1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gore - Clinton 2004

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Techie2000, Nov 15, 2002.

  1. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    After watching 20/20 tonight I'm curious what everyone here thinks about Al Gore running again, and what they think about the possibility of Hillary Clinton as his running mate this time around?
     
  2. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    God I hope that does not happen. I am hoping the dems come up with a viable ticket - I have a feeling between Ashcroft and the Patriot Act I will be looking beyond Bush for somebody to vote for. It won't be Gore or Hilary and damn sure not them together - unless we are voting to kick them out of the country.
     
  3. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Bang up idea!! I am absolutely honest in saying I would contribute to that ticket to hell ;) The dems are trying to find a purpose for existing. They are most certainly a coalition party of cobbled together disenfranchised that has in the past stayed in power by their ability to convince multiple smaller factions of society that the world is such shit that the only way they can have anything is for them to suckle at the government teat.

    People, it would appear, are wising up to the other fact of the democratic party...they have a vested interest in keeping people down, as more people become better off, the more they see their agenda for what it is....a sham grab for power. When less people are doing poorly, the fewer voters they can intimidate by blaming it all on the right.

    A Gore/Clinton ticket would further solidify that party's dysfunction and inability to stand for anything tangible, but instead simply to be anti anything Republican.

    By making Pelosi their whip, they, whether intentionally or not have signalled their party's real intentions and leanings...intentions that get resoundingly trounced by the mainstream...except here in my home state :(

    Oh, and before you insinuate that I'm a republican, I'm not. I'm a registered Libertarian that just happens to vote republican frequently.
     
  4. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    If I could only pick two politicians to permantently ban from governmnet, it would be Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. I think Al Gore would have a hard time winning an election after the display he made a few years ago, but having Hillary as his running mate would probably help him somewhat(unfortunately). Why do people like that biatch?
     
  5. John R. Beanham

    John R. Beanham Typical Aussie Male

    techie,


    "I'm curious what everyone here thinks about Al Gore running again, and what they think about the possibility of Hillary Clinton as his running mate this time around?"


    I have a sneaking suspicion that GWB kneels beside his bed every night and PRAYS for just such an outcome.


    John.
     
  6. wapu

    wapu Veteran Member

    I am not sure, the Dems prayed for the Bush/Cheney ticket. Look what happened there. Becareful what you wish for.


    wapu
     
  7. DSL Dan

    DSL Dan Registered User

    I assume everyone has heard Gore's admission that he now favors a single-payer healthcare system. Gotta give the guy credit--it's not easy to be a bigger socialist than Hillary. It won't be long before these yahoos realize that with direct deposit, our paychecks could go directly to the federal government, after which a small portion could be remitted to us. :rolleyes:
     
  8. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    Best thing the dems could do for the party at this point is convince John McCain to john the ranks.

    The American public is clearly tired of liberal democrat politics.

    A centrist Democrat who is fiscally conservative, tough on crime, supports the military but doesnt let them hog-tie the tax base and understands that social welfare programs are vital, but cannot be abused... that could be a winner in this 'New America'.

    If McCain runs, I will vote for him. I voted for him in the primary when I was back in Vermont, and I think he actually took the state for the republicans - too funny! I think he has common sense, and despises bullshit - he is a no nonsense guy who speaks his mind, and he is a little cranky. I like it.

    Do I support him on every issue? No - but I like his attitude.

    I want to see an old fashioned politician run, McCain is the only guy I see around who fits the bill. Bush is just too much of a 'playah' for my tastes.
     
  9. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    I don't know what it's like where you live, but where I am, most people including ourselves are definitly not as well off since President Bush has set his foot in office...
    It may just win, but then we may as well merge the Democratic and Republican parties just like they merge the tribes on Survivor. I mean how much of a difference can there be if we have a Democratic centrist running the white house, or a Republican Conservative running the white house.
     
  10. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    The term "Centrist" is a misnomer. Centrist is just another way of referring to someone who really doesn't stand for anything, but who waits to see which way the wind is blowing prior to taking any stand...a reactionary if you will.
     
  11. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    Techie2000, just because things may or may not be better when someone is in office doesn't necessarily mean that he is responsible for it. I do not have a doctorate in economics or anything remotely similar to it, but I fail to see why people blame GWB for our current condition. If you are going to play that game, then it is fair to say that Bill Clinton is responsible for the decline in our education system since it went downhill during his eight years in office(even though he 'threw' more money at it)?

    It's like saying GWB is 'responsible' for what happened on 9/11/01. It's just asinine. Were the Columbine principals and superintendents 'responsible' for the massacre that happened at that school?

    By the way, I think socialized medicine is a bad idea. I think socialized retirement is a bad idea too...just look at all the bullshit going on with social security. And Al Gore had the nerve to refer to it as a "darn good" program?! How is it good if it is going to be gone before I get to collect some of my money that I've paid into it? Why can't I opt out if I would rather invest my money in a different way? I like having choices. I don't like having things forced upon me. That is exactly what Al Gore is proposing, and it makes him sound like a very nice guy to people who don't know any better. And people wonder why those living in poverty usually vote only for democrats. Dems would love to tax everyone 100%, then redistribute the money as they see fit. Thanks, but no thanks. I like my government small and efficient. So far, it is neither.
     
