• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Worst 20th Century President

Worst 20th Century President

  • Total voters
    112
phattonez said:
Someone always pays. This is basic economics.

"In the course of our study, also, we have rediscovered an old friend. He is the Forgotten Man of William Graham Sumner. The reader will remember that in Sumner’s essay, which appeared in 1883:

As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X suffering is, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed to remedy the evil and help X. Their law always pro- poses to determine what C shall do for X or, in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X. . . . What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the For- gotten Man. . . . He is the man who never is thought of. He is the victim of the reformer, social speculator and philanthropist, and I hope to show you before I get through that he deserves your notice both for his character and for the many burdens which are laid upon him.

It is an historic irony that when this phrase, the For- gotten Man, was revived in the nineteen thirties, it was applied, not to C, but to X ; and C, who was then being asked to support still more X’s, was more completely for- gotten than ever. It is C, the Forgotten Man, who is al- ways called upon to stanch the politician’s bleeding heart by paying for his vicarious generosity."

Read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt because you don't seem to be able to understand this simple concept.
Click to expand...

I understand it well. Chrysler was struggling and they needed a cash infusion. The government guaranteed some loans to them and they pulled out of it and thrived. It would have been much costlier had Chrysler gone belly up. It really was a good move at the time and it cost the government nothing.
And it is nothing like the Savings and Loan bailout that cost taxpayers billions. Comparing the two shows how little you know about economics.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
Yes I can see the difference, but it doesn't mean that the Chrysler bailout wasn't a waste of money.
Click to expand...

It's easy for you to say that. If you worked for chrysler and had to support your family I'll bet you would sing a different tune.

Conservatives don't seem to mind ceo's who makes a thousand dollars per hour but let a blue collar worker make a living wage then they go ballistic, like Reagan, the robin hood of the rich, did.
 
USA-1 said:
I understand it well. Chrysler was struggling and they needed a cash infusion. The government guaranteed some loans to them and they pulled out of it and thrived. It would have been much costlier had Chrysler gone belly up. It really was a good move at the time and it cost the government nothing.
And it is nothing like the Savings and Loan bailout that cost taxpayers billions. Comparing the two shows how little you know about economics.
Click to expand...

You're still ignoring other companies that couldn't get as much capital because of this. Just saying that we made a profit is not enough to show that it was the best use of that money.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
It's easy for you to say that. If you worked for chrysler and had to support your family I'll bet you would sing a different tune.
Click to expand...

And if I was an American I would want to see the economy grow as well as it possibly good so that we all become wealthier instead of seeing capital goods siphoned off to a company that is a loser.

Conservatives don't seem to mind ceo's who makes a thousand dollars per hour but let a blue collar worker make a living wage then they go ballistic, like Reagan, the robin hood of the rich, did.
Click to expand...

:spin:, it's about free choice. If you want to help people out donate to charity.
 
phattonez said:
You're still ignoring other companies that couldn't get as much capital because of this. Just saying that we made a profit is not enough to show that it was the best use of that money.
Click to expand...

You have some kind of evidence that there was a shortage of capital at the time?
 
USA-1 said:
I understand it well. Chrysler was struggling and they needed a cash infusion.
Click to expand...

Their legal options:

1) find a BANK to loan them money.
2) Issue new stock.
3) Sell Assets
4) Cut expenses

Their illegal option was:

samsmart said:
The government guaranteed some loans to them
Click to expand...

Cite the Article and clause of the Constitution that allows the United States government to make loans to private business.

Oh, wait, don't bother, you can't do that. It's not there.

samsmart said:
It would have been much costlier had Chrysler gone belly up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for Chrysler stockholders and UAW goonion members.

But in free markets, these things happen, the market adjusts, and in the end things work out just fine. Especially for the people who pay taxes but don't own Chrysler stock.

I note that no one taxpyer who paid taxes was issued a Chrysler refund check to pay him back. Oh, no. The governemnt got paid, not the taxpayer whose money was put at risk.

If a taxpayer wanted to risk his money in Chrysler or now, Government Motors, he had all the freedom he needed to buy Chrysler stock.

USA-1 said:
It really was a good move at the time and it cost the government nothing.
Click to expand...

No, violating the laws of the free market is never a good move.

Also, it cost the citizens who owned stock in Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc the gains their investments would have made. That hurt a huge number of people.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Conservatives don't seem to mind ceo's who makes a thousand dollars per hour but let a blue collar worker make a living wage then they go ballistic, like Reagan, the robin hood of the rich, did.
Click to expand...

Do you have the mental capacity to understand that a CEO is paid with company bucks, a government handout is done with taxpayer bucks?

This question requires an answer having either two or three letters only.
 
phattonez said:
And if I was an American I would want to see the economy grow as well as it possibly good so that we all become wealthier instead of seeing capital goods siphoned off to a company that is a loser.



:spin:, it's about free choice. If you want to help people out donate to charity.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and what do people eat when they are waiting for it? The catholic church used to provide a lot of charity until they had to spend their donations defending pedofiles. Pat Robertson is a billionaire. Just think how much his personal fortune would go to helping needy people.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Cite the Article and clause of the Constitution that allows the United States government to make loans to private business.

.
Click to expand...

Cite the article and clause that states it is illegal for the government to guarantee loans to private businesses.
You can't.

