still tangible. It also isn't a reduction in benefits it's a reduction in medical costs that can be deducted.

                      By the way, when I put "free" in my list that means these things are required to be in insurance plans. It isn't a "freebie" or a give away, unless the insurance is subsidized. People pay for their insurance and these things are now included by law. That's just creating some standards which is a good thing imo.

                      I'm not "talking up" anything just listing some tangible parts that are already in place in response to Steve's remarks and even slipped in one that isn't a good one.
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8352171].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        OK, I agree, that wasn't a good one, but it is still tangible. It also isn't a reduction in benefits it's a reduction in medical costs that can be deducted.

                        By the way, when I put "free" in my list that means these things are required to be in insurance plans. It isn't a "freebie" or a give away, unless the insurance is subsidized. People pay for their insurance and these things are now included by law. That's just creating some standards which is a good thing imo.

                        I'm not "talking up" anything just listing some tangible parts that are already in place in response to Steve's remarks and even slipped in one that isn't a good one.
                        I view a benefit as something you get extra. A 33% INCREASE in taxes is equivalent to a 33% DECREASE in the benefits you get WITH those taxes.

                        Case in point? Suppose you get $1000,000, and you get free insurance that pays for insurance that pays $2500. How much is that insurance worth? NOTHING! In fact, LESS than nothing! If you got the $2500, you would save if you had to pay say $1000, and could buy other things. So YEP, it is a DECREASE in benefits.

                        They are *****NOT***** creating standards! They CLAIM that an incompetent group MIGHT SOMEDAY setup a list of, HOPEFULLY, ****MINIMUMS****. If they are AT LEAST EQUAL to the current standards, it is good. If not, they AREN'T!

                        I don't hear the person elected crowing that he was, or another bragging about it. NOBODY has spoken about it! It would likely be FRONT PAGE NEWS! Earlier, they ridiculed a person for speaking about their power. So I DOUBT the panel, whose FIRST job must be setting up standards, exists at this moment. I call them incompetent, because HALF of them will be POLITICAL, and the other half will be appointed by a political appointee. NO guarantee of anyone knowing about insurance OR healthcare!

                        Steve
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8352451].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                          I don't view it that way. That's a false equivalency. If you have a health insurance plan it won't change if the deductions are changed. There. I think I made that more clear than your case in point.

                          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                          I view a benefit as something you get extra. A 33% INCREASE in taxes is equivalent to a 33% DECREASE in the benefits you get WITH those taxes.

                          Case in point? Suppose you get $1000,000, and you get free insurance that pays for insurance that pays $2500. How much is that insurance worth? NOTHING! In fact, LESS than nothing! If you got the $2500, you would save if you had to pay say $1000, and could buy other things. So YEP, it is a DECREASE in benefits.
                          Signature
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8352784].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            I don't view it that way. That's a false equivalency. If you have a health insurance plan it won't change if the deductions are changed. There. I think I made that more clear than your case in point.
                            Insurance is ****NOT**** for paying bills! It is to REDUCE EXPOSURE AND EXPENSES!

                            HEY, I would be HAPPY to insure ANY person for $1000 if they paid me $1000+/month!

                            Insurance is SUPPOSED to be a GAMBLE! You bet AGAINST yourself to cover problems. If an entity raises your cost, they REDUCE the risk/reward ratio, and price themselves OUT of the very reason they exist!

                            Steve
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8356039].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    There are tangible parts already in place:

                    1. Free preventative care for women
                    2. Insurance company rebates
                    3. Free mammograms and colonoscopies
                    4. Staying on your parents' plan
                    5. Get insurance for kids with pre-existing conditions
                    6. Increased free preventive services to Medicaid.
                    7. Doctors that take Medicaid patients got a pay raise as of January 1 2013.
                    8. The medical expense ceiling for which Americans can get a tax deduction was raised from 7.5% to 10%

                    There's many more. I'm sure you will say something like "*******BIG DEAL**********!!!!!!!", but these are all very tangible and affect millions of Americans who would be upset if they lost these parts of Obamacare.
                    While we're at it,

                    ... another consequence of the ACA is that at least 600K Americans won't have to file for bankruptcies each and every year thanks to a medical prob.

