The reality is that while McCain was a liberal on immigration, he was more of a fiscal-conservative than most of his colleagues during the Republican-control of Congress. His opposition to the Bush tax-cuts was based - as he stated at the time - on the failure to control spending at the same time. Traditional fiscal conservatism does believe in low-taxation, but it also believes in balanced-budgets - as exemplified by Reagan when he called for a constitutional-amendment to ban govt borrowing. I accept he was not a strong conservative on abortion, gay marriage and illegal-immigration however. In the past, McCain was not in favour of repealing Roe v Wade and even now he does not support the Federal Marriage Amendment. The reality is that no Republican - in hindsight - is likely to have been able to shake off the Republican association with the recession - and in some respects that is unfair because as stated earlier, the Democrats share the blame for the subprime crisis because Democratic presidents signed the Community Reinvestment Act 1977/1995 which forced financial-institutions into taking on diversity-quotas in spite of the fact that this meant - because African-Americans and Hispanics are poorer - taking on far more subprime borrowers. I am all for equality among citizens of different ethnic-groups, but in a way the CRA actually constituted discrimination, as it meant Caucasians were getting loans on less preferential terms than ethnic-minorities. It's another example of the damage Political-Correctness can cause when taken to extremes.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Phoenix, you give a long list but did not list any difference so lets take social security as you put it top. 7.3% tax on the worker and the same again on the employer. Collect at 62 and the tax capped at about 100 grand. Nobody expects any money from this back if you are under 50 because it will be broke very soon.

What proposals have either the reps or dems made to solve this unavoidable crisis. Either the age, rate or cap or all 3 must be adjusted.

Don't come back saying the GOP were going to invest the funds in the stock market as that was all baloney because the funds at the moment are invested in treasuries, not cash, and these treasuries are of dubious value looking forward themselves. The SS Fund does not hold cash and is slated to fall to deficit in a few years without radical change

The republicans want to privatise it the democrats want to keep it, thats a pretty stark diffrence .

There are stark diffrences in every single issue I listed, you know it.

The fact that the democtratic or republican parties don't have positions that allign exactly with what you'd like does not mean they have no diffrences.

I knew you would come back with this drival.

There is nothing to invest as it is going broke. I told you the fund only holds treasuries and is soon to go into deficit.



It is not called The Third Rail of American politics for nothing. The dems were asked what they would do in the debates and Obama and Clinton waffled.

What is unavoidable is that the cap must be raised to include all incomes and the scheme must be phased out as the demographics has it bust.

Neither party are willing to admit this.

The plan was individuals to invest their money not to invest money from the trust fund.



In any case, none of that matters, because it's a major policy difference.

Phoenix. The GOP controlled Congress up to 2006 so why did this plan not pass into law. Simple because it was Bush's plan and he was not worried about reelection. The GOP have no plan either.

There is only 2 options. Drastic increases in the tax and reduced benifits or else scrapping the whole shebang. The new administration will be forced out of necessity to do one or the other

It had no public support so members of congress didn't act, same reason Clintons Universal Healthcare plan failed.

Thats what I am saying. The GOP have no plan and neither do the Dems for this problem. It is no longer even a question of plans. The arithmatic is simple.

Now what differences do they have in foreign policy either except more waffle. What changes do you see on Jan 21

Listen, for a while now I've had a rule for this site: Don't feed lazy people information they can easily find themselves.

There was three debates and 20 or so primary debates for you to sink your teeth into if your really interested, which your not because your minds already made up.
They didn't spend the three debates saying the same things as each other.

They both have social security plans, if you look at their sites, you may not think they're GOOD plans, but they are different to each other.

What do you expect to change on foreign policy on Jan 21st. It is a simple question.