>>>the New Deal programs weren't viewed as a socialist monster.
No but people could see that they weren't working. They weren't any better off in 1940 than they were in 1933, and FDR was getting a lot of flack for it. (Like Jimmy Carter in 1980, or Bush Senior in 1992.)
The problem with WW2 is that it created a massive debt. There was short-term prosperity (virtually everyone had a job in the U.S.), but over the long-term it created a heavy burden. And when the war was done, the recession returned and lasted into the 1950s.
WW2 didn't really solve the problem - it only pushed it out of the way, and the recession came snapping back immediately after. Your "improve internal infrastructure" would have the exact same result. Shortterm gains; but longterm debt.
True growth has to come from private individuals; it can't come from tax expenditures.
(1) 1929 was caused by a stock market bubble riding on non-existent money (credit extended to stock buyers). Once people realized the bubble was fake, the whole thing crashed down. The same thing is happening now, except its a housing bubble instead of stock bubble. It's a house of cards built upon money that does not exist (credit extended to home buyers).
(2) If things are not that bad, why has the Fed spent $1 trillion on investment bank bailouts, and requested another $0.7 trillion for mortgage bailouts. Did you know last week the Credit market actually FROZE? Without credit, business can not function. They can't buy parts for manufacture or pay their employees' wages. We are riding on the precipice of another 1929-style crash.
. No it's not identical, but it's close enough for comparisons, and if 2009 becomes a repeat of 1929, or even half that bad, the next president will have as impossible job as FDR had during his presidency.
Come on. I was stating my honest opinion. Whatever president we had in office (Clinton, Gore, Bush, Kerry, Obama, McCain) would have reacted to 9/11 in the same way: with military action. That's what presidents do.
Yes the WTC attack in the 1990s was "during Gore's watch". And yet neither he nor Clinton were able to stop future attacks by Bin Laden, and it's unlikely they could have unraveled the 9/11 conspiracy before it happened.
And: The FBI believes Bin Laden was the mastermind behind the Oklahoma Federal Building, and has many links connecting Terry Nichols to Al Queda. However they were not able to recover enough evidence to prove their suspicions. Recently (2008) Congress ordered the FBI to reopen the case, and determine if the same foreign agents who attacked WTC in 1996 were also responsible for the OKC attack. We'll have to wait and see what results they uncover.
>>>This time it was obvious, and it had happened before.
So your opinion is that Al Gore's response to the NY-WTC attack would have been - don't invade Afghanistan. Do nothing. I doubt that; I think Gore would have invaded same as Bush did.
As for Iraq, in 1991 we defeated them easily. There was no reason to suspect any different the second time around.
>>>>>>Without the war, FDR would have been voted out of office in 1940, and the recession would have stretched through most of the 1940s.
>Nice theory, except we weren't attacked until the end of 1941. >
Wow. Now I understand why my European colleagues make-fun of American schools. ----- The war started in 1939, and FDR used that war to get himself re-elected - "stay with proven leadership during these troubled times". If the war had not happened FDR would have been defeated, because Americans were displeased with the economy and FDR's failure to improve it. (In fact, FDR was so sure he would lose, that he recommended other democrats run instead of himself. FDR was going to abide by the 2-term limit.)
>why was FDR reelected continuously through the depression which he allegedly couldn't/didn't fix? >
ONE reelection in 1936. One does not a "continuum" make. As for fixing the depression, many many economists have reviewed the records and determined that the U.S. in 1940 was no better off than the U.S. in 1933. FDR's plans accomplished next-to-nothing to end the recession. There was no improvement. That's why he told his Democrat colleagues he was going to step down & let them run instead.
In the case of peak oil (when the oil inventory starts shrinking), I think the U.S. is in far worse than Europe or Russia. Russia of course has the gigantic Siberian reserves; and the E.U. will be hurt, but not as badly as the car-centric United States.
Obama or McCain - same man; two different colors. It makes no difference who wins since they're both part of the same Democratic-Republican Duopoly. So instead, vote for a third party candidate that you actually support.
Sorry, but no. Improperly-filled ballots are "null votes" according to 2000 Florida law. As they should be; if you care so little about your ballot as to do "crossouts" over names, instead of following the instructions (or asking for a new ballot), then why should any one else care about your ballot? ----- It's just like school. My teachers refused to accept book reports unless they were typed, because if the student cares so little about his work as to handin illegible scrawling, why should the teacher care to read it? ----- Likewise illegible ballots should be thrown-out, per the legal code.