                    Bankruptcy attorneys will lose a lot of business.

                    600K per year X let's say an average of $1,000 per filing that will stay in our fellow American's pockets = I think it's 600 million dollars per year!

                    ( my calculator has run out of digits )

                    The Average Cost of a Bankruptcy Lawyer | eHow

                    Wow!

                    And think of how many people won't have that black mark of bankruptcy on their credit report.

                    Yippy Ki Yeh!



                    All The Best!!

                    TL
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8358809].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Really that whole bankruptcy number due to healthcare costs is made up.
                      But it's difficult to say for certain whether the much-touted finding - that half of all bankruptcies are due to medical issues (though not necessarily medical bills) - is correct. Other factors may well be in play, and the authors themselves acknowledge that if some respondents hadn't faced health care problems, they may still have found themselves in court, filing for bankruptcy. "[M]aking causal inferences from a cross-sectional study such as ours is perilous," the authors wrote. "Many debtors described a complex web of problems involving illness, work, and family. Dissecting medical from other causes of bankruptcy is difficult. We cannot presume that eliminating the medical antecedents of bankruptcy would have prevented all of the filings we classified as 'medical bankruptcies.' " Health Care Bill Bankruptcies | FactCheck.org
                      Also bankruptcies have gone down thanks to congress making it more difficult to file. Bankruptcy Filings Decline in Calendar Year 2012 | United States Courts
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8358939].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                        Going outside the talking points news loop - I found several authority sites on bankruptcy that also said medical costs are a leading cause of filing bankruptcy.

                        But those sites listed it as 42%-44% of filings.
                        Signature
                        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359002].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    Those rising energy prices and inflation actually caused the great Texas Oil boom of the early 80s. And an easing of regulations caused Texas businesses to thrive in the early 80s. Remember the TV show Dallas? Texas was really like that then.

    Texas is actually on the verge of another Oil Boom there - if regulations are lifted a bit more - then I could see Texas pulling the entire nation up again.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8344682].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      Those rising energy prices and inflation actually caused the great Texas Oil boom of the early 80s. And an easing of regulations caused Texas businesses to thrive in the early 80s. Remember the TV show Dallas? Texas was really like that then.

      Texas is actually on the verge of another Oil Boom there - if regulations are lifted a bit more - then I could see Texas pulling the entire nation up again.
      Being from Denver, I prefered Dynasty. And there was also an oil bust in the 80s, caused by OPEC cutting the price of oil to the point where US oil couldn't compete.

      And yes, there is an oil boom in the US again. That's the good news. The bad news is it is being created by fracking.

      Fracking: Because Big Oil polluting my air isn't enough. They want to poison my drinking water too, since a buck is more valuable than air and water.
      Signature
      Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
      Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8344709].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garyv
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Being from Denver, I prefered Dynasty. And there was also an oil bust in the 80s, caused by OPEC cutting the price of oil to the point where US oil couldn't compete.

        And yes, there is an oil boom in the US again. That's the good news. The bad news is it is being created by fracking.

        Fracking: Because Big Oil polluting my air isn't enough. They want to poison my drinking water too, since a buck is more valuable than air and water.
        I liked Dynasty too... Oh the good ole days - when all we had to worry about was "who shot JR?"

        I think rising oil prices is causing the boom, but I agree with you that much more research and if necessary regulations are needed in the fracking business.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8344785].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          I liked Dynasty too... Oh the good ole days - when all we had to worry about was "who shot JR?"

          I think rising oil prices is causing the boom, but I agree with you that much more research and if necessary regulations are needed in the fracking business.
          Do a little research. There have been amazing developments in oil drilling technology in the past 5 years, including micro fracking and horizontal drilling. This tech has allowed us to reach oil we couldn't reach before. And this is why North Dakota is in an economic boom.


          At the present pace, we will be an oil exporting nation in a few short years. This is great news for our economy and national security.

          However, fracking has some serious environmental and health issues. Plus, there's a few studies that show fracking may be causing earthquakes in areas that never had earthquakes before.
          Signature
          Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
          Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8345636].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    Part of Detroit's problem is that capitalism isn't perfect. It requires consumers to buy things, often more than they should.

