What Al Gore said Feb 23 2002...

[Gunhead]

It's a really interesting read.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020923-gore01.htm

One excerpt:

"By shifting from his early focus after September 11th on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the President has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, good will and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility. In just one year, the President has somehow squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network - - much as we manage to squander in one year's time the largest budget surpluses in history and convert them into massive fiscal deficits. He has compounded this by asserting a new doctrine - - of preemption."

Lotsa more there.

It's interesting that 50+ % of US voters voted for him (back at the last Prez elections).

Hey, he invented the Internet, after all ;-P

***

And after all, I tend to agree with him on the Iraq issue.

 

[DemoCoder]

Well, I agree with him on the squandering of good will part, but he can't pin the budget deficit on Bush. NASDAQ crashed in April 2000, and GDP has been declining every quarter since then. This lead to a massive reduction of tax revenues. The tax cuts are really a small pie of the pie (they didn't even kick in until 2002), compared to the changes in tax revenues due to recession.

Moreover, you can just look at the State budget deficits in all 50 states. How come all of these state and local governments went from surplus to deficit? Think they all passed massive tax cuts too?

The deficit is the result of massive spending increases that happened during the boom 90s. State government coffers will filling up with money and they couldn't find enough things to spend it on. In the city I live in, the government created billion dollar public construction projects. After the boom crashed, states were left with an incredible reduction of their tax revenues, and large deficits.


Think of it this way. The US has a $10 trillion economy. If the GDP grows 1.5% per quarter, then over 4 years, it's another $2.6 trillion. Let's say the government takes roughly 16% of this gain (about what they take today), that's $400 billion in tax revenues. Now, if we have a recession, $400 billion disappears instantly. Bush's tax cut over 10 years was roughly proportional to what the GDP gain was going to be. If the economy hadn't gone into recession, there would have been no deficit (even counting new spending increases after 9/11).

I agree that the cuts have to be scaled back now that we are in recession, but you can't pin the recession on the president in office, nor the recovery. The recession is the result of 10 years of consumers and industry going on a spending binge. Now both consumers and companies have to cut back their spending, pay off their debt, which reduces demand, and until people get rid of their debt, they aren't going to be buying like crazy.

Tax cuts for the middle class at this point, amount to servicing revolving consumer debt. No government economic magic tinkering is going to fix this. It just takes time. Even if the market comes back, and consumer confidence returns, people's income/debt ratios are still to high to stage a return to the 90s era binge consumer spending.


I wish people would dispense with this notion that the president "creates jobs" and fixes the economy. Government programs can help those who are hurting, but the economy is like the weather, and trying to control it, is like trying to control a hurricane. You might be able to lesson or ameliorate the effects, but you really don't have a lot of control.

Ironically, we spent decades trying to defeat Marxism and the idea that you can centrally plan economies, yet US presidents still think they can manipulate things deterministically with "stimulus" packages and tax cuts.

The sad fact is, most of the "stimulus" activities take so long to get through Congress that by the time they are passed, the recession is usually over anyway, and they only serve to push up inflation.

 

[RussSchultz]

Oh yeah, and %50+ didn't vote for Gore either. Neither one of them would have been elected by a majority of the popular vote. (Due to Nader)

 

[jvd]

Oh yeah, and %50+ didn't vote for Gore either. Neither one of them would have been elected by a majority of the popular vote. (Due to Nader)

I voted nader

 

[epicstruggle]

too bad al gore lives in fairy land. In this fairy land the laws of presidential elections are based on majority of votes. In reality we live in a country where its possible to get elected without a majority of the vote. Because of the electoral college. I hope at some time in the future Al gore wakes up and realizes he does not live in fairy land.

later,

 

[arjan de lumens]

Hmmm .. from the outside, basing presidential elections on the electoral college system rather that the popular vote does look a bit weird - it's rather unlike how it seems to be done most other places. Just wondering - how did USA end up with such a system in the first place?

And has Gore himself (as opposed to his followers) made any big point out of him winning the popular vote?

 

[epicstruggle]

he has made comments that he got more votes than bush, his henchman have done so too.

The electoral college has many faults but look at what it does:
-forces politicians to get many states to vote for them
-spend time and money in more than a few key states
there are more advantages but i cant recall what. might do a bit of searching and then ill post it.

with a simple majority vote, why would a presidential candidate spend time in small unimportant states. They would concentrate all their efforts in getting to the big cities and to the populated states. The simple majority vote would really suck big time.

later,

 

[Gunhead]

All right, less than 50% of the votes; I confess I didn't remember Ralph. Anyhow, let's move on from the pros and cons of the election system (or whether Gore is a Marxist in clever disguise, I'm not an economist). Over there I just wanted to remind that Gore is a major figure in US politics, presumably still with lots of supporters, so it should be interesting to discuss his views too. Actually I wanted to focus on his views on the Iraq situation specifically, but as usual I was completely unclear about the topic.


So Dear Sirs (and Madam in case Tags is around), how do you find his views on the whole Iraq issue?


[Edit: DemoCoder, I hope you didn't get the picture that I diss your take on the economics of USA. You are way more knowledged in it than I am. It was an interesting read what you put down there.]

 

[epicstruggle]

no offence but wy should we care what he thinks on the current conflict. The former adminastration did nothing to help the people of iraq. Did next to nothing when it came to countering terrorism. And generally complained about anything that would take peoples mind off the scandals off the white house. I would have alot more respect for al gore had stood up and said he was sick and tired of all the games clinton played in the white house.

later,

 

[DemoCoder]

Here's what I wrote on the Electoral College in another thread

In voting theory, it is well known that every voting system has flaws that can cause bizarre outcomes that do not reflect the popular will, or balance of power. Choosing between each one, simply depends on which bad outcomes you are willing to accept. e.g. "run off" systems have their own "bizarre-once-in-a-lifetime" circumstances that can come up.

The US founders were deeply mistrustful of the masses. They also needed to balance the powers of the states. So they designed a system to prevent the popular election of dictators, and they designed a system that forces presidents to cater to the interests of minority states as well.

I am not saying the electoral college is the best system possible, nor is the Senate. However, it was very successful in creating a strong union of states, something the EU is struggling with now.

You have to remember that we didn't even elect Senators in the beginning (not until 1913). You voted for your local state governor and legislature, they they appointed Senators to the Senate, almost as a sort of ambassador to Washington, since before the Civil War, states had way more autonomy.

It would help Europeans if they stopped viewing the US as the modern centralized nation state it is today, and look at the US from a historical perspective, as it was a collection of states that formed a strong union, just like the EU. The constitution, as setup for the original states, hasn't changed much since then. (rightfully, it was intentionally made difficult to alter, so that rights could not easily be taken away)

The Electoral College system is the last line of defense against electing a Hitler. It is possible for some states to use a "faithless elector" to "dissent" against the popular mass vote of the US, and essentially "veto" the choice of the people, if the election is close. It may seem like it would never have to be used, and it may seem unfair, but the majority if not always right.


What I like about the US system is it has so many levels of indirection, that it prevents radicalism, and allows balances to be checked at many levels. It splinters up power and puts it in opposition against itself. Grid-lock is built in. I prefer slow, deliberative bodies, that take a long time to do something, and only after there is overwhelming consensus.

Thus, not only does the current whim of the people, the popular vote, have to be in place, but past whims of the people, electors, governors, senators, judges, also have to agree. This means people cannot change their minds too quickly, too radically, because any current political fad is held in check by judges, senators, and governors who were put into place years before. Progressive change requires popular agreement not just among *current people*, but also has to be in agreement of those a few years ago.

Now, the executive branch is a different matter. Theoretically, the executive branch should be held in check by Congress when declaring war, thus, it should be more deliberative. Moreover, the judicial branch could judge whether or not the legal basis for a particular action is consistent with constitutional law. Unfortunaltely, since WW2, the checks and balances against the hoops the executive branch has to go thru in order to declare war has been watered down.

In other areas, the executive branch is fairly restricted (e.g. spending authorization). But ironically, while the president's can unilaterally declare new spending, he can unilaterally carry out foreign wars (not convert missions, which are a different matter)

I don't like the way European states don't need super-majorities to enact radical changes, the way coalitions can form and alter the direction of the government almost instantly, e.g. how radical greens, being a minority, can actually wield much power. Basically, I don't like any political structure that accelerates political change, rather than attempt to slow it down and make it more deliberative. I especially don't like structures that give radicals a powerful voice, instead of forcing them to make their views become the mainstream view, before they can wield such power.

 

[Gunhead]

Epicstruggle, I take it you dismiss his view on Iraq because you don't think he's a credible politician / a stand up guy, not just because he happens to disagree with you on that particular subject.

Again, the reason I was interested in getting comments here was that whatever people think about Gore, he still has (an unspecified amount but) a lot of weight in the political life of USA. He matters. And, to be honest, also because I personally tend to agree with his view on Iraq. But even if I disagreed, I certainly could comment and point out what's IMHO wrong or missing, I'd be eager to do that ;-)

DemoCoder, thank you... Interesting... Can we move on to Iraq again now? Do you think Bush had a chance (he didn't use) to preserve the goodwill even with the way he went (bypassing UN SC in the end and going by the 1441 resolution)? IOW, could he have played it better? Or was it just impossible in the situation (blame's at least as much on the Europeans)?

And what do you think about his stand towards UN regarding the justification of the war? Valid stuff or just opportunistic opposition politics?

I'm genuinely interested and appreciate any input.

