OT: Estimated state budget deficit reaches $25.4 billion

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=paramount]
BGIG: I’m thinking of a multi-syllable word that describes you perfectly and rhymes with troll. Can you guess what it is? If not, send me a PM and I’ll give you the answer.[/quote]

Incredible? But seriously though, where did you get the idea that all of California’s bonds would become immediately payable-in-full if California were to declare bankruptcy?

[LuckyInOC]

I could be wrong, but the following from 11 USC 101 says a governmental unit (it doesn’t exclude states) for the purposes of loans and pensions may be considered a ‘person’ and therefore can file bankruptcy. A municipality, as defined below, is a subdivision of a state but different then a ‘governmental unit’.

“(41) The term “person” includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but does not include governmental unit, except that a governmental unit that–
(A) acquires an asset from a person–
(i) as a result of the operation of a loan guarantee agreement; or
(ii) as receiver or liquidating agent of a person;
(B) is a guarantor of a pension benefit payable by or on behalf of the debtor or an affiliate of the debtor; or
(C) is the legal or beneficial owner of an asset of–
(i) an employee pension benefit plan that is a governmental plan, as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(ii) an eligible deferred compensation plan, as defined in section 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

shall be considered, for purposes of section 1102 of this title, to be a person with respect to such asset or such benefit.”

“(40) The term “municipality” means political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State.”

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

I could be wrong, but the following from 11 USC 101 says a governmental unit (it doesn’t exclude states) for the purposes of loans and pensions may be considered a ‘person’ and therefore can file bankruptcy. A municipality, as defined below, is a subdivision of a state but different then a ‘governmental unit’.

“(41) The term “person” includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but does not include governmental unit, except that a governmental unit that–
(A) acquires an asset from a person–
(i) as a result of the operation of a loan guarantee agreement; or
(ii) as receiver or liquidating agent of a person;
(B) is a guarantor of a pension benefit payable by or on behalf of the debtor or an affiliate of the debtor; or
(C) is the legal or beneficial owner of an asset of–
(i) an employee pension benefit plan that is a governmental plan, as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(ii) an eligible deferred compensation plan, as defined in section 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

shall be considered, for purposes of section 1102 of this title, to be a person with respect to such asset or such benefit.”

“(40) The term “municipality” means political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State.”

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

I could be wrong, but the following from 11 USC 101 says a governmental unit (it doesn’t exclude states) for the purposes of loans and pensions may be considered a ‘person’ and therefore can file bankruptcy. A municipality, as defined below, is a subdivision of a state but different then a ‘governmental unit’.

“(41) The term “person” includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but does not include governmental unit, except that a governmental unit that–
(A) acquires an asset from a person–
(i) as a result of the operation of a loan guarantee agreement; or
(ii) as receiver or liquidating agent of a person;
(B) is a guarantor of a pension benefit payable by or on behalf of the debtor or an affiliate of the debtor; or
(C) is the legal or beneficial owner of an asset of–
(i) an employee pension benefit plan that is a governmental plan, as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(ii) an eligible deferred compensation plan, as defined in section 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

shall be considered, for purposes of section 1102 of this title, to be a person with respect to such asset or such benefit.”

“(40) The term “municipality” means political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State.”

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

I could be wrong, but the following from 11 USC 101 says a governmental unit (it doesn’t exclude states) for the purposes of loans and pensions may be considered a ‘person’ and therefore can file bankruptcy. A municipality, as defined below, is a subdivision of a state but different then a ‘governmental unit’.

“(41) The term “person” includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but does not include governmental unit, except that a governmental unit that–
(A) acquires an asset from a person–
(i) as a result of the operation of a loan guarantee agreement; or
(ii) as receiver or liquidating agent of a person;
(B) is a guarantor of a pension benefit payable by or on behalf of the debtor or an affiliate of the debtor; or
(C) is the legal or beneficial owner of an asset of–
(i) an employee pension benefit plan that is a governmental plan, as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(ii) an eligible deferred compensation plan, as defined in section 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

shall be considered, for purposes of section 1102 of this title, to be a person with respect to such asset or such benefit.”

“(40) The term “municipality” means political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State.”

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

I could be wrong, but the following from 11 USC 101 says a governmental unit (it doesn’t exclude states) for the purposes of loans and pensions may be considered a ‘person’ and therefore can file bankruptcy. A municipality, as defined below, is a subdivision of a state but different then a ‘governmental unit’.

“(41) The term “person” includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but does not include governmental unit, except that a governmental unit that–
(A) acquires an asset from a person–
(i) as a result of the operation of a loan guarantee agreement; or
(ii) as receiver or liquidating agent of a person;
(B) is a guarantor of a pension benefit payable by or on behalf of the debtor or an affiliate of the debtor; or
(C) is the legal or beneficial owner of an asset of–
(i) an employee pension benefit plan that is a governmental plan, as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
(ii) an eligible deferred compensation plan, as defined in section 457(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;

shall be considered, for purposes of section 1102 of this title, to be a person with respect to such asset or such benefit.”

“(40) The term “municipality” means political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State.”

Lucky In OC

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=flu]
Yes, yes. I’m familiar with the CURRENT rules regarding only municipalities’ ability to file for the BK…BUT do you folks really believe that rules aren’t going to change? Please, have we not learned yet that government is freely changing these rules as needed? Fine line of definition between “state” and “municipality”… You think there wouldn’t be a way to redefine this, for instance, in a convenient way?[/quote]

Apparently you are not nearly as familiar as you think you are because it’s not a rule, but is the 11th Amendment that immunizes California from bankruptcy courts:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Per Article V of the U.S Constitution, amending the U.S. Constitution requires 2/3 votes in both Houses of Congress and 3/4 approval by the States.