    For example, when things are "good", a family of 4 may have two cars and buy a new one every 3 years. The "smart" thing may be to get by on a single car and only buy an new one every 10 years. Or, if you have 2 cars, buy a new one every 6 years.

    Another problem is automation. While we can blame politicians and unions, how many jobs in Detroit have been lost because automation has improved so much in the past 3 decades?

    Automation impacts many other industries, as well. My local grocery store put in 6 automatic check out lanes over a year ago. Many other grocery stores added them before that. There is one person over-seeing the 6 check out lanes, instead of 6 workers.

    Try calling any major company for help and you get an automated system. How about ATMs? How many bank teller jobs have been lost due to automated tellers? How many manufacturing jobs are lost due to nothing more than better automation?

    This is progress. But the truth is, fewer and fewer workers are needed as we come up with better automation. Many of the lost jobs simply aren't going to come back.

    IMO, we need to understand this. As people have fewer jobs, they will have less money to spend. And if people have less money to spend, they won't buy as many cars, either from Detroit or Japan.

    One solution is for us to live with relatives more, like humans have throughout history. Instead of paying 2 mortgages, maybe include Grandma and Grandpa in the household, and vice versa. Families living together longer might not be such a bad thing.
    Signature
    Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
    Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8345665].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dustindustin
    American nighmare has yet to start
    Signature

    Read the forum rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8345675].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    Our Country is losing it's incentive. With "free" healthcare coming, and fast-food workers pushing for a double in minimum wage, what incentive is there for them to move up from their burger flipping jobs? - We have just turned the bottom rung of the job market ladder into a hammock.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8350755].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    BTW my coworker made ANOTHER call today. He has NO idea about what he can do!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8351883].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    According to this article...

    The financial crisis also wiped out nearly a billion dollars in Detroit's pension fund holdings.

    DETROIT: Everything You Need To Know About The Upcoming Fight Between Investors And Retirees
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8355936].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      According to this article...

      The financial crisis also wiped out nearly a billion dollars in Detroit's pension fund holdings.

      DETROIT: Everything You Need To Know About The Upcoming Fight Between Investors And Retirees
      NOPE! It was FAR more than that, and they stole money to pay into the fund.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8356042].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        NOPE! It was FAR more than that, and they stole money to pay into the fund.

        Steve
        Who stole what from whom??
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8356212].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    The #$%^&* from creditors and investors of GM.
    Only a couple organizations benefited.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8356418].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      The #$%^&* from creditors and investors of GM.
      Only a couple organizations benefited.

      Steve
      I know that is one of your favorite axes to grind but does it really have anything to do with Detroit's situation?
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8356712].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    There's a flaw I see in the health care plan that has gotten only token comments from those arguing the bill.

    If you are young and healthy (or just healthy) the fine/fee for not having insurance is far less than the cost of the insurance.

    Bear with me a minute here.

    If you get sick later, this law says you cannot be denied insurance. In addition, pre-existing conditions must be covered.

    There is nothing to stop people from paying a small fine yearly until they get sick (for young adults the current fine is no more than 1% of your income) - then signing up for guaranteed insurance and getting treated for the now pre-existing illness. It doesn't make financial sense for the economy but very smart for young adults to do that.
    Signature
    Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

    Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8356760].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      The fines/tax can actually go pretty high depending on your income level. They can go as high as the Bronze level cost but not higher.

      Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

      There's a flaw I see in the health care plan that has gotten only token comments from those arguing the bill.

      If you are young and healthy (or just healthy) the fine/fee for not having insurance is far less than the cost of the insurance.

      Bear with me a minute here.

      If you get sick later, this law says you cannot be denied insurance. In addition, pre-existing conditions must be covered.

      There is nothing to stop people from paying a small fine yearly until they get sick (for young adults the current fine is no more than 1% of your income) - then signing up for guaranteed insurance and getting treated for the now pre-existing illness. It doesn't make financial sense for the economy but very smart for young adults to do that.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8356800].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        The person I heard (an official defending the health care act) said for young adults the fine is set at "no more than 1%" of income". That's what I'm basing it on.
        Signature
        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8356839].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          The person I heard (an official defending the health care act) said for young adults the fine is set at "no more than 1%" of income". That's what I'm basing it on.
          Hmm, I don't know what this person was referring to because from what I can tell it all depends on your income level not age. Well, except for being under 18 and over 65 of course.