>>>Second, they showed that if there been a full statewide recount of all counties, Al Gore would have received more votes
First, there WAS an official recount in Miami-Dade county. Gore just didn't like the result (he lost again). Second, the statewide recount by USA Today, Washington Post, et cetera ALSO confirmed that Gore lost. In fact, he lost by a greater margin than previously - over 1000 votes - since most of rural Florida is Republican.
No matter how you look at it, according to the legal standards, Gore lost Florida.
"Gore won" is an urban legend, and it is as false as the "I woke up in a bathtub without my kidneys" urban legend. Neither has any basis in reality - neither has any facts to sustain it.
>>>>>>"did not have enough ballots according to Florida legal standards (where hanging chads are called null votes).
>Ahh, but that would have ignored "voter intent".... >
Yes true, but I'm sorry, the law is the law. You don't change it after the fact (although bleeding-hearts like to ignore the law). If the law states hanging chads are "null votes" then that's what you follow. No exceptions.
You seem to have forgotten that Bin Laden's attacks on the USS Cole, Oklahoma Federal Building (suspected but not proven), and the World Trade Center happened during Al Gore's watch as Vice president. If he was not "on guard" enough to stop at least one of those, then he would not be on guard to stop 9/11 either.
Well the last Democrat to fight a major war left us stranded for ten long years. (Vietnam - Kennedy & LBJ). I don't think Gore would have performed any better in Afghanistan.
Yeah I'm fairly certain Obama will be the next president, and while everyone seems to love him now, come 2012 they'll be despising him almost as badly as they despise Bush. The current state of the economy and $100 oil is beyond the fixing of any one man, and things are not going to improve.
FDR tried and failed to fix the 1930s recession..... it ultimately took a world war to bring-back full employment. Without the war, FDR would have been voted out of office in 1940, and the recession would have stretched through most of the 1940s.
Obama faces what FDR faced, and Obama's not going to be any more successful. (Unless a war saves him.)
>>>On the other hand you must accept that you and your high gain antenna constitute a minor part of society.
P.S.
Approximately 50 million people watch over-the-antenna television as their SOLE source of reception. Not what I call "minor". Furthermore the U.S. government was founded-upon the idea of protecting the minority's (or the individual's) basic rights. It should not simply ignore their plight by saying, "Oh well they're only 20% of the population. If white-space Ipods block tv reception, too bad."
The United States Republic should not be run by Tyranny of the Majority trampling over the minority. As I said before, "we" already gave-up channels 52 to 83. Don't make us give-up the rest of the spectrum too. Use your white-space gadgets in channels 52-83, and leave the lower channels alone.
Yes true, but at least those items are (1) temporary transients and (2) interference by accident, not by deliberate design. ----- If my area becomes polluted with these white-space Wifi gadgets, to the point where I can't receive television via antenna, what am I suppose to do? Huh? I don't have cable in this remote area, and satellite is ridiculously expensive.
We over-the-air viewers have already given-up channels 52 to 83. Why can't Wifi gadgets use THOSE channels? Leave the lower channels alone.
>>>The whole idea of analog TV is stupid. Or 50-years obsolete, whichever you prefer.
We're not discussing analog. We're discussing digital television, which these "white space" gadgets would effectively block. I'm all for progress (like HD radio). But not when it breaks current technologies & makes them unusable, and that's what will happen when people's Ipods start broadcasting overtop existing TV channels.
So Gore would have done what? Invited Bin Laden to come visit New York and observe the destruction? Come on! You know Gore would have reacted exactly the same way Bush acted, and the way Clinton acted before him..... with military action.
Yes, but should a person vote if they know nothing (or almost-nothing) about the candidates? A lot of people seem to pick candidates randomly, like flipping a coin.
And if you're an incumbent legislator many people vote for you, purely because they don't want to vote for a stranger.
No this one's different. Usually there's a clear winner of the Democratic primary by the end of February. Then the media circus dies-down and picks-up sometime in September. This year the circus just went on and on and on (and on).
Also it's pretty much standard for the TV media to fall-in love with the Democrat... Obama, Kerry, Gore... they all got treated with soft gloves and easy questions, because the television reporters are all liberals. RADIO media is usually the opposite (radio is conservative) with a preference for the Republican.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>recount of all disqualified ballots
Well sure if you CHEAT and IGNORE THE LAW, you can win. But the law has disqualified those ballots; they are null votes. ----- If we instead be good and honest citizens who *obey the law* here's the result we get: http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/11/12/politics/recount/results/preset-v1.html
Florida Supreme Court recount
If the U.S. had not stopped the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.
Winner
George W. Bush +493 votes 0.0080%
I'm sorry if these results displease you, but this is what would have happened in an official LEGAL recount of the entire state of Florida.
