azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: No

Never. You let the market correct itself. The Government should never interfere in the free-market unless it invades other people's rights and only to lower taxes/deregulate.We never would have these bailouts if the Federal Reserve wouldn't give these line of credits away. What's interesting to me, and people don't seem to talk about, analysts anyway, the Price Purchasing Power of the U.S. Dollars now. It amazes me that all the Stock Market Channels like CNBC or FBN never disclose how much our dollar is really worth. We can bet our bottom dollar, literally to, that our dollar will be worthless by Christmas (not that it's worth something these days).So the Federal Reserve, this year alone, has printed half a trillion dollars to bailout companies. That bailout money is not through taxpayer money, earmarks, etc. it's through creating money out of thin air.If these companies fail it would be devastating at first but time would eventually pass and, again, the market would correct itself. I agree with Peter Schiff when he said that we need a hard-line recession to people get a grasp of what is going on: "People need to spend less, save more and produce more."This is just the beginning of the economic storm. Just think about our national debt now and our monthly budget. We're not even through September and look at what we have to spend: $85 Billion AIG, $225 Billion War on Terrorism, $10 Billion to Georgia, $10 Billion to Texas (I think that's correct) and we are going to have a new war going on with Pakistan (As Obama has promised and guaranteed us).Do people even know where taxes go to anyway? Our income tax goes to pay off the interest that the Federal Reserve charges to print the money for the United States Government.Oh crap! I even forgot about the $2 billion per day we borrow from China, Japan and Saudi Arabia. Yeesh!
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

Isn't it bad enough that Al Gore wants to tax energy until we can no longer afford it to force us to conserve. Now you want a repeat of a depression which took us twenty years and a world war to recover from?And while you are figuring your doomsday budget, add in $25B to Detroit. Meanwhile I haven't seen you complaining for the last decade about spending $175B annually to promote home ownership. I didn't see you complaining when the Bush administration led a movement for reform of GSE oversight which was squashed by a Dodd/Frank led torpedo job two years before this mess came to national attention. All of the problems are caused by a liquidity crunch and the US govt is the least constrained player in the game. They are buying time, yes at risk to themselves, but not indiscriminately and not without a reasonable expectation that time is all needed to out last the liquidity troubles. Debt markets have to adjust, media sky is falling pronouncements have to stop spooking everyone and everyone just needs to hold on by their fingernails until the worst is past. This is not without risk but it is reasonable. In my opinion of course, as always
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

"Isn't it bad enough that Al Gore wants to tax energy until we can no longer afford it to force us to conserve."That's not what the goal is at all."I didn't see you complaining when the Bush administration led a movement for reform of GSE oversight which was squashed by a Dodd/Frank led torpedo job two years before this mess came to national attention."Wrong again, the GOP had complete control of BOTH the White House AND Congress for almost 6 years, and they failed to do anything. In fact, their buddy Alan Greenspan encouraged ARMs very heavily!
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: No

The problem with this country is that we are hypocritical. We hold the world to a higher standard. Letting a private company fail shows we eat our own dog food, we follow what we preach. Bailing out a private company makes us (dare I say it) Socialist! And I don't want to be a Socialist. I'm barely social. With CD, I wouldn't be social at all ;)
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: No

In bailing out banks the claim is that a financial disaster will be prevented. This isn't true. The debt held by these banks has to go somewhere, it doesn't just disappear. The choice was that either a terrible economic disaster happens now, or that that disaster is put off, multiplied, and left to grow. Letting AIG go bankrupt would, of course,have caused a massive collapse, a 'tsunami.' Yes, this would suck. It would have been very damaging. But now the US government owns AIG's debt.... and Fannie and Freddie's debt... and A LOT more debt besides. What the Fed effectively is doing is bankrupting the US Government instead of the Banks! The effect of the US govt. declaring bankruptcy would be huge in comparison to AIG or anyone else's collapse. The buck has been passed. A coming disaster has NOT been averted. The US has stepped out of the way of an oncoming car into the path of a Locomotive. The world can deal with the failure of the banking system. The pieces can be picked up, and eventually within perhaps 20 to 30 years the world can move on. But if the US collapses who knows? The most powerful country in the world with the biggest army and one of the biggest populations... collapsing? Who knows what havoc this might create. Forget about a 20 to 30 year recovery - the world, and the US, would never be the same.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