          How Much Is the Obamacare ‘Tax’? | FactCheck.org

          It seems the tax/penalty starts at a lower amount and goes up to 2.5% in 2016. Here's some info on the costs related to income:

          The penalty is 2.5% of any household income above the level at which you are required to file a tax return. That level is currently $9,500 per person and $19,000 per couple. The penalty on any income above that is 2.5%. So the penalty can get expensive quickly if you make a lot of money.
          However, the penalty can never be more than the cost of a "Bronze" heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state "exchanges" that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter.
          So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:

          Less than $9,500 income = $0
          $9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
          $50,000 income = $1,000
          $75,000 income = $1,600
          $100,000 income = $2,250
          $125,000 income = $2,900
          $150,000 income = $3,500
          $175,000 income = $4,100
          $200,000 income = $4,700
          Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan


          Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-m...#ixzz2asgQjWJj
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8356890].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Hmm, I don't know what this person was referring to because from what I can tell it all depends on your income level not age. Well, except for being under 18 and over 65 of course.

            How Much Is the Obamacare ‘Tax’? | FactCheck.org

            It seems the tax/penalty starts at a lower amount and goes up to 2.5% in 2016. Here's some info on the costs related to income:
            Folks need to go over those 21 tax increases in the ACA for more background.

            I've heard some grumblings about particular groups within the society getting the short straw and that probably couldn't be helped given the makeup of the ACA.

            But as we've already seen the ACA can be adjusted in many ways in the future.

            I'm sure Kay can keep us knee deep in all the real and perceived inequities of the ACA.

            Keep us informed Kay!


            BTW...

            Perhaps some people should step back for a moment and see the bigger picture.


            Here's one very important and positive aspect of the ACA...

            - The CBO report clearly says that this legislation, act, law (whatever it is)...

            ... (ACA) will not be a financial boondoggle for the federal gov.

            - That oh so scary projected growth of federal expenditures for health care, that had everyone in a tizzy will be arrested in large, LARGE part, thanks to the ACA.

            Initially (according to the CBO, if I remember correctly)...

            ...the ACA would have been a 10 billion per year asset for the feds but in a revised report the CBO said it would now become a loss of 10 billion per year for the national gov.

            That's only a 10 billion loss per year until it turns around about year 11.

            I think that's a pretty, pretty efficient use of national resources considering the new set of benies for the American people - benies we never had before.

            Of course I agree with you Tim that...

            ... "medicare for all" would have been a much better and cheaper option for the feds and for the American people.

            The house was quite gung-ho for it, but not enough folks in the senate would budge and pro-medicare for all forces couldn't get more than 45 senate signatures of support for it.

            So it's dead for now.

            Anyways...

            In the 2nd decade of the ACA, the national gov. will pull in around 90 billion per year profit compared to what it has been doing in the past.

            It was fuzzy as to whether that 90 billion per year would be there year after year after year so I don't know what happens going into the 3rd decade of the ACA.

            But once again it's important for folks to understand that...

            ...(grumblers may grumble about this and that but... (LOL!) )

            The CBO'S latest report clearly says that this legislation...

            ... (ACA) will not be a financial boondoggle for the federal gov and will in fact arrest the super-scary projected fed gov expenditures as related to health care...

            ...and that's a very good thing.


            All The Best!!


            TL

            Ps. I just wanted to make sure you saw this article by Norm Orstien a long time staunch conservative talking about the unseemly and unprecedented obstruction coming from you know who and their friends as related to the ACA.

            The Unprecedented?and Contemptible?Attempts to Sabotage Obamacare - NationalJournal.com
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8358469].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author garyv
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Ps. I just wanted to make sure you saw this article by Norm Orstien a long time staunch conservative
              LOL - nice try ... he considers himself a "centrist" (just as we all do) - but it's quite obvious from his work that he's as liberal as they come. By the way his best friend is Al Franken, that should tell you something.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8358585].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                LOL - nice try ... he considers himself a "centrist" (just as we all do) - but it's quite obvious from his work that he's as liberal as they come. By the way his best friend is Al Franken, that should tell you something.
                Point well taken.