Raise tax rates to 75% (all taxes not just income tax) in order to pay for the Uncle Sam Hospital Monopoly.v (Monopolies are bad; very very bad.)
>>>the New Deal programs weren't viewed as a socialist monster.
No but people could see that they weren't working. They weren't any better off in 1940 than they were in 1933, and FDR was getting a lot of flack for it. (Like Jimmy Carter in 1980, or Bush Senior in 1992.)
The problem with WW2 is that it created a massive debt. There was short-term prosperity (virtually everyone had a job in the U.S.), but over the long-term it created a heavy burden. And when the war was done, the recession returned and lasted into the 1950s.
WW2 didn't really solve the problem - it only pushed it out of the way, and the recession came snapping back immediately after. Your "improve internal infrastructure" would have the exact same result. Shortterm gains; but longterm debt.
True growth has to come from private individuals; it can't come from tax expenditures.
(1) 1929 was caused by a stock market bubble riding on non-existent money (credit extended to stock buyers). Once people realized the bubble was fake, the whole thing crashed down. The same thing is happening now, except its a housing bubble instead of stock bubble. It's a house of cards built upon money that does not exist (credit extended to home buyers).
(2) If things are not that bad, why has the Fed spent $1 trillion on investment bank bailouts, and requested another $0.7 trillion for mortgage bailouts. Did you know last week the Credit market actually FROZE? Without credit, business can not function. They can't buy parts for manufacture or pay their employees' wages. We are riding on the precipice of another 1929-style crash.
.
No it's not identical, but it's close enough for comparisons, and if 2009 becomes a repeat of 1929, or even half that bad, the next president will have as impossible job as FDR had during his presidency.
Flamebait?
Come on. I was stating my honest opinion. Whatever president we had in office (Clinton, Gore, Bush, Kerry, Obama, McCain) would have reacted to 9/11 in the same way: with military action. That's what presidents do.
Yes the WTC attack in the 1990s was "during Gore's watch". And yet neither he nor Clinton were able to stop future attacks by Bin Laden, and it's unlikely they could have unraveled the 9/11 conspiracy before it happened.
And: The FBI believes Bin Laden was the mastermind behind the Oklahoma Federal Building, and has many links connecting Terry Nichols to Al Queda. However they were not able to recover enough evidence to prove their suspicions. Recently (2008) Congress ordered the FBI to reopen the case, and determine if the same foreign agents who attacked WTC in 1996 were also responsible for the OKC attack. We'll have to wait and see what results they uncover.
>>>This time it was obvious, and it had happened before.
So your opinion is that Al Gore's response to the NY-WTC attack would have been - don't invade Afghanistan. Do nothing. I doubt that; I think Gore would have invaded same as Bush did.
As for Iraq, in 1991 we defeated them easily. There was no reason to suspect any different the second time around.
>>>>>>Without the war, FDR would have been voted out of office in 1940, and the recession would have stretched through most of the 1940s.
>Nice theory, except we weren't attacked until the end of 1941.
>
Wow. Now I understand why my European colleagues make-fun of American schools. ----- The war started in 1939, and FDR used that war to get himself re-elected - "stay with proven leadership during these troubled times". If the war had not happened FDR would have been defeated, because Americans were displeased with the economy and FDR's failure to improve it. (In fact, FDR was so sure he would lose, that he recommended other democrats run instead of himself. FDR was going to abide by the 2-term limit.)
>why was FDR reelected continuously through the depression which he allegedly couldn't/didn't fix?
>
ONE reelection in 1936. One does not a "continuum" make. As for fixing the depression, many many economists have reviewed the records and determined that the U.S. in 1940 was no better off than the U.S. in 1933. FDR's plans accomplished next-to-nothing to end the recession. There was no improvement. That's why he told his Democrat colleagues he was going to step down & let them run instead.
In the case of peak oil (when the oil inventory starts shrinking), I think the U.S. is in far worse than Europe or Russia. Russia of course has the gigantic Siberian reserves; and the E.U. will be hurt, but not as badly as the car-centric United States.
WORLD war is what I said in my previous post. That's what saved FDR and ended the 1930s recession.
Not just some middling war like Iraq.
Obama or McCain - same man; two different colors. It makes no difference who wins since they're both part of the same Democratic-Republican Duopoly. So instead, vote for a third party candidate that you actually support.
