2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum'No Bailout': Senators look to pre-empt U.S. aid to Detroit
Source: Reuters
By Lisa Lambert
WASHINGTON | Thu Jul 25, 2013 4:44pm EDT
(Reuters) - Republicans in the Senate want to make sure the federal government does not become involved in the financial maelstrom hitting Detroit, which filed for the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history last week.
They have proposed at least three "No Bailout" amendments to spending bills that the Senate is currently considering, all of which would limit the U.S. government's ability to help cities in fiscal crisis.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, on Thursday introduced an amendment to a financial services and general spending bill that would bar the use of federal funds to buy or guarantee a municipal asset or obligation from a locality that has defaulted or is at risk of defaulting.
It also would prohibit the U.S. government from issuing lines of credit to those municipalities or providing other aid to prevent bankruptcy.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/25/us-usa-detroit-congress-idUSBRE96O1DO20130725
jmowreader
(50,560 posts)One of the things that killed Detroit is also one of the things that killed the banks: derivatives. If we can bail out the banks we can bail out Detroit.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,416 posts)Terrified of the political consequences of helping people!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Everything must go! Privatize privatize privatize....
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)During the Housing fix discussions, President Obama (and just about every economist) was talking about helping the American people through principal reduction?
All you heard from the right was how horrible the idea was because of the Moral Hazard
a contract is a contract
what would stop everyone from stop paying their mortgages just to get the reduction?
Well, Pension contract are contracts, too. Why no cries about the moral hazard of every city using their pension liability to break those contracts
just like they want to do in D-town?
Igel
(35,320 posts)And lots of pepole did.
So everybody's being consistent. Rather unusual, if you ask me.
One small difference is that many of those who were insolvent or very nearly so went with bankruptcy; probably more should have. "Principal reduction" was a funny kind of thing. When pushed to argue for it, the people it would help were those who were slowly running into the conditions that would lead to bankruptcy except that bankruptcy would hurt their credit and be stressful on them.
But most of the people principal reduction would have helped never actually faced bankruptcy--they were just underwater, having paid the house's previous owners too much in hindsight and on the hook with the banks. In many cases those owners are no longer under water, and if they'd had their principal reduced and sold their houses now it would be a mess to untangle how they'd reimburse the banks or the government for their windfall profits.