                And if you're a centrist I'm Henry The 8th and so is Ted Cruz.

                Do you have anything to say about the ACA not being a financial boondoggle for the federal gov?

                I know you hate the ACA but aren't you at least happy about that?
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8358666].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author garyv
                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                  Point well taken.

                  And if you're a centrist I'm Henry The 8th and so is Ted Cruz.

                  Do you have anything to say about the ACA not being a financial boondoggle for the federal gov?

                  I know you hate the ACA but aren't you at least happy about that?

                  Those are all talking points from a liberal puppet. All you have to do is look up his previous articles to know that. You may as well have posted another of your HuffingtonPost links.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8358702].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                    Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                    Those are all talking points from a liberal puppet. All you have to do is look up his previous articles to know that. You may as well have posted another of your HuffingtonPost links.

                    Much to many folks chagrin, the CBO is no ones puppet. (neither am I, BTW)

                    And federal expenditures on health care were/are a big scary boogie man for folks concerned about the national debt right?


                    But anyways... ( I was wondering )


                    After all the crap the people of this country have gone through recently...


                    Such as...


                    ...At least 10 mill job lost, million of homes foreclosed, millions of retirements wrecked etc.,


                    ...I bet you just happen to be with the crowd that thinks...


                    ...Americans have somehow gotten soft and need a dose of tough love.


                    Am I right Gary?


                    TL
                    Signature

                    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8358753].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author garyv
                      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post



                      After all the crap the people of this country have gone through recently...


                      Such as...


                      ...At least 10 mill job lost, million of homes foreclosed, millions of retirements wrecked etc.,


                      ...I bet you just happen to be with the crowd that thinks...


                      ...Americans have somehow gotten soft and need a dose of tough love.


                      Am I right Gary?


                      TL
                      Nope - I'm with the group that knows that this record breaking slow recovery is because of incredibly bad policy. And even the Unions and democrat policy makers themselves are now realizing that Obamacare is the worst policy decision of them all and want no part of it.

                      So it has nothing to do with "tough love". It has everything to do with creating an environment that is business friendly - because HOW can you lead a job recovery without job makers - it's something that just seems to boggle my mind that liberals do not take job creators into consideration at all when trying to put forth a "job recovery". I'm not in the group that merely gives a person a fish - I'm in the group that gives the person a fishing pole and teaches them how to get fish for themselves. If you call that tough love then so be it. I call it being an American citizen.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359098].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  Tim I don't know how they're doing their math, but the penalty is not 2.5%, it's 2% except for the 37,000 income which is 1.87%.
                  If you make less then 37,000 then naturally the 695 is a bigger percent of your income. That's going by the numbers they present (example 695/37000=.0187 or 695x100 / 37000=.0187) 2.5% of 37,000 is $925.
                  With day to day costs of living like mortgage/rent, utilities, food, gas, insurances, loosing 1.87% of your gross income (or even net) can be a bigger problem then loosing 2% if your income is 50,000 or more.
                  When you consider the average income is around $43,000 according to the SSA it seems more people will be negatively effected by the penalty then not. Again going by a real 2.5% the penalty for someone earning the $43,000 average is $1,075 .
                  Again that's working with the numbers they are giving and doing some simple math.
                  The penalty is 2.5% of any household income above the level at which you are required to file a tax return. That level is currently $9,500 per person and $19,000 per couple. The penalty on any income above that is 2.5%. So the penalty can get expensive quickly if you make a lot of money.
                  However, the penalty can never be more than the cost of a "Bronze" heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state "exchanges" that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter.
                  So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:

                  Less than $9,500 income = $0
                  $9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
                  $50,000 income = $1,000
                  $75,000 income = $1,600
                  $100,000 income = $2,250
                  $125,000 income = $2,900
                  $150,000 income = $3,500
                  $175,000 income = $4,100
                  $200,000 income = $4,700
                  Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8358772].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    Thom, the 1st $9500 isn't taxed, so you have to subtract that from the total income. I think they rounded it off from there but the math seems to work if you do that.

