New NY State License Plate Revealed—And Required On All Cars
Access-A-Ride Renders Bike Lane Inaccessible
Cops: Fort Greene Violence Sparked By Chicken Wing Promotion
The UWS Gets Its Very Own Apple Store
64 Things Restaurant Patrons Must NEVER Do
The death of President Ford earlier this week is a reminder of some of New York City's darkest days --namely its flirtation with bankruptcy in 1975. How close was the city to declaring itself insolvent? Very close. Mayor Abe Beame had a statement typed and ready to release on October 17th that read, in part, "...the City of New York has insufficient cash on hand to meet debt obligations due today..." As reported in the Times today the statement went on to prioritize which services the city would pay for, with police, fire, sanitation and public health services leading the list.
The statement was never issued because Albert Shanker of the teachers' union supplied money from the union's pension fund to by municipal bonds. Manufacturers Hanover was told to remain open late while the city put together the union's pension fund payment along with other money to pay off short-term debt due that day. It was two weeks later that President Ford said he would not bail out the city in a speech that resulted in the Daily News' famous headline.
A Time magazine article from that time period pointed to a federal study that indicated that 100 of the country's banks had invested half or more of their capital in New York City bonds and other obligations. If the city had defaulted on its payments those banks would have been in serious trouble and the shock would have spread throughout the country's economy.
In remembering Gerald Ford, the Daily News tries to clear up several myths about the 38th president. In short, he wasn't friends with Nixon or Reagan (he really disliked the latter), wasn't clumsy, and wasn't an amiable airhead.
Daily News front page by Triborough via Flickr.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"by municipal bonds"
Good work Gothamist, keep up the fine writing and editing.
I didn't think much of Ford during the time he was in office, but looking back today and being able to compare him with today's idiot-in-chief, I was much too harsh those 30 years ago. He was a good man. I doubt many will be able to say the same of Dubya 30 years from today.
Brightliner again proving that he/she can't go 20 seconds without bashing the President. You're tiresome and an embarrassment to the left. Try exercising you brain and being constructive - an concept John Edwards endorsed the other day. I liked it better 30 years ago when people like you wandered the streets muttering to themselves instead of finding likeminded idiots on the internet to rant with.
Spoken like an anonymous coward unwilling to use a consistent nickname, simply because you're too ashamed of your views to let them all be assembled under one umbrella. Pray tell, what "constructive" purpose did your own comment serve? But soft, are those crickets chirping? I also love the way losers like you (probably all the same loser hiding behind different nyms to make yourself seem like a group, since no real group would have you) keep accusing me of constant exaggeration then back it up with such "unexaggerated" claims like "can't go 20 seconds." Yeah, you do wonders for your own credibility there.
Yeah Brightliner, hurl insults like you always do. My anonymity is irrelevent. You're a broken record. I wish you saw John Edwards on Hardball last week. He called people like you useless. You sit around and talk a big game but you don't make the world any better. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF MY COMMENT. Idiot.
Here's a New Year's Resolution for you. Get a life.
According to Bob Woodward and recordings and letters unreleased until Ford's death, Ford and Nixon actually were quite close and remained so. Of course the News doesn't source any of their supposed mythbusting, but this one appears to be wrong. Woodward's articles in the past few days detail Nixon's faith in Ford, a trust that was returned despite the obvious and inevitable qualms about Nixon's behavior.
By the way, the only thing worse than a troll is the person feeding the troll. It performs the identical function of ruining the signal to noise ratio.
It's a laugh how we "romanticize" peoples' lives when they die. Most of the country was PISSED Ford pardoned Tricky Dick and there was hardly a mention of his insistence eastern Europe wasn't under Soviet domination. He begat the charismatic (read:toothy grin) Jimmy Carter. Ford's presidency was marked by catatonia but that's almost what we wanted after Nixon. Ford= another dead prez
When the President can go 20 seconds without doing or saying something stupid, then the American people will go 20 seconds without criticizing him.
Now that that's out of the way...
Ford was a good man. I read the News piece, it was a good one, clearing up the fact that he was really a natural athlete (he skied, golfed, and swam daily). He could take a joke and do his job. He was a common-sense Republican at a time when such creatures were starting to go extict. And, as Newsweek pointed out, if he had won in '76, Ford believed the so-called "conservative revolution" might never have happened. I, for one, believe he was right.
Requiat en pace...
Wow, somebody sure has an inflated sense of him or herself and no sense of irony. "You need to learn to not hurl insults. Idiot." Delicious irony. John Edwards called people like me useless? What exactly have you done to make the world better other than calling someone an idiot here? Mm hmm. Didn't think there was anything there. And shouting with all caps, too. Definitely means you have a good point. You love Dubya. We get it. Like it or not, you're in a shrinking minority. Even many die-hard Republicans have realized that he refuses to admit he's wrong in the face of the biggest foreign policy debacle in decades. Only the most dogmatic or perhaps, to borrow your description, "idiotic" supporters remain. Heck, give him another two years and he may match Nixon's lowest rating.
Get a life? Sounds like the doctor should take his own prescription.
Brightliner. You don't get it. I don't love Bush. Why is that your fall back claim to anyone that finds you tiresome. If there is any irony here it is that people like you like to say that current Republican leadership likes to oversimply everything into black and white, right and wrong. You're doing the exact same thing. I have said absoutely nothing to allow you to draw the conclusion that I support George Bush. In fact, I challenge you to show me why you think that. That I think your constant posts of "George Bush sucks" are repetitive, useless, and show absolutely no original thinking on your part should in no way make me a Republican and/or George Bush supporter. I have said in plain English that I simply think people like you have nothing to offer and that you actually hurt the cause of the left. How that makes me a Bush fan I would love to hear,
But then you wander aimless down your checklist of Bush faults in your last post. Iraq was a mistake? No shit, Sherlock. What does any of this have to do with Ford?
[Reagan] There you go again. [/Reagan]
Really? I defy you to find all these "constant posts." There are on average fewer than one a month about Bush from me. Any of a dozen regular posters here "bash" Bush more (Tim N. among them), but you obviously don't care. You're more interested in your personal attacks. What does this have to do with Ford? I guess in your world, we're not allowed to compare American presidents. I guess you have no idea that Ford ended the last ill-considered campaign while Bush started one. If anyone has nothing to offer, it's you and your one-note attacks. I have a better question for you: At least I mentioned Ford in my post by making the comparison; what was your on-topic contribution? Not one blessed word. You violated Gothamist's comment policy by instantly going off-topic and attacking a poster rather than the posting. Gothamist policy says, "Good comments are rarely anonymous, because good commenters stand behind their opinions." Something you refuse to do, even using two different nyms in this one thread alone and God only knows how many others on Gothamist. You really are dense and have no credibility whatsoever.Brightliner, would you like me to keep a count for 2007? You still don't get it. This isn't a "personal" attack. a personal attack would be "you're a douche". The fact is that you tend to work in a anti-Bush rant when the thread is about other things. I guess Tim N. does too as does Brightliner. I'm pretty sure I've called them out too and I get the simpleton "Bush lover" retort.
And I'm sorry but if "today's idiot-in-chief" (your words) is what passes for sophisticated political discussion in your world then I'd rather you kept quiet. I think you are still missing the point that it isn't the content but the style of your message.