There are a lot of fallacies in your post. First, you don't know the bailout will create a disaster down the road any more than I know for sure it will prevent one. The AIG transaction specifically was set up as a bridge loan. The huge problem right now is a constipation in the credit colon. Liquidity is essentially non existent. If the bailouts buy time and the liquidity crisis eases, everything is fine. We did not take on AIG debt as I understand it. We provided a bridge loan and were securitized by 80% of the company's equity. This was done to provide time to avoid/delay bankruptcy and/or allow an organized sale of some or all of the assets of the firm. The AIG deal as I understand it is not a federal assumption or guarantee of debt.The US has much more liquidity than these companies. While it is fashionable and flamboyant and perhaps effective to make dire predictions of the impending bankruptcy of the federal govt, it is just a lot of sizzle with no steak. As Alexander Hamilton predicted, a responsible debt is a national treasure. We can talk forever about what constitutes "responsible".The world has survived the collapse of dinosaurs, Babylon, Alexander the Great's Hellenistic empire, Rome, the British Empire, Genghis Khan's empire, the Ice Age (the movie AND the event) is surviving AL Gore's Global Warning scam and more. It will survive this.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

let me count the ways in which you are wrong...First, the fed banks an 11% interest on that short-term AIG loan. PLus they own 79% of aig shares at a dirt cheap price. AIG will sell some assets, pay the Fed back, and then their share price will move higher.The Fed sells their shares of AIG and make out huge. This disaster you speak of, you have no idea just how bad it could be. It's easy for most people to say we need the disaster because they never went through the Great Depression. Ask anyone alive in those days if the world should ever see a time like that again and you'll get a resounding "no".The US government will notgo bankrupt. you can count on that. And in five to ten years, when you look back you'll notice that tax payers may have even made money from these events.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: No

I don't mean to take offense to those on the other side of this debate but the notion that anyone would, with a straight face, advocate spending taxpayer dollars on a private company is so offensive to me it's just unconscionable. So in a sense what your saying is that we should privatize profits while socializing losses. Is that how I am to understand the opposition on this issue.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

I don't think any of the ceos or chiefs of the company's taken over should have any benefit.But i think the consequence of not doing some of these bailouts is far far worse than anyone can imagine.And in fact, would be worse to the taxpayer should they opt for the route you suggest.What would you rather see.. some greedy guys make out ok. or another great depression? Think about how a depression would impact you, and the people you love. And then tell me what would have been better.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

"but the notion that anyone would, with a straight face, advocate spending taxpayer dollars on a private company is so offensive to me it's just unconscionable."So, when should we stop giving hundreds & hundreds of billions of dollars annually to the "defense" industry?? ;)One of the big laughs that I got when the original TARP stuff was being debated was my Congressman's accusation that "it wasn't paid for". After I pointed out to him that Congress had just passed a ONE YEAR budget appropriation of over $600 Billion on "defense", which wasn't paid for at all, he changed his mind. Some of the TARP money has already been paid back, with interest.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: No

Of course not. These companies knew what they were doing, especially the lending agencies. They give people loans they know they'll have to foreclose on, just to increase their market value. CEOs and large stock holders make quick huge prophets while people (who were dumb and naive to take out a loan they really couldn't pay but were in large part tricked into taking out) lose their homes. Then when the bubble pops, they go asking government for a handout. You know what's going to happen when they're bailed out? In five to ten years they'll do the same thing again and we'll all have forgotten what happened last time. Problem is, the CEO's aren't held responsible, they still get their paychecks and bonuses. There's no responsibility accept what's passed to tax payers. It's disturbing, unfair, and yes Borme is right, the worst kind of socialism. (as apposed to the good kind like universal healthcare)
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

all the companies put under conservatorship saw their ceo's kicked out.also, the ceos for freddie and fannie were even denied their "exit" package.It's the ceos fault as much as the governments for not properly regulating. thus this is a failure of not just private industry, but the government as well.Also, the stockholders lose their ass. it's the bondholders (you know, foreign government, pension funds across the us, etc..) that get saved.Now imagine if every pension fund in america suddenly took a huge hit, and people weren't able to access their retirements again? what kind of mess would that cause?Just to clarify, i think these ceo's should go to jail. that's how upset i am with them. and i am also upset that this is what has to happen. But i dont want to see a great depression. i dont want to see how it would destroy familes and lives. i dont want to see how badly the world would be screwed if it happened.it's easy to say we shouldn't do this, but to deal with the great depression instead is far, far worse.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: No