  12. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    RRedline,

    With an understanding we see things differently from time to time, I would like to point
    out, the President (whoever it may be) has a lot of power over the direction of the economy.

    He has many tools at his disposal, like President Reagan's stimulus of the economy by
    increasing defense spending or the bank collapses which happened under President
    Reagan and spilled over into President Bush's term.

    How the president chooses to set the course for his term does most certainly extend beyond
    his years but also does make a difference during the time he is in office.

    The issue is not who was in charge when the economy started to slide but how fast it was
    corrected by the current administration.

    Bill Clinton ran his first election on the promise of improving the economy. The facts show
    the economy did improve for the longest sustained continuos run in US history.

    I submit the facts speak for themselves. I also ask people to realize that four years (let alone
    eight years) in a long time. There is ample time to move even the most sluggish of economies
    in a Presidential term.

    The Republicans have complete control now. There can no longer be any reason for them to
    claim the Democrats are the problem.

    It is time for them to fix the problem or admit they can't and maybe the Democrats can have
    a shot at messing things up again.

    I was willing to give President Bush a chance. Two years is a reasonable amount of time to
    see what effect a leader can exert.

    I will concede the 9-11 was an unexpected disaster but other Administrations have had to
    weather disasters before and we tend to judge a President based on the total effect their
    leadership had on the country during their watch.

    President Bush is only half way through this term. I am willing to give him the benefit of the
    doubt and I have to admit, he has performed better than I originally thought he was capable.

    One final thought, even if God endorsed the President, he will not see a second term if the
    economy is still hurting a year and a half from now. Even Hillary will be able to beat him
    if the economy gets worse.

    God save us all.
     
  13. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    No way, Ken. 9/11 is a totally different disaster. The closest parallel is Pearl Harbor.

    I perceive from the tone of your post that you consider that to be only a minor speedbump in the road America is driving down.

    I submit you are wrong.

    SM
     
  14. jamming

    jamming Banned

    From my experience in my Macro-Economics Class, with a Professor that wrote the standard text for colleges all over the country, Ken you are mistaken. The general movement of the economy may be nudged by the policies of the President, but it has much more to do with market forces.

    The president can create market forces, like the S&L failures you are calling Bank Failures, but that particular law had unintended consequences, not foreseen by either party which participated in the law that was written. However, that particular legislation was full of holes that allowed both Republican and Democrats to profit from it along with their business associates. The lack of oversight in theat legislation led directly to the Whitewater Issue as well as the Ohio based S&L that went bankrupt.

    I think if you will see that because much of our economy is still oil driven, you will see almost all boom years preceeded by low oil prices and all recession years preceeded by high oil prices. This can have much more far reaching effects than anything a President can do by tweaking the economy. Oil is a economy driver, for a raise in the oil price will increase electricity production cost nationwide, the cost of transporting all products from point A to point B, increases Heating costs in all facilities, raises the cost of most plastics, and a billion and one other things.
     
  15. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    Ken:

    What then would you say are the things that Bush has or hasn't done that has caused our economy to dive? There are so many factors involved, and I don't claim to firmly grasp the whole thing. I just don't understand what he did or did not do that has caused Bob and Suzy to lose their jobs? What did he do that caused the .com fiasco? I just feel that in most cases, people blame the bad things on the current President if they don't like him, and they credit him for the good things when they like him. It just seems to me that most people won't do both at the same time.

    And for the record, I do not consider myself a Bush supporter. I think the idea of school vouchers is a horrible mistake, and I think he is trying to sneak tax money to churches which is unconstitutional. I just get very tired of people blindly attacking GWB just because he is a horrible public speaker and is not very "wordy." Bill Clinton was extremely charismatic. I have to give him credit for that. However, he is a crook, and most dems I know didn't seem to mind.

    Back to the original topic though...I honestly despise Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. I find their debating tactics to be unethical, and I find many of their ideas offensive. I also feel they are both hypocrites. For example, Al Gore defends public education like it is his forst born. However, he sent every one of his children to expensive, private schools. Hillary Clinton bitches and moans about republican spending, yet she charges tax payers more than double for her current offices than any of the other 99 senators. Give me a break already. The dems do a fine job of brainwashing people into thinking that republicans are for rich people and democrats are for everyone else.
     
  16. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    RRedline,

    There are many things I agree with you in the post above.

    I would like to clarify that I am not a Democrat and I would have
    to agree with you on both Al Gore and Hilary Clinton.

    While I often have issues with the Republicans, I am totally turned
    off by where the Democrats have taken the party in my lifetime.

    It seems the extremes have pulled both of the "mainstream parties"
    out from the center. I would take issue with Coot's statement about
    centrists all being reactionaries. I think there are many solid people
    near the center including John McCain, Jim Jeffords, Olympia Snowe
    and several others which deserve our recognition.