Thanks for making us all stupider with your post and demonstrating once again that this Onion article is closer to truth than fiction:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=flu]
Yes, yes. I’m familiar with the CURRENT rules regarding only municipalities’ ability to file for the BK…BUT do you folks really believe that rules aren’t going to change? Please, have we not learned yet that government is freely changing these rules as needed? Fine line of definition between “state” and “municipality”… You think there wouldn’t be a way to redefine this, for instance, in a convenient way?[/quote]

Apparently you are not nearly as familiar as you think you are because it’s not a rule, but is the 11th Amendment that immunizes California from bankruptcy courts:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Per Article V of the U.S Constitution, amending the U.S. Constitution requires 2/3 votes in both Houses of Congress and 3/4 approval by the States.

Thanks for making us all stupider with your post and demonstrating once again that this Onion article is closer to truth than fiction:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=flu]
Yes, yes. I’m familiar with the CURRENT rules regarding only municipalities’ ability to file for the BK…BUT do you folks really believe that rules aren’t going to change? Please, have we not learned yet that government is freely changing these rules as needed? Fine line of definition between “state” and “municipality”… You think there wouldn’t be a way to redefine this, for instance, in a convenient way?[/quote]

Apparently you are not nearly as familiar as you think you are because it’s not a rule, but is the 11th Amendment that immunizes California from bankruptcy courts:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Per Article V of the U.S Constitution, amending the U.S. Constitution requires 2/3 votes in both Houses of Congress and 3/4 approval by the States.

Thanks for making us all stupider with your post and demonstrating once again that this Onion article is closer to truth than fiction:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=flu]
Yes, yes. I’m familiar with the CURRENT rules regarding only municipalities’ ability to file for the BK…BUT do you folks really believe that rules aren’t going to change? Please, have we not learned yet that government is freely changing these rules as needed? Fine line of definition between “state” and “municipality”… You think there wouldn’t be a way to redefine this, for instance, in a convenient way?[/quote]

Apparently you are not nearly as familiar as you think you are because it’s not a rule, but is the 11th Amendment that immunizes California from bankruptcy courts:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Per Article V of the U.S Constitution, amending the U.S. Constitution requires 2/3 votes in both Houses of Congress and 3/4 approval by the States.

Thanks for making us all stupider with your post and demonstrating once again that this Onion article is closer to truth than fiction:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=flu]
Yes, yes. I’m familiar with the CURRENT rules regarding only municipalities’ ability to file for the BK…BUT do you folks really believe that rules aren’t going to change? Please, have we not learned yet that government is freely changing these rules as needed? Fine line of definition between “state” and “municipality”… You think there wouldn’t be a way to redefine this, for instance, in a convenient way?[/quote]

Apparently you are not nearly as familiar as you think you are because it’s not a rule, but is the 11th Amendment that immunizes California from bankruptcy courts:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Per Article V of the U.S Constitution, amending the U.S. Constitution requires 2/3 votes in both Houses of Congress and 3/4 approval by the States.

Thanks for making us all stupider with your post and demonstrating once again that this Onion article is closer to truth than fiction:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

[LuckyInOC]

A little more cut & paste…

PLAN INFORMATION
The plan administered by CalPERS is a “governmental plan” as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the provisions of section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 206(d) of ERISA which govern “qualified domestic relations orders.” The terms of the plan are set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), which can be found at section 20000, et seq., of the California Government Code.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xZqTtb8H0u1eP_cp_model_order_package_042808%20(2).pdf

I would think that California could declare bankruptcy in regards to pensions and bonds under Chapter 9.

This should do it… Game, Set, Match…

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

A little more cut & paste…

PLAN INFORMATION
The plan administered by CalPERS is a “governmental plan” as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the provisions of section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 206(d) of ERISA which govern “qualified domestic relations orders.” The terms of the plan are set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), which can be found at section 20000, et seq., of the California Government Code.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xZqTtb8H0u1eP_cp_model_order_package_042808%20(2).pdf

I would think that California could declare bankruptcy in regards to pensions and bonds under Chapter 9.

This should do it… Game, Set, Match…

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

A little more cut & paste…

PLAN INFORMATION
The plan administered by CalPERS is a “governmental plan” as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the provisions of section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 206(d) of ERISA which govern “qualified domestic relations orders.” The terms of the plan are set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), which can be found at section 20000, et seq., of the California Government Code.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xZqTtb8H0u1eP_cp_model_order_package_042808%20(2).pdf

I would think that California could declare bankruptcy in regards to pensions and bonds under Chapter 9.

This should do it… Game, Set, Match…

Lucky In OC

[LuckyInOC]

A little more cut & paste…

PLAN INFORMATION
The plan administered by CalPERS is a “governmental plan” as defined in section 414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and is not subject to the provisions of section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code and section 206(d) of ERISA which govern “qualified domestic relations orders.” The terms of the plan are set forth in the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (“PERL”), which can be found at section 20000, et seq., of the California Government Code.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/mss-publication/pdf/xZqTtb8H0u1eP_cp_model_order_package_042808%20(2).pdf

I would think that California could declare bankruptcy in regards to pensions and bonds under Chapter 9.

This should do it… Game, Set, Match…

Lucky In OC

[Author]

Posts