what do you want them to go to jail for? The games played, like mark to market tricks and related bookkeeping aren't illegal. Shorting and speculating isn't illegal. Responding to greedy people too stupid to know if it smells too good to be true it probably isn't or that there is no way to buy a house you cant afford without it biting you in the butt eventually isn't illegal. Stupidity is endemic. We cant legislate against it and can't afford to protect people from it.Unless you are ready to jail people for being too stupid to be allowed to breed, how do you jail CEOs for taking advantage of stupidity within the law? Outlaw intelligence to even the playing field? I think Heinlein wrote a short story about that. What's next? Jailing credit card issuers because they should tell people not to use the credit cards? Home builders for not telling potential buyers they can't afford their houses? Should WalMart run a credit report to see if you can afford that DVD before selling it to you? At some point people just plain need to take responsibility for their own actions.The loans people now say are so bad are PERFECT for me and I use them totally responsibly. I make my money in large chunks, similarly to a salesman on commission, not regularly. I bought a condo and did a no doc, interest only loan. I have two years left until the rate adjusts and have already reduced the principle by 25% and I put down 25%. Just the nature of my cash flow. Now that loan won't be available to me because some idiots misused it. There is nothing wrong with the loans when used appropriately. It will likely adjust upwards, The property has been rented out since I bought it. and by the time it rents upwards after 5 years, I will likely have paid it down by a third. Even with depreciation of value, it will be a safe, conservative loan. I understood what I was signing. I listened to the part about the downside, not just how it would let me buy the house I knew damn well I couldn't afford. I am not saying that some mortgage agents didn't push products to customers they shouldn't have. But I don't believe that any buyer/borrower didn't know when they were taking a risk to buy something they couldn't afford.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

"hat do you want them to go to jail for? The games played, like mark to market tricks and related bookkeeping aren't illegal. Shorting and speculating isn't illegal. Responding to greedy people too stupid to know if it smells too good to be true it probably isn't or that there is no way to buy a house you cant afford without it biting you in the butt eventually isn't illegal. Stupidity is endemic. We cant legislate against it and can't afford to protect people from it."MY TAKE: How about for blatant fraud? everyday they go on cnn talking about how they have "sufficient liquidity" then two days later, they go bankrupt. So, you're telling me the ceo didn't just completely lie in what he said? So you think it was fine for banks to issue loans to people who didn't prove their income? Or how about to less than credit worthy borrowers on adjustable rate mortgages? These banks didn't think of the repercussions and consequences. And the consequence is the entire economy, on the brink of collapse. You don't think somebody should be held responsible? It's about time corporate America realized there are consequences when you have that much power.You seem like a very responsible guy. That's great that the loan worked perfectly for you. But enough of America isn't like you, to the point where these assets are being written off. Who's fault is it? it's the banks! they loaned the money and knew there was alot of risk. and because of their mistake, the economy is in the crapper.Banks aren't supposed to take on risk. It was the Fed's fault for not better regulating that.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: Socialism at its finest

No, it's the beginning of "Corporate Socialism..."
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: Necessary in this case

That is a nonsensical, complete made up phrase that means absolutely nothing, period.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: Tell Congress NO to Bail Out

No. We should let the market correct itself. I know that the "Old Money" of our country is facing a new era. They will have to find a job. What a concept. We the people, taxpayers and the people who live the life of the great United States of America don't need to bear the weight of the elite. The high society of America doesn't even regard the common american as a even partner. That is, until we allow the Democratic Congress to spend our money to save their isolated lives. Give it up. Become American. That means sacrifice. We are Americans. All for one and one for all. Let the Wall Street companies and the failed banks drop like a rock. We will clean up. We will rebuild. On our terms. Call your congressional representatives and senator to let them know that Wall Street is on their own. No Bail Out.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

What you are describing is communism. You don't live in the same America that I do apparently.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: No