While you are at it see if you can find anything about the constitutionality of government subsidies. The government handing out billions is much worse than guaranteeing a loan.
 
Last edited:
USA-1 said:
Cite the article and clause that states it is illegal for the government to guarantee loans to private businesses.

You can't.
Click to expand...

Au contraire.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If Michigan wanted to issue bonds and loan Chrysler money, fine.

The Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from doing so.
 
USA-1 said:
No. A shortage of money to loan was not the problem. The risk was.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the governmnent, without Constitutional authority can feel free to risk taxpayer's money whenever it wants for any private enterprise with the political clout to swing it, and that's okay with you, is it?

Guess what?

The government guaranteeing loans that go bad is EXACTLY why the economy went to **** in 2008.

Not a good idea, that.

People who take risks should not be given a guarantee financed by the taxpayers. Someone who takes a mortgage and can't pay it back....should soon become a renter again. A business that can't find private funds to provide the needed cash flow....becomes the property of someone who can create the cash flow.

Welcome to how the real world works best. People who take the risk to taste the mushroom first sometimes live to tell how wonderful it tasted. People who don't take the risk of eating the strange 'shroom shouldn't be requierd to bleed for those that do.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, so the governmnent, without Constitutional authority can feel free to risk taxpayer's money whenever it wants for any private enterprise with the political clout to swing it, and that's okay with you, is it?

.
Click to expand...

Did you find in the constitution where the government is not allowed to make a loan guarantee?

The Chrysler guaranteed loan bailout was nothing compared to Reagan's $160 billion Savings and loan bailout or Bush's $700 billion Wall St bailout. Your outrage is misdirected and bordering on ridiculous
 
USA-1 said:
Did you find in the constitution where the government is not allowed to make a loan guarantee?

The Chrysler guaranteed loan bailout was nothing compared to Reagan's $160 billion Savings and loan bailout or Bush's $700 billion Wall St bailout. Your outrage is misdirected and bordering on ridiculous
Click to expand...

He told you! The 10th amendment! If it's not specifically listed, then the federal government cannot do it. And who here has been defending Reagan's actions?!
 
phattonez said:
He told you! The 10th amendment! If it's not specifically listed, then the federal government cannot do it. And who here has been defending Reagan's actions?!
Click to expand...

Sorry to pick details, but it doesn't say "specifically listed." Implied powers, a concept which goes back to the founding fathers, still count. Notice it doesn't say "explicit" like the AOC did, if I remember correctly.
 
The argument is that the gipper was the worst president? Even with Carter to compare him with?
 
USA-1 said:
Cite the article and clause that states it is illegal for the government to guarantee loans to private businesses.
You can't.

While you are at it see if you can find anything about the constitutionality of government subsidies. The government handing out billions is much worse than guaranteeing a loan.
Click to expand...

Your argument is that the collection of powers and people implementing them (Government) has all rights that are not expressly forbidden them? You are confusing the political structure of the united states with one that does not exist. You believe that the U.S. operates under a Democracy, in which the majority rules; Instead of what it is, a Republic, the rule of law.

The government of the U.S. is authorised certain powers by the people thru the constatation. If it is not in the constatation, it is not a law, it is not a power government has and is illegal.
 
Last edited:
phattonez said:
He told you! The 10th amendment! If it's not specifically listed, then the federal government cannot do it. And who here has been defending Reagan's actions?!
Click to expand...

The 9th and the 10th amendments have never been tested much in the supreme court. If you read some of the cases in the supreme court pertaining to them then you will find that they are mostly gibberish and double talk.

The court is afraid to go there.

One thing for sure. The Federal government trumps local governments. No matter what.

Look at the medical marijuana issue as an example.
 
Io0011 said:
Your argument is that the collection of powers and people implementing them (Government) has all rights that are not expressly forbidden them? You are confusing the political structure of the united states with one that does not exist. You believe that the U.S. operates under a Democracy, in which the majority rules; Instead of what it is, a Republic, the rule of law.

The government of the U.S. is authorised certain powers by the people thru the constatation. If it is not in the constatation, it is not a law, it is not a power government has and is illegal.
Click to expand...

What is the constatation? You seem to be confused.
The words "general welfare" in the Preamble is so vague that it gives almost unlimited power to the federal government. The government can do what it wants if it believes it is for the general welfare of the nation. Pretty much all the bailouts are covered under this. All social programs and almost everything the government does. The founding fathers should have been more specific and we would not be in the mess we are now.
 
Io0011 said:
The argument is that the gipper was the worst president? Even with Carter to compare him with?
Click to expand...

No, the argument is if the first Chrysler bailout which cost taxpayers nothing was worse than the savings and loan bailout which cost the taxpayers $180 billion.
Carter and Reagan were about equally bad as presidents.
 
USA-1 said:
Did you find in the constitution where the government is not allowed to make a loan guarantee?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

USA-1 said:
The Chrysler guaranteed loan bailout was nothing compared to Reagan's $160 billion Savings and loan bailout or Bush's $700 billion Wall St bailout. Your outrage is misdirected and bordering on ridiculous
Click to expand...

You mean the S&L Bailout necessitated by acts from the Keating Five or that the Federal government had no business bailing them out then, either, and the Wall Street Bailout that Bush shouldn't have done?

Good strawmen you have there. Why you want to pretend I espouse those positions, when it's clear I do not, is a mystery, but maybe you can only win arguments with yourself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom