If Gore runs for president
will you vote for him?
September 10th, 2006 10:00pm
If I were American, I probably would. "An Inconvenient Truth" has really changed the perception I had of him.
He's got well over a decade in the public eye. He's got a very good chance of winning.
No vote either. I'm planning on watching him here tonight:
(meanwhile enjoy Lily Tomlin, Steve Irwin ..)
Gore has been working hard to rehabilitate himself these past several years - there was the family-next-door documentary footage done by Spike Jonez that was leaked, the "Inconvenient Truth" movie, etc.
I still remember him being the guy who went to the Buddhist Temple to pick up the illegal Chinese government campaign donations, though. It was in the '96 campaign, iirc. I guess the CCP mistaenly viewed the Repubs as potentially tougher on Chinese issues and more supportive of Taiwan than the Dems.
He claimed with a straight face that he had no inkling that the money had actually been sent from China.
It would be tough to vote for him.
I don't want to know the candidates until I reach the ballot box and look for the word 'Democrat'. Gives them less time to sweet-talk me before getting elected and going on a spending spree.
Tell me which Republican stood up to Bush and said invading Iraq was a poor idea? We went in there basically with just us and Great Britain. It's just too expensive, IMHO. The National Debt is a huge problem, IMHO.
I don't know, it's tough. I want to vote for the fiscal conservative.
If a Dem wins, their social-spending probably won't pass through congress anyhow, so it's kind of a net win there on fiscal policy.
Is he running as a Democrat?
If so, then he's got my vote.
John McCain (D)
Wes Clark (D)
Howard Dean (D)
John Edwards (D) (either one)
Russ Feingold (D)
Hillary Clinton (D)
Barack Obama (D)
Chelsea Clinton (D)
Franklin Roosevelt (D)
George Carlin (D)
Son of Sam (D)
Josef Stalin (D)
...figure any of them would be better than another Republican
September 10th, 2006 10:44pm
"I want to vote for the fiscal conservative."
You mean like Clinton, right?
Clinton cut taxes, cut spending, reduced the size of the federal government*, and reduced federal *power*, returning rights back to the states?
*Besides massively cutting the military, that is.
September 10th, 2006 11:05pm
Since the military managed to convince everyone that the Soviet Union was about to launch nukes at any second, and that they had 1,000,000 troops ready to zerg over the Fulda pass, the US military's main purpose in life vanished when the Berlin Wall came down. It is hard to justify shoveling truckloads of $100 bills into the belly of Mammon when the alleged enemy collapses. bush_1 started the drawdown, but of course Clinton gets blamed for it.
+1 to Peter
I'm sort of caught here (w/re to military spending), though, because I realy see the potential for something nasty going down between the PRC and Taiwan.
I can't stand seeing the US invade crappy third world countries soaked in oil and then totally f*ck everything up to the point that we've screwed up Iraq, but the idea of an independent, democratic Taiwan being strong-armed into unifying with a non-democratic mainland makes me angry.
The USA made a commitment to Taiwan and China is definitely, unmistakeably inching towards the time when they'll try to grab the island. I'm in HK now and wouldn't want to be here for the fireworks, but I wish that the US would put the smackdown on China before it's too late.
My point was that AFAIK a large amount of Clinton's "cutting back the government" was actually military drawdown - the civilian side didn't change much at all:
Many Clinton supporters suggest he was a "better conservative than recent Republicans" because "the federal government got smaller" and the budget was balanced under his Presidency.
Except that the budget was balanced by massive tax increases and cuts in *military* spending - a pretty liberal approach, don't you think?
Don't get me wrong - most federal Republicans these days aren't really fiscal conservatives. But Clinton was most certainly not one either.
September 11th, 2006 12:25am
I'd be interested to see if there was room to cut military spending by cutting R&D and acquisitions programs while actually increasing spending in training and manpower.
September 11th, 2006 12:27am
"But Clinton was most certainly not one either."
Fair enough, maybe not fiscally conservative, just fiscally responsible.
"Except that the budget was balanced by massive tax increases and cuts in *military* spending - a pretty liberal approach, don't you think?"
Not a liberal approach, just a logical one. How much did these "massive" tax increases really affect you anyway? Is it better to have money in your pocket to give to your grandkids when you retire so they can pay the interest on the national debt?
Here is a speech by Gore, 5 months after 9/11:
One of the references is Reinhold Niebuhr:
"Fair enough, maybe not fiscally conservative, just fiscally responsible."
I won't argue that at all. :)
"Not a liberal approach, just a logical one."
Didn't say it wasn't logical. But it's liberal. I'm not using the word as an epithet, but as a political description. You really want to try to argue that
- increasing taxes
- cutting military spending
aren't traditionally liberal planks?
Nothing wrong with the label - it's just descriptive. If it makes you feel better, "No Child Left Behind" was far more liberal than anything Clinton ever *dreamed* of, but at least Clinton would've funded the damn thing.
September 11th, 2006 1:08am
Gore and Bush - same shit. It's different branding morons.
Pepsi and Coke mentality, like herds. You Americans can form an opinion for yourselves. Fucking pitiful pathetic nation of fucking morons.
Vote for Nader idiots.
Are you a Nader idiot Dan? I wouldn't vote for you...
September 11th, 2006 1:30am
I would NOT bring myself to the level of being an American citizen. It's below my class, it's a badge of filth until one's rest of life. It's disgusting. My fellow countrymen would look down on me.
So enjoy your retarded, cannibalistic politics you slimeball Americans. In the meantime, us green card holders, would milk money out of your sorry ass, bang your serivcemen wives/daughters and laugh at your red white and blue pride.
"Massive Tax Increase" -- Perhaps. However, we had, for decades, been authorizing un-balanced budgets. That "Massive Tax Increase" was the amount necessary to balance that budget. It closed no businesses. In fact, it led to an economic boom.
It put nobody out of their houses.
I get awfully tired of people using extreme rhetoric to try to make their opponents position look extreme, and their own position merely a rational response. How much did your taxes increase with this "Massive Tax Increase"? How much did your taxes decrease with Bush's "Massive Tax Cut"?
How much DID the federal budget increase under Bush? We had a 300 billion dollar SURPLUS going in to Bush's administration. Yes, that was too much, and deserved some tax cuts to reduce it. OR, perhaps we COULD have paid down some of the then 5 trillion dollar federal debt (talk about an unfunded mandate).
Instead, we got "Massive tax cuts", and an immediately de-stabilised Federal Budget. Under a Republican President, Republican Congress. Surely, you can't take all credit away from Clinton for balancing it in the first place?
One last thing -- having a balanced budget IS a typically Conservative point of view, surely?
Oh, and with ALL THIS going for him, Gore couldn't defeat Bush. No, I would not vote for him.
"How much DID the federal budget increase under Bush?"
Where did I say he cut it? Where did I say Bush was conservative? Where did I say I wouldn't vote for Gore?
"Instead, we got "Massive tax cuts", and an immediately de-stabilised Federal Budget. Under a Republican President, Republican Congress. Surely, you can't take all credit away from Clinton for balancing it in the first place?"
Where did I say Clinton didn't balance the budget?
I think balancing the budget should be a goal for both conservatives and liberals - no doubt there from me.
I'm curious what part of what I *actually* said you take issue with, tho. I mean - take a quote from what I posted and rebut it factually. Or are you just arguing against what you *think* I'm implying? :)
September 11th, 2006 8:09am
"You really want to try to argue that
- increasing taxes ... is not a liberal idea?"
It's a fair cop. What WAS I on about?
Well, I determined it was the above sentence. "Tax And Spend Liberals" was the hot button.
No, "increasing taxes" is NOT a liberal idea. Paying your way is neither liberal or conservative -- though typically conservatives pay it WAY more lip-service, and typically liberals are more willing to deficit spend when the economy is 'lean'.
"increasing taxes" has become part of the conservative bugaboo against 'liberals'. "increasing taxes" will destroy this country, put people out of work, destroy the wealthy, yadda, yadda, yadda. And that's what liberals want to do.
But the liberal goal is NOT to "increase taxes". The liberal goal is to put in place sufficient regulation (which largely exists now, we don't need more) and sufficient social services to make a safety net. That's it. And pay for it.
Also, the difference between today's current deficit and a balanced budget is about a 5% increase in taxes. That will pay for what we have right now -- the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, the military, everything. Instead, the Republican party is running up a multi-trillion dollar deficit, so they can turn around and say we can't affort Social Security. THAT'S what the issue is. Not "lower or higher taxes".
Okay, first of all you need to stop mentioning the Republicans. They aren't part of this discussion, since they aren't conservative (at the Federal level, anyway). So stop using them for comparison or contrast, m'kay?
"Also, the difference between today's current deficit and a balanced budget is about a 5% increase in taxes."
But there you go. There's a debt and a disparity between income and expenditures, and your only solution is to increase taxes. Why can't we cut spending? Why does it seem like liberals NEVER MENTION CUTTING SPENDING?!?!?!?
We've got about a dozen federal law enforcement agencies we don't need. The Department of Education is a white elephant. Defense is a money pit. I'll wager there are ways to cut social security payouts that won't actually hurt anyone (for example, making it more need-based than an entitlement). Any program that pays money to every state can go away, since it's just using cash to enforce federal requirements as an end run around the Constitution. DHS has a number of blank checks that can go away.
I haven't even mentioned pork barrel projects yet.
If an increase is necessary because cuts can't balance the budget quickly, that's fine. But they're a measure of amelioration, not a bottomless pit that excuses Congress from spending abuses.
September 11th, 2006 9:43am
Yes, that's fine. We can have a discussion about what federal departements we don't need anymore. That IS a liberal versus conservative point of view.
The only problem with that discussion is that, given we have a very conservative congress, I assume they HAVE cut all the 'pork-barrel' programs they're willing to cut. Plus, they DID have a balanced budget going in to the Bush administration. That's why I keep bringing it up.
The conclusion I come to is that the current administration has deficit spent all by itself. Also, the programs you suggest eliminating HAD BEEN part of a balanced budget -- why unbalance the budget, and then cut Education? Also, the Education departement manages student loans, no? Are you in favor of cutting student loans? It's a legitimage argument to make.
I'm not trying to bring up straw-men here. I just don't want to have the argument with you that we could 'balance the budget, if only the budget were smaller'.
The reason I don't want to have that argument is that the problem HAS BEEN a huge increase in the budget, WITHOUT a concurrent increase in taxes.
Sure, I'd like to wave a magic wand and not have such a huge budget too. But lots of people have worked lots of years without accomplishing that.
Probably not. He said he wouldn't. Part of his credibility is his not being in the game. If it appears to me he was just playing us all along I won't be be able to trust him.
He is far more valuable as the chorus.
Allan, let's go back to 2000, and say Gore won. Would the plan be that since the budget was balanced, we could cut spending, then cut taxes?
Or would Gore find other ways to increase spending? How would he pay for the increases?
As I've said over and over and over and over - the Federal government is too big. Period. Any discussion about balancing the budget that does not mention cutting spending will not get my vote.
Here's an example - I'll bet we could get rid of 90% of the Department of Homeland Security, spend 10% of the savings on relations with the middle east and rebuilding international goodwill and end up safer than we are today.
Sadly, I don't expect to see a candidate any time soon that will credibly talk about cutting spending - the current game is rigged with too many sacred cows and minefields.
Doesn't mean I can't hope, tho.
September 11th, 2006 12:15pm
Inconvenient Truth showed Gore could be excited about something. But it's not government politics -- he's stiff and a bot in that realm. It's good he got out of government still having a healthy chunk of his life to affect change in other ways.
SoP - Great line about the chorus.
WAIT WAIT WAIT...
"John McCain (D) "
Was that a joke or a mistake?
September 11th, 2006 12:34pm
Joke, like Son of Sam (serial killer) and Stalin (mass murderer). McCain has been pandering very heavily to the taliban wing of the republican party lately, so that it looks like they want him to run for 2008.
"Stalin (mass murderer)"
Funny how you picked that as a disqualifying factor over, say, his being dead.
September 11th, 2006 1:12pm
Steel, I think we agree, me coming from the liberal side, and you seemingly coming from the conservative side. Much as our rhetoric seems to divide us.
Tell you what -- I'll vote to keep taxes where they are, if you vote to reduce the departement for homeland security.
Yeah, like there will be a candidate on THAT platform. [sigh]
But if there is, I will!!!
September 11th, 2006 8:20pm
Gore, finally roped: