What If Gore Had Won?

If Al Gore had won:

He wouldnt be as rich as he is today.

Our nations debt would be larger than it currently is.

Our taxes would have been higher for the last decade.

The recession would have started earlier and lasted longer.
 
To those that think that the recession wouldn't have happened or would've been lighter had Gore been president (under the assumption he was elected for two terms), why?

Gore would certainly have expanded credit opportunities to high-risk borrowers, and most of the things that happened were as a result of policies put in place decades before either Bush or, in this scenario, Gore, were elected.
 
Gore Presidency: 2000-2008

-9/11 prevented and bin Laden killed

-Greater environmental protections, Kytoto Protocol signed, international agreement made

-No Afghan or Iraq war

-No recession, less wealth disparity

-Closer cooperation and friendship with European allies

-Strong economy with good growth and job creation

-US military strong

-North Korea no nuclear weapons

-Reformers take power in Iran, succeed in implementing reforms, no Iranian nukes, closer relations with US, Mosauvi wins election

-Hurricane Katrina alleviated

-Weed decriminalized

- DADT and DOMA repealed

-Educational standards better

-Healthcare reform with public option

-Obama victory in 08
 
Gore Presidency: 2000-2008

-9/11 prevented and bin Laden killed

-Greater environmental protections, Kytoto Protocol signed, international agreement made

-No Afghan or Iraq war

-No recession, less wealth disparity

-Closer cooperation and friendship with European allies

-Strong economy with good growth and job creation

-US military strong

-North Korea no nuclear weapons

-Reformers take power in Iran, succeed in implementing reforms, no Iranian nukes, closer relations with US, Mosauvi wins election
Would India and Pakistan have gotten into a nuclear war? :evil:
 
Apparently, psychoactive drugs were also legalized during the Gore years. :lol:

Yeah.

Kara, your Gore predictions are just nowhere based in reality.

If Gore had won and served two terms, Hillary would have had his endorsement and possibly won in 08.....Obama was an outsider to the Clinton power base (which included Gore).

You also forgot to add the following:

Gore ends pollution.

Gore ends global warming.

Gore feeds the world.

Gore ends crime.

Gore overthrows our evil alien overlords.

Gore controls the weather.

Gore conquers the galaxy.

Gore conquers universe.

Etc. etc. :lol:
 
Don't forget:

Gore single-handedly slays the Evil Wizard Elzekar at the Castle of Doom with the Sword of Divinity.

Gore takes martial arts courses from Chuck Norris and roundhouse kicks the GOP into the seventh dimension, guaranteeing peace, freedom, and prosperity for all peoples of the world. (Gore's team of crack eco-scientists created several more dimensions during his first hours in office.)

Gore invents the time machine, then proceeds to go back in time and prevent the crash of Amelia Earhart, and the tale of her heroic voyage across the globe prompts the impressed citizenry of the United States to pass comprehensive health care reform decades before the idea is submitted before Congress.
 
There would be probably more green and socialist policy(depends on congress though), but I somewhat doubt that he would be appeasing dove as some of you (mainly non-socialists) think.
 
To those that think that the recession wouldn't have happened or would've been lighter had Gore been president (under the assumption he was elected for two terms), why?

Gore would certainly have expanded credit opportunities to high-risk borrowers, and most of the things that happened were as a result of policies put in place decades before either Bush or, in this scenario, Gore, were elected.

First of all, there would not have been the mountain of federal government debt that Bush left. That was caused 100% by the incompetence and irresponsibility of Bush and the Congressional Republicans. Second, Bush's "tax cuts" at least in part fueled the housing bubble. There still would have been one. It predated Bush. But it would probably have been less without the "tax cuts" to fuel it. Third, Bush cut regulations, and did not enforce those regulations that remained on the books. As a result, Bush defacto acted to introduce massive fraud on the parts of Wall St, the mortgage banks, and non bank mortgage originators, into the picture. And the total crisis is far more the result of what the financial institutions did than it is of what the people who took out too much mortgage did. Forth, as has been pointed out many times, expanding credit opportunities to high risk borrowers in and of itself really wasn't a very important factor in the crisis. In fact, it had gone on for decades with no downside. It was the introduction of new and sophisticated financing, the fraud on the parts of mortgage originators, investment banks, credit rating agencies, and other unregulated pieces of the finance industry that turned a minor problem into a major crisis.

