Occupy Wall Street protest

[hard4janira]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...election,_2000

He won the popular vote not the electoral vote. But why on earth do people say every vote counts when in this case it clearly didn't matter.

Because winning the popular vote doesn't get you the Presidency, winning the electoral vote does. But everybody knows this going into it to begin with, right? At least I thought so...

It should come as no surpise to Al Gore that he was not elected President despite having won the popular vote. I would be very, very dubious about his Ivy League degree had he though otherwise....

Besides, Albert Gore (our treasured Nobel laureate) isn't alone. Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election in 1824 and there may be others. Dem's da' breaks when you know the rules. I'm just astonished at how many dummies don't know the rules... Well, actually I'm not. Probably over 50% of Americans can't name the Vice President or the Speaker of the House.... And that's why our country sucks now.

[Silcc69]

Because winning the popular vote doesn't get you the Presidency, winning the electoral vote does. But everybody knows this going into it to begin with, right? At least I thought so...

It should come as no surpise to Al Gore that he was not elected President despite having won the popular vote. I would be very, very dubious about his Ivy League degree had he though otherwise....

Besides, Albert Gore (our treasured Nobel laureate) isn't alone. Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election in 1824 and there may be others. Dem's da' breaks when you know the rules. I'm just astonished at how many dummies don't know the rules... Well, actually I'm not. Probably over 50% of Americans can't name the Vice President or the Speaker of the House.... And that's why our country sucks now.

No they don't but why bother voting if the popular vote isn't going to win. The Electoral College isn't even under any obligation to go with the popular vote in the first place. SO when people say every vote counts that isn't always true.

[BluegrassCat]

No they don't but why bother voting if the popular vote isn't going to win. The Electoral College isn't even under any obligation to go with the popular vote in the first place. SO when people say every vote counts that isn't always true.

Votes certainly aren't equal in weight. As a voter in NY my vote counts much less than someone in a battleground state like Ohio. The marginal impact of a New Yorker's vote is quite low in comparison. Not only are votes unequal, but some residents are more represented than others. If NY has like 20 million people and Montana has only 1 million but each state gets 2 Senators, the citizens of Montana are much MORE represented in Congress than New Yorkers are. The Grand Bargain is a bitch if you're from a populous state.

Oh and btw Gore won Florida.

[Silcc69]

Votes certainly aren't equal in weight. As a voter in NY my vote counts much less than someone in a battleground state like Ohio. The marginal impact of a New Yorker's vote is quite low in comparison. Not only are votes unequal, but some residents are more represented than others. If NY has like 20 million people and Montana has only 1 million but each state gets 2 Senators, the citizens of Montana are much MORE represented in Congress than New Yorkers are. The Grand Bargain is a bitch if you're from a populous state.

Oh and btw Gore won Florida.

Jeb Bush fixed that small issue.

[Stavros]

I think most historians agree that FDR's New Deal was crucial to saving the USA at its most economically challenged moment, but that real, incremental economic growth did not return to the country until the 1940s when its industrial capacity grew to meet the needs of the Second World War -total war has a way of using all the people it can get -men go to war, women go to work -but like Keynes's temporary solution to the slump, it can only be temporary -famously, in the 1950s, the men came home from the war and the women went home from work. There is also the theory that FDR 'allowed' the Japanese to attack the USA precisely to engineer the war that would rescue the American economy, but that is another thread. And these days, wars seem to cost more than they are worth.

On the other hand, I believe this mystical faith in markets will not deliver jobs in the way its disciples claim -what is it that America is going to make that cannot be made in China at such uncompetitive rates? I am confident that some growth will return, but I think it will be disappointing, that is the nature of the structural shift that is taking place. What will be interesting is to see the impact of the decline of economic growth in China over the next ten years, this could benefit the US economy, but again, I just don't see high volume jobs returning in the near future, and that is the reality to which people must adjust. It means, incidentally, if you are a college graduate in your 20s, you should be looking for work in Asia or Latin America.

Correct me if I am wrong, Bush was awarded the Presidency by the Electoral College, it was 'just' confirmed by the Supreme Court; and your Electoral College is part of the democratic process that performs its duties every four years....?