                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    Tim I don't know how they're doing their math, but the penalty is not 2.5%, it's 2% except for the 37,000 income which is 1.87%.
                    If you make less then 37,000 then naturally the 695 is a bigger percent of your income. That's going by the numbers they present (example 695/37000=.0187 or 695x100 / 37000=.0187) 2.5% of 37,000 is $925.
                    With day to day costs of living like mortgage/rent, utilities, food, gas, insurances, loosing 1.87% of your gross income (or even net) can be a bigger problem then loosing 2% if your income is 50,000 or more.
                    When you consider the average income is around $43,000 according to the SSA it seems more people will be negatively effected by the penalty then not. Again going by a real 2.5% the penalty for someone earning the $43,000 average is $1,075 .
                    Again that's working with the numbers they are giving and doing some simple math.
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8358983].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                      Thom, the 1st $9500 isn't taxed, so you have to subtract that from the total income. I think they rounded it off from there but the math seems to work if you do that.
                      Tim I used the numbers they gave. Where they said if you make X amount you pay X amount, those where the numbers I used.


                      Kay like it said in the quote I put up from Fact Check.
                      " We cannot presume that eliminating the medical antecedents of bankruptcy would have prevented all of the filings we classified as 'medical bankruptcies.' "
                      Medical may have been the straw to break the camels back, but it isn't the only straw, and if you take that straw away the other ones are still there and still contribute.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359054].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                        Yes, and I'm showing why their numbers do add up.

                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        Tim I used the numbers they gave. Where they said if you make X amount you pay X amount, those where the numbers I used.

                        Signature
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359092].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                          Yes, and I'm showing why their numbers do add up.
                          By adding numbers they didn't use? Maybe that's why they said those numbers where approximate, so people could use fuzzy math to make them work.
                          Signature

                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359126].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                  Point well taken.
                  No - it never is. No one has a right to any opinion unless it's your opinion. You make that clear. Seems to me if you always turn left or always turn right....you go in circles.

                  As for Detroit - Reid called last week for another 1 trillion in tax increases 'with no strings attached' (his words). Isn't that the same model Detroit followed for years - keep spending and promising - and keep raising taxes to pay for it? That worked out well, didn't it?
                  Signature
                  Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                  Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8358784].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8356873].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Yeah, one that VOTED FOR IT said it was "NOT FAIR" that he have to comply!!!!!!!

      WHY aren't they DISGRACED AND THROWN OUT for such things. SERIOUSLY, A LOT of Political people think of themselves as KINGS and QUEENS or something, and DEMAND special treatment!

      They DEMAND special insurance, the ability to have a concealed weapon EVERYWHERE, ARMED GUARDS when desired, special snail mail, special insurance, exemption from various laws(INCLUDING FELONIES), special pensions etc.....

      EXAMPLES? One senator, after passing a law for a higher tax on alcohol, used PUBLIC money in a PUBLIC OWNED vehicle, to drive into the next state to get a lot of alcoholic beverages TAX FREE! Congress has a special postoffice where they can send mail out FOR FREE! It is AGAINST THE LAW to detain a congress person while on the way to "perform his/her duties". One guy on a plan, that didn't even pay for first class, DEMANDED special treatment on a commercial airline. He EVEN pulled the line.... "Do you ********KNOW******** who I am!?!!??!?". One congress person fihgting AGAINST gun ownership has a concealed weapon, brags to be a "crack shot", and has ARMED GUARDS!

      The government is supposed to be afraid of, and serve, the PUBLIC, ******NOT****** the other way around! BTW of the people I mentioned, that flaunted this stuff? They STILL act that way, and are in government. One is in perhaps the highest position in congress.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8357597].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Obama admin just added around 20,000 pages to the healthcare book - so NOBODY knows right now what it says.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8358796].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    A good question is how many bankruptcies because of a medical prob is too many??

    No matter what congress did there were still close to a million chapter 7 filings from 3-2011 to 3-2012.

    There were 926,301 chapter 7 bankruptcies filed from March of 2011 to March Of 2012 and a total of 1,320,613 according to ...

    http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Sta...12/0312_f2.pdf

    And since there were at least 1 million of them per year, why is it unreasonable to believe that a healthy dose of them were medical related?

    Even if only a 3rd of personal bankruptcies were due to a medical problem I ask again, ...


    ...isn't that too many (300K per year) ...

