In reviewing the last political debets (Bush vs Gore), in each meeting there would be over 5 questions concerning the economy in these political campaigns. How are these fundings used, how much money is actually spend on these "political issues" that not only wealthy indivuals doante but that tax payers pay for. One of the things that was at stake in this presidential election was whether the policies of different candidates will worsen economic inequality and further polarize our country along racial and class lines. (Collins).
For one thing between the two major parties there were pretty clear differences in terms of tax policies. A Bush tax plan, including a repeal of the estate tax, would concentrate wealth in fewer hands. A Gore tax plan, including the establishment of Universal Savings Accounts, would put more money in the pockets of people who have been left out of the economic boom back when it happen. In other areas, such as global trade, there are not major differences.
Another major issue was social security. Governor Bush has persisted in gross misstatements about a major issue of public policy -- Social Security -- that bespeak either ignorance or dishonesty. The key facts about Social Security was: The system is projected to run large surpluses over the next decade and add $2.4 trillion to its reserves. After 2024 expenditures are projected to exceed revenues. Accumulated reserves are projected to be exhausted in 2037. At that point, revenues will cover approximately 70 percent of benefits promised under current law. Neither candidate disputes these projections. (Aaron).