Sorry, but no. Improperly-filled ballots are "null votes" according to 2000 Florida law. As they should be; if you care so little about your ballot as to do "crossouts" over names, instead of following the instructions (or asking for a new ballot), then why should any one else care about your ballot? ----- It's just like school. My teachers refused to accept book reports unless they were typed, because if the student cares so little about his work as to handin illegible scrawling, why should the teacher care to read it? ----- Likewise illegible ballots should be thrown-out, per the legal code.
>>>Second, they showed that if there been a full statewide recount of all counties, Al Gore would have received more votes
First, there WAS an official recount in Miami-Dade county. Gore just didn't like the result (he lost again). Second, the statewide recount by USA Today, Washington Post, et cetera ALSO confirmed that Gore lost. In fact, he lost by a greater margin than previously - over 1000 votes - since most of rural Florida is Republican.
No matter how you look at it, according to the legal standards, Gore lost Florida.
"Gore won" is an urban legend, and it is as false as the "I woke up in a bathtub without my kidneys" urban legend. Neither has any basis in reality - neither has any facts to sustain it.
>>>>>>"did not have enough ballots according to Florida legal standards (where hanging chads are called null votes).
>Ahh, but that would have ignored "voter intent"....
>
Yes true, but I'm sorry, the law is the law. You don't change it after the fact (although bleeding-hearts like to ignore the law). If the law states hanging chads are "null votes" then that's what you follow. No exceptions.
About the time he fired Rumsfeld (the guy who came-up with that strategy).
You seem to have forgotten that Bin Laden's attacks on the USS Cole, Oklahoma Federal Building (suspected but not proven), and the World Trade Center happened during Al Gore's watch as Vice president. If he was not "on guard" enough to stop at least one of those, then he would not be on guard to stop 9/11 either.
Well the last Democrat to fight a major war left us stranded for ten long years. (Vietnam - Kennedy & LBJ). I don't think Gore would have performed any better in Afghanistan.
Yeah I'm fairly certain Obama will be the next president, and while everyone seems to love him now, come 2012 they'll be despising him almost as badly as they despise Bush. The current state of the economy and $100 oil is beyond the fixing of any one man, and things are not going to improve.
FDR tried and failed to fix the 1930s recession..... it ultimately took a world war to bring-back full employment. Without the war, FDR would have been voted out of office in 1940, and the recession would have stretched through most of the 1940s.
Obama faces what FDR faced, and Obama's not going to be any more successful. (Unless a war saves him.)
>>>On the other hand you must accept that you and your high gain antenna constitute a minor part of society.
P.S.
Approximately 50 million people watch over-the-antenna television as their SOLE source of reception. Not what I call "minor". Furthermore the U.S. government was founded-upon the idea of protecting the minority's (or the individual's) basic rights. It should not simply ignore their plight by saying, "Oh well they're only 20% of the population. If white-space Ipods block tv reception, too bad."
The United States Republic should not be run by Tyranny of the Majority trampling over the minority. As I said before, "we" already gave-up channels 52 to 83. Don't make us give-up the rest of the spectrum too. Use your white-space gadgets in channels 52-83, and leave the lower channels alone.
Yes true, but at least those items are (1) temporary transients and (2) interference by accident, not by deliberate design. ----- If my area becomes polluted with these white-space Wifi gadgets, to the point where I can't receive television via antenna, what am I suppose to do? Huh? I don't have cable in this remote area, and satellite is ridiculously expensive.
We over-the-air viewers have already given-up channels 52 to 83. Why can't Wifi gadgets use THOSE channels? Leave the lower channels alone.
>>>The whole idea of analog TV is stupid. Or 50-years obsolete, whichever you prefer.
We're not discussing analog. We're discussing digital television, which these "white space" gadgets would effectively block. I'm all for progress (like HD radio). But not when it breaks current technologies & makes them unusable, and that's what will happen when people's Ipods start broadcasting overtop existing TV channels.
So Gore would have done what? Invited Bin Laden to come visit New York and observe the destruction? Come on! You know Gore would have reacted exactly the same way Bush acted, and the way Clinton acted before him..... with military action.
Yes, but should a person vote if they know nothing (or almost-nothing) about the candidates? A lot of people seem to pick candidates randomly, like flipping a coin.
And if you're an incumbent legislator many people vote for you, purely because they don't want to vote for a stranger.
No this one's different. Usually there's a clear winner of the Democratic primary by the end of February. Then the media circus dies-down and picks-up sometime in September. This year the circus just went on and on and on (and on).
Also it's pretty much standard for the TV media to fall-in love with the Democrat... Obama, Kerry, Gore... they all got treated with soft gloves and easy questions, because the television reporters are all liberals. RADIO media is usually the opposite (radio is conservative) with a preference for the Republican.