Steve Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 Been saying for some time the states are largely vassel states to the feds. A lot of what used to be the sole responsibility of the states(and local government) are now directly or indirectly the function of the federal government. Education is seen as a federal issue. Presidents are asked what they are going to do about the quality of education from Kindergarten to college. Schools have to conform to federal guidelines to get money like 'No Child Left Behind'. Roads and highways, etc, are pretty much federally funded. Even local law enforcement. What the feds have to do with a city's police force is beyond me. The transformation happened under Clinton with the program of adding 100k policemen. Crime was an issue at the time. Fair enough, I agree. So, why are the presidential candidates being asked what they are going to do about crime in your neighborhood? Why isn't your mayor and to a lesser extent your governnor not the one to be asked? Why? Everyone realized back then what we know now. State and local governments are impotent. They have run the cities and states into the ground. Now health care is a federal function. States were all about state rights, now they beg the federal government to get involved. The states have pretty much handed over power to the federal government because they know they can't do it. They've known for a while now. So, what are the pros and cons of this proposal I ask you all? Overall, does the average person and families come out better if this is passed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizardKing Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 The Newtster: proposing increasingly stupid ideas for nearly 20 years! What a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted January 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 From what I can see, the only wat for some states to survive is to file bankruptcy. The right surely don't want the states to be bailed out so what other alternative is there? If some states should file bankruptcy, it will hurt a lot of people who retired from the state governments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rchapstick Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 So, what are the pros and cons of this proposal I ask you all? Overall, does the average person and families come out better if this is passed? What can and will actually happen in a bankruptcy reorganization is anyones guess, but some people are gonna get screwed, like: Bondholders: Getting paid X% on the dollar Retirees: Good luck with those "promised pensions" Employees: See retirees, and your current labor contracts go out the window. Taxpayers: Taxes certainly would not go down, and a bankruptcy judge could, as part of reorganization settlement, require increase in taxes. Vendors: Getting X% on the dollar for outstanding receivables, plus expect contract rates to get renegotiated down. Etc. It also damages an entity's ability to conduct business in the future. Screwed vendors won't want to do business with the state in the future, costs of borrowing will go up, ergo costs will go up, placing a further burden on the taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Could this be some sort of consitional issue? Either on some of the state's own consitition or the federal one? If states are allowed to go into bankruptcy, in theory a bankruptcy judge could run the state to some degree and the voters have no say. If states are allowed to file BK, then I would presume the interest rate on future bond issues would have to be considerably higher since bondholders would have an inreased risk of not getting their money. Also, how often can they file? What if in 10 years after a BK a state finds itself in a similar predicament and feels it has to go BK again? Also, I can see the threat of a BK as a way to break state unions and contracts. Depending on what part of the political scale you belong to its either a good thing or a bad thing. So, it seems like NO retirement package is safe now. Perhaps federal government and that's it. I wouldn't be too confident in that if the states can file. Even though I can't see the federal goverment being able to file a BK, I can see where they will try and have the benefits of a BK without filing. Benefits such as pensions, etc. being reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 Maybe the federal government will declare bankruptcy, cancel the national debt and start over again. Problems is it would take the feds about one week to get right back into debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.