Hacker News Reader

Comment by chasing | Hacker News Reader

> In truth I don't really see big enough (non cosmetic) differences between the parties or administrations to justify the partisanship you guys seem to have.

Then you don't know American politics.

How different might the country be had Gore been seated as President in 2001 after winning the election?

View on HN

I know right? It's like you have to have your head in the sand to not see the differences between the Bush and Obama administrations. I made a list a while back to give people an idea of the real differences between them.

-Likes beer and sports: both Obama and Bush

-Spends money the US doesn't have: both

-Directs Taxpayers' Money to Special Interests: both

-Supports Irresponsible Deficits: both

-Grants Taxpayer-Funded Corporate Bailouts: both

Disregards the Constitution via:

-Guantanamo Bay Detentions: both

-The Patriot Act: both

Fails to React to Domestic Disasters such as:

-Hurricane Katrina: only Bush

-Nashville Floods: only Obama

Supports NATO-led Killings in:

-Kosovo: only Bush

-Afghanistan: both

-Libya: only Obama

-Liberia: both

-Pakistan: both

-Supports US Occupation of Iraq: both

> -Likes beer and sports: both Obama and Bush

Probably technically true, though Bush is a recovering alcoholic and claims that he hasn't touched alcohol in decades.

The US prints its own money, it will always have enough. The question is whether inflation eats away its value.

The US's monetary base is $3.8T. Total outstanding public debt is $17.5T.[1][2]

If the US government were to print $17.5T in cash to cover their liability, it's not even a question that it would hurt every American with exposure to the value of the dollar. Debt is debt, and it has to be paid in the future. Every trillion borrowed today is not only a trillion we will not be able to borrow in the future, but also a trillion*exp(rt) that we will have to put towards paying debt back, rather than spending on our future needs. Printing money may sound like it's some meaningless and magical action, but it's not. Printing takes the money from people who have cash exposure. Taxing takes money from people more directly. Stealing from other countries via war takes the money from another source. But it has to be paid back in some way, Debt is debt, despite how much politicians make you want to believe otherwise so they can spend your future now.

[1] https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE

[2] http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

Wrong. You should read further US money processes topic, you'll be surprised.

Right, like when Delta ran out of frequent flier miles.

Umm, I think you're the one who doesn't know American politics.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Ridiculous. Read the full speech and see how its message compares with your cherry-picked quotes: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

Wow, I've seen some cherry-picking in my day but parent tries to bring out a message that is the complete opposite of what the speech says.

Deleted comment

Yep. As one of the results in your linked Google search says, a decent headline summary is "Gore blasts Bush on Iraq war".

Still probably would not have gone to war over it.

How dare you introduce nuance and, um, "inconvenient" facts into a political discussion! You're distracting the masses.

Gore: good! Bush: bad! four-legs-good-two-legs-bad!

> How different might the World be had Gore been seated as President in 2001 after winning the election?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com