So without Bush, it's simply impossible to believe that things would have been quite that bad. Of course, Gore would have had a Republican Congress. And that Congress would have sought the outcome that Bush got. However, any mitigation of conservative irresponsibility would have left us better off in the long run.
 
My version is more accurate than anything anyone else has posted so far and that includes Newsweek.
 
There still would have been one. It predated Bush. But it would probably have been less without the "tax cuts" to fuel it. Third, Bush cut regulations, and did not enforce those regulations that remained on the books. As a result, Bush defacto acted to introduce massive fraud on the parts of Wall St, the mortgage banks, and non bank mortgage originators, into the picture.

The toxic investments that caused this mess are an invention of the 90s, not the 2000s, and at no point in the last decades has any party made a move to do anything that would have allieviated them. In fact BOTH parties did their best this decade to make things worse, albiet in very different ways. To pretend Gore would have done anything to forstall this when such efforts were not even a blip on the map of the Democratic platform is pure fantasy.
 
The toxic investments that caused this mess are an invention of the 90s, not the 2000s, and at no point in the last decades has any party made a move to do anything that would have allieviated them. In fact BOTH parties did their best this decade to make things worse, albiet in very different ways. To pretend Gore would have done anything to forstall this when such efforts were not even a blip on the map of the Democratic platform is pure fantasy.

But Bush did cut the regulatory actions of the government. And fraud did escalate on his watch in the absence of any regulatory enforcement. In fact, the real high volume fraud came into it in only the latter part of Bush's term in office.
 
But Bush did cut the regulatory actions of the government. And fraud did escalate on his watch in the absence of any regulatory enforcement. In fact, the real high volume fraud came into it in only the latter part of Bush's term in office.

Whatever regulatory restictions that were lifted this decade (and there were relatively few) it was done without a peep from the Democrats. In fact, all sides roundly took credit for the rise in the DOW and home ownership rates for their own ends. There was no motivation for what you are suggesting on the part of Gore, it would have been more of the same.
 
Whatever regulatory restictions that were lifted this decade (and there were relatively few) it was done without a peep from the Democrats. In fact, all sides roundly took credit for the rise in the DOW and home ownership rates for their own ends. There was no motivation for what you are suggesting on the part of Gore, it would have been more of the same.

There was also no reason for Gore to cut enforcement of existing regulations. Had they been left in place, there was at least some possibility of the fraud Bush sanctioned not accelerating so badly.
 
First of all, there would not have been the mountain of federal government debt that Bush left.

There would have been more.

That was caused 100% by the incompetence and irresponsibility of Bush and the Congressional Republicans.

And how much more has it increased under Obama and the congressional democrats? x4? x5?

Keep making excuses to not recognize that.

Second, Bush's "tax cuts" at least in part fueled the housing bubble. There still would have been one. It predated Bush. But it would probably have been less without the "tax cuts" to fuel it.

How did the tax cuts fuel bad loans to lower income recipiants? I thought Bush's tax cuts were only for the rich? :lol:

My version is more accurate than anything anyone else has posted so far and that includes Newsweek.

Pure comedy gold. :lol:

I just pointed out one fact that you were incredibly wrong on. That being about Obama being elected after a Gore presidency. It never would have happened.

More accurate? Laughable. :lol:
 
"tax cuts"
Wait, why quotes around "tax cuts"? Were taxes not really cut?

Well, actually, they weren't... federal revenues increased by over a trillion dollars over Bush's term in office and individual income tax revenue decreased only for FY2003 and then in FY2004 was either at or above previous levels. Also, the burden shifted toward higher-income earners... so really, the Bush tax cuts resulted in more rich people paying more in taxes. :lol:

Third, Bush cut regulations, and did not enforce those regulations that remained on the books.
I want you to cite specific regulations that were repealed under the Bush administration, and also how the administration failed to enforce them before you go making such a claim.
 
Top Bottom