Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (2740)	10/16/2000 8:23:57 PM
From: Slugger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

Bush Has Edge in New Poll Updated 6:42 PM ET October 16, 2000 By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - George W. Bush has the edge over Al Gore in a new poll, apparently helped by a public perception that he is more trustworthy and increased concern over the nation's morals. The NBC-Wall Street Journal poll had Bush ahead 48 percent to 42 percent among likely voters, with a 4-point error margin. A CNN-Time poll released over the weekend also showed Bush up slightly, 48 percent to 43 percent, and a Voter.com Battleground poll had Bush up 43 percent to 39 percent. Several other surveys have shown the two candidates within the error margins. Bush has gained ground in the race for 270 electoral votes. Heading into the first debate, Gore narrowly led Bush, according to analysis of state polls and interviews with consultants in both parties. Now, Bush holds a slight lead after states that once leaned toward Gore, such as Pennsylvania and Tennessee, became tossups after the first debate on Oct. 3. Democrat Gore continues to hold the advantage on top issues like the economy, Social Security, foreign policy and education. He also has a big advantage in having the knowledge and experience to handle the presidency. Republican Bush scores highest on trust. Almost half, 45 percent, said he was more honest and straightforward than Gore, 29 percent. Bush also had the advantage on setting the proper moral tone for the country, 39 percent to 29 percent, and being trustworthy enough to make the right decisions, 43 percent to 32 percent. Bush also scored better on leadership qualities, 41 percent to 35 percent, and being more likable, 44 percent to 30 percent, in the NBC-WSJ poll of 736 likely voters taken Oct. 13-15. news.excite.com

To: American Spirit who wrote (2740)	10/17/2000 10:11:34 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 10042

From the Washington Post - "But budget experts said Gore's plan leaves many potential structural problems in Social Security untouched. Moreover at a time when many experts say the only way to guarantee Socal Security's long term solvency is either to trim benefits or raise payroll taxes, Gore has also proposed moving in the opposite direction. He would expand the benefits package to boost payments to working women who take time off to raise children. A change that is expected to cost $100bil over 10 years. He has also promised not to increase payroll taxes or raise the retirement age above the planned jump to 67. Gore's plan "is not a solution to the question of paying for social security benefits" said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a group that advocates balanced budgets. "You have no fiscal discipline, you have no governing device on the program. It just becomes a black hole." washingtonpost.com The article critizes Bush's plan too, and I'm not saying Bush has an easy way to solve the problems of Social Security either, but it does point out that Gore really doesn't have solid controls on future spending, and thus his "safety account" means nothing. Look at Al Gore's site - algore.com algore2000.com More farm subsidies algore.com algore.com New "Trust Funds" algore.com This is interesting on the same page that he says "Al Gore's balanced budget plan devotes the entire Social Security surplus ($2.3 trillion over ten years) for debt reduction and to improve Social Security benefits for widows and mothers." He also says - "Al Gore is proposing to spend part of the expected surplus on a new National Energy and Environmental Security Trust Fund." Just another example of double counting the money. You don't need a "lockbox", or a "trust fund", or a "safety account" or even spending cuts to balance the budget. You just need to reign in the growth of federal spending. Al Gore moves in the wrong direction on this issue. Some more new spending - "He has proposed new Retirement Savings Plus accounts that will enable working Americans to build a tax-free retirement nest egg in addition to Social Security's guaranteed benefit. Under Gore's plan, the federal government would match individual contributions". This is an open ended commitmit. No one knows how many people will take advantage of it and how much the government will have to match. Look all over his site and new spending programs or targeted tax credits are everywhere. "Gore's campaign takes a different direction. His biggest single expenditure of the surplus would be on Medicare, according to campaign documents. Over 10 years, he would spend $374 billion, which the campaign says will make the program financially secure through 2025, as well as provide a prescription drug benefit, though it is more limited than Bradley's. Unlike Bradley, Gore also would spend about 11 percent of the surplus on education, 12 percent on defense and 13 percent on paying interest on the national debt. Bradley's budget contains additional spending on education, but it is not as much as Gore." iowapulse.com "Gore has suggested using projected federal budget surpluses to pay down the national debt. He would then credit interest savings from eliminating the debt to the Social Security Trust Fund, thereby extending the life of the fund on paper. The key words here are "on paper." The Gore plan is nothing more than a bookkeeping gimmick. It would increase the amount of IOU's in the trust fund, but it would not provide the resources to pay those debts when they come due." cato.org "The underreported story of this election is how much extra money Al Gore wants the federal government to spend. Newspapers have devoted much ink to how George W. Bush's tax-cut plan might be a problem if there is an economic downturn. Stories frequently repeat Team Gore's warning that the Bush proposal to reduce income taxes by $1.3 trillion over 10 years is a "risky tax scheme." Wrong, people. The truly risky scheme is Al Gore's dream budget. Tom E. McClusky of the conservative National Taxpayers Union added up Gore's program proposals and found that Gore wants to expand the federal budget by $2.3 trillion over the next 10 years ... that's $161 billion more than the estimated $2.1 trillion non-Social Security surplus." townhall.com Tim