    ..and isn't it great that many Americans won't have to deal with that ever again - much like our European counterparts?
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359062].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      I see you didn't read the article either.
      From the article. "But it's difficult to say for certain whether the much-touted finding - that half of all bankruptcies are due to medical issues (though not necessarily medical bills) - is correct. Other factors may well be in play, and the authors themselves acknowledge that if some respondents hadn't faced health care problems, they may still have found themselves in court, filing for bankruptcy. "[M]aking causal inferences from a cross-sectional study such as ours is perilous," the authors wrote. "Many debtors described a complex web of problems involving illness, work, and family. Dissecting medical from other causes of bankruptcy is difficult. We cannot presume that eliminating the medical antecedents of bankruptcy would have prevented all of the filings we classified as 'medical bankruptcies.'"

      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      A good question is how many bankruptcies because of a medical prob is too many??

      No matter what congress did there were still close to a million chapter 7 filings from 3-2011 to 3-2012.

      There were 926,301 chapter 7 bankruptcies filed from March of 2011 to March Of 2012 and a total of 1,320,613 according to ...

      http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Sta...12/0312_f2.pdf

      And since there were at least 1 million of them per year, why is it unreasonable to believe that a healthy dose of them were medical related?

      Even if only a 3rd of personal bankruptcies were due to a medical problem I ask again, ...


      ...isn't that too many (300K per year) ...

      ..and isn't it great that many Americans won't have to deal with that ever again - much like our European counterparts?
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359073].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        I see you didn't read the article either.

        From the article. "But it's difficult to say for certain whether the much-touted finding - that half of all bankruptcies are due to medical issues (though not necessarily medical bills) - is correct. Other factors may well be in play, and the authors themselves acknowledge that if some respondents hadn't faced health care problems, they may still have found themselves in court, filing for bankruptcy. "[M]aking causal inferences from a cross-sectional study such as ours is perilous," the authors wrote. "Many debtors described a complex web of problems involving illness, work, and family. Dissecting medical from other causes of bankruptcy is difficult. We cannot presume that eliminating the medical antecedents of bankruptcy would have prevented all of the filings we classified as 'medical bankruptcies.'"
        And I still say then how many is too many?

        If Kay's source is correct and we have about a million per year and about 40% are because of a medical problem then that would be...

        ...around 400K per year.

        Is that too many or not enough for you?

        Are you saying the number of bankruptcies in the nation due to a medial problem is not a problem for the people of the nation and not worthy of addressing.

        All you're doing is knocking the number down but whether its' a couple hundred thousand or 600k its still too many as far as I'm concerned but maybe not you.
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359241].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author garyv
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          And I still say then how many is too many?

          If Kay's source is correct and we have about a million per year and about 40% are because of a medical problem then that would be...

          ...around 400K per year.

          Is that too many or not enough for you?

          Are you saying the number of bankruptcies in the nation due to a medial problem is not a problem for the people of the nation and not worthy of addressing.

          All you're doing is knocking the number down but whether its' a couple hundred thousand or 600k its still too many as far as I'm concerned but maybe not you.
          Probably what he's saying is that many people who go bankrupt because of medical problems, are not going to have their problems solved with govt. funded treatment. Their medical issues will still prevent them from gaining an income no matter who pays the medical bill. = And another great point is that all of these people that have gone bankrupt because of medical bills were not denied treatment - otherwise they wouldn't have a medical bill to pay. So the only real benefit for people going bankrupt is that it pushes their debt off onto other people. Which is pretty much what they were doing anyway by filing bankruptcy.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359259].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            That really is a great point. In favor of the new law that is. The whole idea is to get these tens of millions of your fellow Americans insured so they won't have to go bankrupt and at the same time makes most of them pay for their own health insurance. This law is is based on conservative, not liberal, ideas about individual responsibility and the power of market forces. The only reason you guys on the right are fighting it now is for obvious political reasons. "Waaa. You guys took our idea so we are going to fight it every step of the way and call it socialism."



            Originally Posted by garyv View Post

            And another great point is that all of these people that have gone bankrupt because of medical bills were not denied treatment - otherwise they wouldn't have a medical bill to pay.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359477].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Well Tim you know I'm not on the right as you say.
              As I pointed out a couple of times, going bankrupt is caused by multiple reasons in other words it's an accumulation of debt.
              Just having health care won't prevent bankruptcy, if a person is that close the best it will do is delay it a little. If they are in that much financial trouble that they are even considering bankruptcy, what makes you think they can afford the payments or penalties they will be forced to make?