[BluegrassCat]

I think most historians agree that FDR's New Deal was crucial to saving the USA at its most economically challenged moment, but that real, incremental economic growth did not return to the country until the 1940s when its industrial capacity grew to meet the needs of the Second World War -total war has a way of using all the people it can get -men go to war, women go to work -but like Keynes's temporary solution to the slump, it can only be temporary -famously, in the 1950s, the men came home from the war and the women went home from work. There is also the theory that FDR 'allowed' the Japanese to attack the USA precisely to engineer the war that would rescue the American economy, but that is another thread. And these days, wars seem to cost more than they are worth.

On the other hand, I believe this mystical faith in markets will not deliver jobs in the way its disciples claim -what is it that America is going to make that cannot be made in China at such uncompetitive rates? I am confident that some growth will return, but I think it will be disappointing, that is the nature of the structural shift that is taking place. What will be interesting is to see the impact of the decline of economic growth in China over the next ten years, this could benefit the US economy, but again, I just don't see high volume jobs returning in the near future, and that is the reality to which people must adjust. It means, incidentally, if you are a college graduate in your 20s, you should be looking for work in Asia or Latin America.

Correct me if I am wrong, Bush was awarded the Presidency by the Electoral College, it was 'just' confirmed by the Supreme Court; and your Electoral College is part of the democratic process that performs its duties every four years....?

Right, the Supreme Court ordered them to halt the count in Florida where it was, with Bush in the lead, effectively handing him the presidency. Had they counted all the ballots Gore would have been president.

[hard4janira]

I think the formula sounds perfectly reasonable and is still a conservative underestimate of true poverty, much like the unemployment rate is an underestimate of true unemployment.

We can agree that the government lies about true unemployment (just like they lie about inflation). We will probably never agree on what 'true poverty' is however. I feel that my goal as a citizen and a human being is over if my fellow man has clothes, shelter, and food to eat. I am responsible for nothing else unless I choose to be through charitable donations (which I personally would do). I believe that anything else, including things such as medical care, should be charitable and out of the realm of government involvement. I do not feel responsible for paying for somebodies education, internet, entertainment, transportation, etc... You see, not having things should be incentive for working hard and achieving them. The welfare culture that we've created has instead created a society content on living off of hand outs without seeking any kind of self-improvement.

You didn't make any points here, just ranting and insults.

No, I made a very important point. My point was that ALL PEOPLE vote (and do things in general) for thier own self-interests. It's basic human nature and the premise on which the entire foundation of capitalism is founded. I'm glad you recognize and acknowledge this. If the indigent vote in thier self interest then why wouldn't every other human being in any other capacity or social status do the exact same thing? Why wouldn't a company make decisions that exclusively benefit the company and its shareholders? Nothing wrong with this line of thinking at all my friend. That's reality. That is how the world works.

It seems like you gave up debating and are now repeating talking points. This doesn't even pass the smell test for intellectual honesty. Yes inequality has risen (remember OWS?) but social security, medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits etc have been arresting the process not accelerating it.

Arresting the process? I doubt you could find evidence to support that claim. Let me help you....x2. 'These programs have arrested the acceleration of debt inequality by x2', therefore they are a roaring success!'. No, I'm just being sarcastic now. I think you fail to realize that America has the best, fattest, most cared for poor, lower middle, and middle class in all the world. It's just that that isn't good enough for you. You won't happy until........ well, actually, I don't know WHAT would ever make you happy. Maybe it is zero rich people, zero poor people, and 100 percent middle class people. What would make you happy? Give me something in quantitative terms that you could be happy with. Hell, the progressives can't even come up with a fair number to tax the rich. Every time they are asked the question they balk and walk the other way. The only answer they ever have is 'more'.

This is just basic stuff. But I'm glad that you finally acknowledge the gross levels inequality has reached in this country and the destabilizing effects this has for democracy.

