[quote=harvey][quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]We should change state laws to make easier for munipalities to go bankrupt.
BG, i thought you support Trump. He likes to renegotiate contracts when debt holders from a position of strength to force them to take pennies on the dollars. If we can force pensioners to take less, then we have more money for services. What’s not to like about that?[/quote]
Clearly, you’re not thinking things through, Brian. If we made it easier for states and municipalities to go BK, what do you think that would do to bond rates? While the shills for the capitalists would like you to think that public employees are the problem, the majority of the fraud, corruption, and graft happens between public entities and private contractors. For large projects (and for regular spending, if there’s a deficit), govt entities almost always require bond funding. IMO, this could easily end up making things worse for these govt entities, not better.[/quote]
Brian never mentioned states going bankrupt.
There’s that reading comprehension problem again.
Brian mentioned renegotiating contracts – something Trump advocates as one of his strengths – and pointed out that that BG’s support for Trump is inconsistent with her position on pension policy. A reasonable and valid observation.
In typical fashion you respond with yet another vague irrelevant accusation. You go off on some hysterical tangent about bond rates and “fraud, corruption, and graft” in contracting.
Property taxes, the fed, graft, … you’re all over the place, blaming everybody and everything for the pension crisis.
Despite your lack of focused arguments, the roots of the pension problem are simple to identify. The culprits are the actual players involved: public-sector unions and the lawmakers who receive their support.[/quote]
Once again, your reading comprehension problem is rearing its ugly head, Pri. People on this blog have been advocating for both municipalities and states to have an easier path to BK, so I was addressing the “pension crisis” issue from a broader perspective. Unlike you, I also know that it was the state employees who pushed for the enhanced benefit formulas, lower retirement ages, etc. that helped contribute to the pension problems. The municipalities had to follow because they were losing employees to the state (and counties) after spending a small fortune on recruiting and training those employees.
And, unlike you, I know that all of these issues are interrelated. Public employees are not the only ones responsible for the financial problems at the state and local levels, not by a long shot. These are problems with a long history, and there have always been (and will always be) multiple stakeholders where government spending is concerned, and there are multiple causes of the financial difficulties being experienced at all levels of government — most of them having nothing to do with public employees.
The reason Prop 13 passed (because, unlike you, I was actually living here at the time, and remember all the ads and the discussions regarding this proposition), was because people didn’t want to be taxed out of their homes; the marketing for it focused on elderly people on fixed incomes who were going to be “taxed out of their homes” if Prop 13 didn’t pass. Unfortunately, as with many propositions, people didn’t read the fine print or look at who was behind the proposition — Howard Jarvis. Who was Howard Jarvis? He was a long-time anti-government, anti-tax crusader…and he was also the president of the Apartment House Association of Los Angeles/executive director of the Los Angeles Apartment Owners Association.
Ultimately, it was business interests who were behind Prop 13. It’s these very business interests, including owners of rental properties, who should not be getting the Prop 13 subsidy. It should also not be extended to the heirs of long-time owners.
None of my points are vague or irrelevant; it’s just that you are unable to comprehend complex issues (like how the government really works, or why some people oppose immigration, etc.) because you rely on the regurgitation of spoon-fed propaganda and short, mindless memes to form the basis of your opinions.
And Brian didn’t just reference “renegotiating contracts.” He specifically mentioned bankruptcy.
Trump’s inability and/or refusal to follow through on his contractual obligations are the very reason why he’s not been able to access loans via more traditional channels (see, it all goes back to my point about bond rates and the ability to borrow). It’s also the #1 reason why intelligent people doubt his ability to successfully fulfill is duties as POTUS. Trump is a complete and utter failure (albeit a tenacious and resilient failure).