              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              That really is a great point. In favor of the new law that is. The whole idea is to get these tens of millions of your fellow Americans insured so they won't have to go bankrupt and at the same time makes most of them pay for their own health insurance. This law is is based on conservative, not liberal, ideas about individual responsibility and the power of market forces. The only reason you guys on the right are fighting it now is for obvious political reasons. "Waaa. You guys took our idea so we are going to fight it every step of the way and call it socialism."
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359566].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                Thom, I was responding to Gary who acknowledges that some bankruptcies are caused by medical bills: Gary said "And another great point is that all of these people that have gone bankrupt because of medical bills". Of course not all are, but there's a certain percentage where medical bills are the main reason don't you think? Or are you denying this?

                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                Well Tim you know I'm not on the right as you say.
                As I pointed out a couple of times, going bankrupt is caused by multiple reasons in other words it's an accumulation of debt.
                Just having health care won't prevent bankruptcy, if a person is that close the best it will do is delay it a little. If they are in that much financial trouble that they are even considering bankruptcy, what makes you think they can afford the payments or penalties they will be forced to make?
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359628].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author garyv
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              That really is a great point. In favor of the new law that is. The whole idea is to get these tens of millions of your fellow Americans insured so they won't have to go bankrupt and at the same time makes most of them pay for their own health insurance. This law is is based on conservative, not liberal, ideas about individual responsibility and the power of market forces. The only reason you guys on the right are fighting it now is for obvious political reasons. "Waaa. You guys took our idea so we are going to fight it every step of the way and call it socialism."

              Nope - it's not even close to the proposal we put out - otherwise why didn't YOUR side vote for it the first time? Good try though.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359585].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                Which proposal is that? I don't recall a serious one. OK, I actually do. The one Nixon proposed in 73 was a GREAT bill. Too bad Teddy Kennedy wanted more otherwise we would have had true universal health care the past 40 years. Unbelievably dumb decision back then by Kennedy.
                Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                Nope - it's not even close to the proposal we put out - otherwise why didn't YOUR side vote for it the first time? Good try though.
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359637].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author garyv
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  Which proposal is that? I don't recall a serious one. OK, I actually do. The one Nixon proposed in 73 was a GREAT bill. Too bad Teddy Kennedy wanted more otherwise we would have had true universal health care the past 40 years. Unbelievably dumb decision back then by Kennedy.
                  We actually did put out a proposal that the CBO said would be much cheaper and would actually lower premiums by 7 to 10 %, while the democrats plan would raise premiums by 10 to 13 %. - It's just that Republican proposals have not been listened to for the last several years.

                  PolitiFact | GOP health care reform: A simple explanation, updated
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359665].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          And I still say then how many is too many?

          If Kay's source is correct and we have about a million per year and about 40% are because of a medical problem then that would be...

          ...around 400K per year.

          Is that too many or not enough for you?

          Are you saying the number of bankruptcies in the nation due to a medial problem is not a problem for the people of the nation and not worthy of addressing.

          All you're doing is knocking the number down but whether its' a couple hundred thousand or 600k its still too many as far as I'm concerned but maybe not you.
          What I'm saying is there are more then one reason why someone files for bankruptcy. Just like the article said. There's no proof that if you took health insurance out of the equation the people still wouldn't file. If you have a medical condition or illness that causes you to lose your income, having health insurance isn't going to pay your rent/mortgage, utility bills, credit card debt, etc.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359294].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            Is that too many or not enough for you?
            It's not too many nor too few - a bankruptcy is between a person and his/her creditors. It's not a simple cut and dried problem most of the time but it's a personal process. I don't control how people spend their money or save their money or their health problems...and I am not responsible for someone else's debt whether it's medical or for any other reason.

            I agree it is too bad high medical costs drive people into bankruptcy at all. But this isn't new - the cost of medical treatment has been going up year after year and the more layers of administration you put between doctors and patients....the higher the costs go.
            Signature
            Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

            Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8359412].message }}

Trending Topics