I don't acknowledge any 'gross levels' of inequality, although I do think that some people have done things that should put them in jail (both in the corporate world and the federal government). I also think that people who think like you encourage 'destabalizing' effects by promoting class warfare. Your kind will never be satisfied with equal opportunity, only equal outcomes - and the only way to get that is to take it by force using government.

This is from the same author you cited who puts the Japanese mistake not in fiscal stimulus but in a tax hike, which Keynes would oppose while still in a recession.

Isnt' that exactly what the progressives and the OWS crowd is clamoring for right now? Tax hikes on the evil 1%! The rich aren't paying thier fair share! Lets' get them!

Right everyone agrees the recession would have been worse but you claim without evidence it would have been shorter.

Not only do I think it would have been shorter but I think that it wouldn't have had any of the collateral damage that you are creating. S. Korea had a recession in the late 90's that was very brief and had a remarkable recovery. Austrians point to the fact that it was because the government remained hands-off more or less. I have to invetigate this more for details but I recall having read this. In the meanwhile you can chew on this:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/10/news...tune/index.htm

Ah, but the data DO show that. I know it irks you because you're relying on emotions not evidence but the stimulus averted disaster, saved 2 million jobs, provided a x2 multiplier back to GDP for what we spent and we desperately need more of it as most economists agree.

You just make up bollocks don't you? 'Averted disaster', saved 2 million jobs.....the nutty 'x2' multiplier.........lol.

Again this comes down to different goals, you want to bankrupt the country and I don't.

Ummm.... how can I be the one who wants to bankrupt the country when YOU'RE the one who wants to spend all of the borrowed money? I don't want to bankrupt the country! I don't want to spend the money! YOU are the one who wants to bankrupt the country because you won't stop spending money even though you have NOTHING in the way of a plan that cuts spending and pays down the debt. YOU are the one that wants bankruptcy, I just want to watch you do it so I can laugh at you and all the misery and despair you cause in the process. Oh and make no mistake - you will win. Your policies will become reality becaue I think you will be able to subvert most Americans into thinking that they should never accept cuts in social programs even though you will never find a way to pay for them. Americans are stupid and most of them will vote for your hand-out packages and loot and riot in the street as you stoke the flames of discord and class warfare. Fuck it. I've got an AR-15 and lots of ammo. Let's GIT-R-DONE!

[hard4janira]

Votes certainly aren't equal in weight. As a voter in NY my vote counts much less than someone in a battleground state like Ohio. The marginal impact of a New Yorker's vote is quite low in comparison. Not only are votes unequal, but some residents are more represented than others. If NY has like 20 million people and Montana has only 1 million but each state gets 2 Senators, the citizens of Montana are much MORE represented in Congress than New Yorkers are. The Grand Bargain is a bitch if you're from a populous state.

Oh and btw Gore won Florida.

But what about all of the seats in the House that NY gets because of the population? Montana doesn't get that many seats. You're argument is absurd. Plus, you make the assumption that 2 Sentators from Montana would vote differently than 2 senators from New York. They may in 2012, but this is simply coincidence. What about the 2 senators from Hawaii? They would balance out the 2 from Montana easily. The Senate was never intended to represent population distributions - the house is. Your argument fails here on the facts as does the rest of your blather.

[hard4janira]

Had they counted all the ballots Gore would have been president.

This is just a blatant lie. Bush won the recount in Florida and actually picked up more votes on the recount (which was thrown out anyway)

The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.

Al Gore was a LOSER by any standard you want to come up with, but it tickles me pink that some people are still bitter about it 10 years after the fact! Hey, I'm not a big fan of 'dubbya', but I'm sure as hell glad that Al Gore lost so he could spend the next decade lying to world about global warming.

[Silcc69]

This is just a blatant lie. Bush won the recount in Florida and actually picked up more votes on the recount (which was thrown out anyway)

The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.

Al Gore was a LOSER by any standard you want to come up with, but it tickles me pink that some people are still bitter about it 10 years after the fact! Hey, I'm not a big fan of 'dubbya', but I'm sure as hell glad that Al Gore lost so he could spend the next decade lying to world about global warming.

Yes having Dubya lie about WMD was a helluva lot better.