 

[Nagorak]

Oh yeah, and %50+ didn't vote for Gore either. Neither one of them would have been elected by a majority of the popular vote. (Due to Nader)

Well, considering not even 50% of the people bothered to vote, it's kind of a moot point (since even if everyone had gone 100% for either one, it wouldn't have been a majority).

Not that I blame them, since our votes are essentially meaningless, even though I'm too stubborn to give mine up.

with a simple majority vote, why would a presidential candidate spend time in small unimportant states. They would concentrate all their efforts in getting to the big cities and to the populated states. The simple majority vote would really suck big time.

Why should a Presidential candidate waste time pandering to mid-western hick states? Why should these states have any power whatsoever? They don't contribute anything worthwhile to the country as a whole, yet they get to have a disproportionate amount of power in deciding elections? If it were up to the state of Kansas, for example, we'd still be teaching creationism in schools and probably still be riding around in horse and buggies. The fact that the people there get to drive around in cars and actually, maybe, possibly, just might be able to learn about evolution in schools is thanks to the charity of the other states that actually are living in the modern era.

California practically fuels the entire economy on its own, it damn well should have more of a voice in electing the president. Really, California would be better off without the rest of the US, anyway. All it gets from the other states is water and grief.

 

[epicstruggle]

gunhead, sorry for not commenting on gores comment but when you mentioned how many votes he got. you essentially derailed this thread. next time just say what gore said, leave the rest of your opinions on him behind and youll get a reply on what he said.

later,

 

[Gunhead]

Um, excuse me, I rather didn't mean the election to become the central issue here, so please let's just cold-bloodedly drop it altogether. Why certainly, let any necessary debate go on in a shining new thread about it, if there isn't a ton of old ones already...

(Please. I already admitted the title was poor, although the article was mainly about Iraq. How clear need I be? One more post on the damn elections and I'll give up with this altogether... And now I'm sure DemoCoder counters with another essay on US Democrat internal policies just out of spite and fun ;-)

 

[Gunhead]

Ah, Epicstruggle, missed you there. Yeah, looks like I bombed my own thread from the beginning... I should have just mentioned "a Mr. Al Gore from USA", and preferably iced the cake with mock outrage at the man's wildly eccentric opinions ;-)

So you think it's pretty alright what he said about Iraq?

 

[epicstruggle]

I was one of the few Democrats in the U.S. Senate who supported the war resolution in 1991. And I felt betrayed by the first Bush administration's hasty departure from the battlefield, even as Saddam began to renew his persecution of the Kurds of the North and the Shiites of the South - - groups we had encouraged to rise up against Saddam.

Im not sure if this is entirely true. I dont think anyone but the people in Iraq felt betrayed. I believe everyone felt glad that we didnt go into bhagdad. Plus alot of members in the UN (france) did not feel that we should go in and take him out. (note im trying to remember as best I can about what happened 12 years ago)

BTW he thinks we should hunt down Al Quaeda before we do anything with Iraq. Exactly what bush is doing. He has not stopped the hunt, its just not front page news.

later,

 

[Lezmaka]

Why should a Presidential candidate waste time pandering to mid-western hick states? Why should these states have any power whatsoever? They don't contribute anything worthwhile to the country as a whole, yet they get to have a disproportionate amount of power in deciding elections? If it were up to the state of Kansas, for example, we'd still be teaching creationism in schools and probably still be riding around in horse and buggies. The fact that the people there get to drive around in cars and actually, maybe, possibly, just might be able to learn about evolution in schools is thanks to the charity of the other states that actually are living in the modern era.

You actually believe that? if so, you're more ****** up than i thought

California practically fuels the entire economy on its own, it damn well should have more of a voice in electing the president.

It does have more of a voice.

 

[DemoCoder]

Nagorak's attitude is disgusting. If we'd follow it, we'd have no union of states. California would be a Republic by itself.

Hick states don't contribute anything to the country? How about feeding a large chunk of the world's population, giving us 10% of our oil, and fielding the vast majority of those in the US military?

If we had to depend on California peaceniks and New York liberals to join the volunteer military, we'd have about 10 guys.

 

[Sharkfood]

If we had to depend on California peaceniks and New York liberals to join the volunteer military, we'd have about 10 guys.

Stop exaggerating Democoder.


There would be 6 tops.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Really, California would be better off without the rest of the US, anyway. All it gets from the other states is water and grief.

Look to the unemployment rate, the crime rate, the educational system(less then 40% of students deemed proficient) or those with health insurance. Observe California's poverty rate which is ~2% higher then that of the US as a whole. There are ten states in the US that receive less of their tax dollars back from DC in relation to what they put in compared to CA, two large states which have the same ratio(NY and MA). Take a land mass the size of CA and run it along the North Eastern US and you dwarf CA in pretty much every respect.