    I think school vouchers aren't the right way to go, the church shouldn't
    get tax money unless they are willing to pay taxes. To see the incredible
    amount of property the Catholic Church owns and for them to cry poverty,
    Jesus (no pun intended) are they kidding? Hey, here's a news flash. Broke?
    Sell your property!

    Regarding what the president should or should not have done to change the
    direction of the economy.

    I don't believe the tax cut worked as advertised. Our surplus has vanished
    and the economy remains unaffected by it.

    While I don't think either Presidents Bush or Clinton had very much to do with
    the Dot Com explosion, it will be up to President Bush to fix the damage to the
    Telecommunications Industry (which is in a shambles) and find ways to deal
    with the ever increasing dependency on the internet.

    What he needs to do is put money into the hands of people, who need to spend it,
    the poor.

    To that end, I believe there needs to be programs, which allow poorer people to
    buy homes and condos. It doesn't take a Doctorate in Economics to realize people
    who own property take better care than landlords and renters. If we really want to
    encourage change in these "bad" neighborhoods, this is the way to do it.

    Want to give our companies a competitive advantage with their other industrialized
    competitors? Do something about healthcare costs! I understand GM figures the
    better part of a thousand dollars on every car they sell is due to healthcare costs!
    The same holds true for every other American company who offers medical benefits!

    These are just a small sample of things we should be doing in my opinion.
     
  17. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    But how do you lower healthcare costs when the insurance companies are getting hammered by frivolous and fraudulent lawsuits? Many doctors are leaving Pennsylvania due to the skyrocketing cost of malpractice insurance. Doctors and hospitals have to offset these increased costs by increasing the cost of their care. It is a very deadly cycle being driven by lawyers and a system out of control.

    We need to accept the fact that mistakes happen! Even the most skilled doctor is going to make a mistake sooner or later. If we allow the victims to continue collecting MILLIONS of dollars for these mistakes, it is the rest of society that is going to be picking up the tab. I see ridiculously huge monetary judgements against doctors and hospitals as the number one problem overall with our healthcare system. Not only does it harm healthcare, but it harms everyone's other insurance preiums as well.

    I understand that many of the awards are justified, but so many of them aren't.
     
  18. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    Interesting point RRedline, but I don't think the overall pay out comes close
    to the salary of all the top executives of the larger insurance companies.

    If you want to look at where the cost really comes from, look at the skyline of
    just about any big city. That's right, The Prudential Building and the John Hancock
    Building mark the Boston Skyline. Hartford? Please, don't tell me about how badly
    insurance companies are hurting.

    Next the Pharmaceutical companies. Talk about "You're money or you're life." Those
    bastards have been the top profit making industry for quite a long time now, at our
    expense. We are not talking about all the money they reinvest back into research,
    we're talking profit. Greed, my friend, pure and simple.

    Addressing the law suits, if the settlements werent as big, we would see more
    overpaid hospital administrators push more work and more hours on less nurses.
    Mistakes sometimes happen when people are overwhelmed. Hospitals have been
    reducing staff to a point where you need to be miracle worker to get the job done.

    No, RRedline, don't let them kid you.
    Law suits aren't even a blip on the overall cost of medical care. Greed is though!
     
  19. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    Oh, I totally understand that insurance companies are not hurting. They never will hurt because they offer people necessities - personal auto policies for example. Insurance companies take it upon themselves to structure their premiums in a way that makes up for bad years in the form of surcharges. And as I've pointed out many times while discussing similar topics, this is all done under the strict supervision of each individual state. In addition to that, insurance is extremely competitive. If we had only one choice, premiums would certainly be even higher. I guess my point is that if insurance companies wanted to blatantly gouge the consumers, they would surely go out of business for two reasons. First, other insurance companies would win over their customers due to lower prices for the same coverages. Second, the states will not allow it! Trust me, I know. Insurance is very heavily regulated. In fact, the company I work for is getting audited by the state for the second time in less than five years. If they find that we've done anything wrong or contrary to our books filed with the states, we will be in very serious trouble.

    You mention the large buildings that a few of the insurance companies own, but I must point out that those are very large companies which probably write a lot of policies for large businesses. Any company which writes hundreds of millions of dollars or more in premium each year is bound to end up wealthy. If they generate a large surplus(many times larger than what they are required to have on hand by the states), they would be in perfect position to lower premiums to be more competitive and gain even more business. Wouldn't you say?

    I know for a fact that malpractice insurance is ruining many family practices here in Pennsylvania. It is getting way out of hand, and I blame petty lawyers and stupid judges and juries.

    "Ouch, he hurt my hand. Gimme $10,000,000!"

    Bleh!
     
  20. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    Ken, don't let the anti-insurance crowd fool <b>you</b>. I work with a gentleman who used to be some sort of surgeon's assistant. He has many friends in the medical field, and I had lunch with a few of them one day at work. I couldn't believe how much one guy told me his malpractice insurance increased in just a few years. He has his own practice and is planning on moving out of state because his premium went from between $10,000 - $15,000 per year to a few hundred thousand per year! He simply can not afford to continue in this state, and that is unfortunate. I don't believe that medical personnel make nearly as much, on average, as many people assume they are.
     

Share This Page