NO!Why should we reward inefficiency, blatant thievery, and exploitation?Companies are supposed to ADAPT to changing situations, if the demand is no longer there then they should change tactics, I see no debate in this.Giving the money only delays the inevitable, it doesn't fix anything! It just STEALS taxpayer money in order to maintain already too lavish executive lifestyles.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: Tell Congress NO to Bail Out

I think we began to see socialism creep into our country when we saw our "little league sports" go to NOBODY loses and EVERYBODY is a winner; What a shame!There should be winners and losers based on how well one prepares and executes. This holds true whether it is little league sports team or a company. Having everyone get rewards whether they properly prepare and execute OR NOT just kills productivity and the incentive to DO BETTER.Tell me what is wrong with having LOSERS?Let's go back to letting people and companies being REWARDED or PERSECUTED based on PERFORMANCE!
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: No

We are a country founded on democratic principles where our Representatives are elected by the people to represent the people. Our representatives voted to NOT bail out the automakers and now our President, who has spent our money like a drunken sailor, is going to cough up some of our money from somewhere to bail out the automakers. What kind of democracy is this?When Obama and Obiden take office it is going to get even worse. What do we have to do to get this country back to a democracy and stop this slide into socialism?What will be next: Seizure of ALL retirement assets from us to bail out more of the failing companies?How can we convince other countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to become a democracy when we are a democracy heading for socialism? Already, many of our children do not want to work. They just want to "hang out" and have fun at someone else's expense.I am tired of our government spending my money for these failing companies. Let them fail, we will survive if the people can get control of the country once again!
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: No

I agree with you 100%. I just have to correct you on one thing. The U.S. is not a democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. I have looked up what the difference is about both of them. Both seem to really kind of be the same. But, I do know that it is what was coined when this Government was established.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: No

Of course not, and here's why:Only big companies that should be strong and smart enough to sustain themselves are important enough to be bailed out, which makes it OK to irresponsibly run your company into the ground, knowing that the government will come help you when you really need it. The little companies that are constantly starting and failing never get a bailout, and the big companies do. How will small companies eventually rise to greatness if there is no chance that a large company will ever fail? The opportunities that small companies have to grow, large companies becoming weak, will become few and far between if the large companies are protected like this.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: No

Bailing out private companies are like getting Rob by US (retarded) government and give it to groups of people that lives on people's back of 0 productivity. If they fail, then they have bad business management. Why should citizen suffer the failure of companies that CEOs of these companies are making bank. Why should be spoil the people who got the idea of buying houses and you can live for free. Why should we stop giant money hungry company from getting the slap in the face when they made bad investment move. DO YOU PEOPLE WANTS TO PAY HIGHER ELECTRIC BILL WHEN DWP FAIL TO MANAGE AND HAD TO JACK UP THE BILL TO COVER THEIR MISTAKES? If people will be out of job, maybe they need to be creative about business. Maybe we need to open Alaska for rent. Maybe we all need to learn how to make our product more attractive for exports.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: No

absolutely not. The company is an enterprise engaged in profit and LOSS. If it is protected from loss, by socializing it (taxing the people), it will continue to be mismanaged and become an even bigger black hole, sucking in ever more money.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: No

If it is a private company, I do not agree with money from taxpayers to help out such a company.
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: Free Market

no, the only problem is the government butt rapes CEOs already with extreme taxing (and wealth redistribution) that right now it's only fair (and probably not even enough) that corporations can get bail outs.but i believe in a truly capitalist society where the government stops ass raping everyone with taxes and "ZOMG, WE GOTS TO HELP THE POOR GUYS".
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: yes

Only the most far Right-winger would call more progressive taxation on the very rich "butt/ass raping"...ugh...BTW, governments have existed to redistribute wealth ever since the Roman Republic...look it up sometime...
Debate: Should taxpayer dollars be used to bail out a private company?
Side: No

Being against wealth redistribution HAS to be the opinion of only a FAR right winger?I can only presume that you're just a troll. no one can be that stupid.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Sony may have better graphics, but Nintendo has better games that are more fun to play. Nintendo has created the best games of all time: Super Mario Bros, The Legend of Zelda, Donkey Kong, to name a few.Also if you compare only wii, and ps3 sales you can clearly see who is the winner thereNintendo's core business is gaming.. that is what they do best. Sony on the other hand should stick to making TVs or something.