compensate. After all, if millions of people are skinned in a market crash, it would be the government that would have to provide social assistance in the form of food stamps, welfare and the like. Gore’s main point hat republicans are vehemently opposed to is financing social security through general taxation. Gore reasoning is that then the government could pay down the debt with the surpluses, and with the savings from the interest payments, reinvest in the social security program. Gore’s response to Bush’s plan to allow individuals more control over their future financial well being comes in the form of ‘individual retirement savings plus’ accounts, in which tax exempt savings would be matched by government. Unlike what Gore’s camp would want one to think, Bush’s plan wouldn’t affect retirees, or those close to retirement, “no reduction in benefits for retirees”. Bush also takes a very conservative view in regard to raising taxes for social security support; he is absolutely against it. He is for dedicating social security money for social security, and leaving the paying of interest payment on our national debt a separate issue.These issues are a good measure of the candidates views about our concerns as a society. Between appealing to popular opinion and standing for something, candidates stances on issues are formed, and the people are left to sort through the images to make a decision. Who do we want to entrust with the awesome responsibility of leading our nation. Though we are fortunate to be a generally well educated society, the complexities of our government have become difficult to understand. Politicians rely on this to gain favor with the public. We as the power behind government must be better informed, so we are not taken advantage of by our own elected officials. Whether Nader, Gore, Bush, or any other candidate is elected, the benefits or the re...
