Is Bernie Sanders The Best Presidential Candidate Currently?
Debate Rounds (3)
Sanders would force companies that go over seas, to give back any benefits they ever got from any form of US government, he would strengthen ties with Europe and our allies in Eastern Asia (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, possibly Hong Kong), he would increase US funding to Israel, and lastly would break up wall street. This would be in order to prevent a crash that requires the US people to bail out the billionaires (there companies) in order to save the US economy. He would also introduce restrictions on wall street which would prevent a 2008-like housing market crash, or any crash like it, he would force higher security on borders, but disband militarised deportment units (this would pay for the higher security). The higher security, unlike a wall which Trump proposes, would not be able to be suspended by climbing over it, it would consist of cameras, drones, checkpoints, etc.
Overall, Sanders is the best candidate, he is good on everything, but Israel (he believes in 2 states and he believes in the Iran Deal)!
First and foremost, Bernie Sanders, like any other presidential candidate, has views on almost every political topic. I am only going to rebute the views of Bernie Sanders that you agree with so that we do not have to go into detail about every piece of legislation or topic he has an opinion on. Also, I hope you keep an open mind to my rebuttal and consider the views I give on the subject. [->] That symbol indicates it is a statement that you made.
Time to begin!
-> Your statement: "Sanders would also introduce a plan to make public colleges (colleges that receive the majority of funding from the US Gov) free for all"
The concept of making college free falls flat for four major reasons that I will list below:
1) Government is the problem.
We mustn't forget that the reason that the cost for college is so high is because of government involvement in giving increasing loans to students going to college. Generations ago college was much cheaper. Even in recent history we can see college prices rising sharply. In 1995 the average cost was $14,000 while today it is almost $40,000. The article I get this information from also mentions that it is outpacing inflation, "inflation increase from 1995 through the first half of 2015 was 55.1percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. So tuition at four-year National Universities is outpacing inflation, and by a lot." (http://www.usnews.com...)
Why is this partly the government's fault? As this and many other articles show (http://college.usatoday.com...) as federal loans increase so does the yearly payment for a college tuition. This makes sense because if students are given loans and can therefore go to college without any immediate payment, more students can go to college without worrying as much about the costs. This causes colleges to increase their tuition without worry of losing the attendance of students because the government is giving aid and loans which increases college pricing.
So, the point of this is to keep the government out of the situation. When the government gets involved, it usually turns out ugly.
2) College is not for everyone.
As you know, not every job requires a college education. We need people to be janitors, construction workers, and other labor work. With free college, a decrease in the hard labor force will likely be a result.
3) It will devalue the degree.
Making a college degree free will make the degree less valuable. Today, it is already hard enough to find a job. Try finding one with a high school degree, that might get you a job at minimum wage, but you cannot live off of that. High school is free if you go to public schools and if this happens with colleges then everyone will be getting a degree for free which will devalue the degree of all other college students. The fact is that the more people with a degree the less valuable its worth is. The point of going to college is to further study an interest and get a professional job.
4) College still will not be free.
Even if the tuition is free, as Bernie Sanders proposes, students will still leave college with debt. How? Going to college still requires a cost for books, housing, etc. The best way to look at this is to use an example of a country whom already has free college. Sweden. Shockingly enough, MORE students in Sweden graduate with debt that in the United States. " And 85% of Swedish students graduate with debt, versus only 50% in the US. Worst of all, new Swedish graduates have the highest debt-to-income ratios of any group of students in the developed world" (http://www.theatlantic.com...) They graduate with an average of about $20,000 in debt. This is because even though they receive a free education, the government must make up for this money in other ways. This is part of the reason why housing, food, clothing, and basic living costs more in Sweden.
-> Your statement: "Sanders would force all business's to pay men and woman the same salaries"
I know what I say may be controversial, but I am here to state my opinion. I just wanted to mention that the wage gap does not necessarily exist. Here are two reasons why:
1) Hire women.
If there was a wage gap and women were paid 10 to 20 percent less than men, why don't employers take advantage of this. They can hire just women and pay all their employees less and make more money because they do not have any men to pay more.
The reason many of these statistics show that men make more is because on average men work more hours per week. Here are some of the statistics. "In 2000, 19% of men worked 50 hours or more per week, compared to 7% of women". (http://qz.com...). This next statistic shows that women work 5 hours less than men on average a week. "Men worked an average of 41.1 hours per week. Woman worked an average of 36.4 hours per week in paid employment." (http://jobsearch.about.com...)
So, I disagree with Sanders here because I dispute the fact that this wage gap even exists.
-> "Sanders would be fine with legalising marijuana if it came to his doorstep"
Once again, this is a matter of political preference.
Why I disagree with Bernie Sanders acceptance of legalizing marijuana:
I will only use this argument because I do not want to discuss this matter too much because it is not a main factor for my disliking of Bernie Sanders. Anyways, the reason I am against the legalization of marijuana is simply a safety common sense approach. For example, it is a law to wear your seat belt. It is accepted and enforced, and it is there to protect you. In the case of marijuana it does not just protect you, but it protects others that you may possibly harm. (Before you use the alcohol is legal approach so marijuana should be, I must add that I am not arguing about alcohol, I am trying to prevent another substance that can harm citizens to becoming legalized and accepted. It is better to stop the acceptance of marijuana before it becomes too late.
-> "cost about 1.005 trillion dollars"
-> "cost 75 billion dollars a year"
-> "5.5 billion dollar "
You mentioned a lot of costs throughout your support of Bernie Sanders. This is another factor which makes me reluctant to vote for him, because he tends to have plans that cost a lot of money. We have a federal debt of almost 20 trillion at this point. I want a president that is focused on not spending, but cutting our budget.
-> "17 million people"
-> "250,000 a year by 10%"
-> "over 1 million misfortune youth "
You mentioned various statistics. I did not see any sources so I was wondering where you were getting this information. I feel like some of them are numbers that were just thrown out there, but if you can please list the sources next round.
All in all, these are some of my rebuttals to the reasons you think that Bernie Sanders would be a good candidate. I will go into more detail after your rebuttal. Thanks for your time!
You replied to Sanders policy of making public colleges free, by arguing that: "Government is the problem," "College is not for everyone," "It will devalue the degree," "College will still not be free." I am going to start by arguing against your first point. You said the reason college is so high, is because the government is increasing the price of loans, I do not disagree, this is fact, but Sanders would get rid of this, as in take out the governments role in increasing student loans. After this, tuition would be much lower, but not as low as you would think, still much more expensive then in the past (by tens of thousands). The average person would still not be able to pay for college with a part time job that they take on while going to school (or a full time job over the summer, or even both). A large part college has become so expensive is also because public funding for education was slashed, when you look at the charts/graphs/stats it would seem as if there is to much a difference, a few jumps, both up and down here and there, but that is because inflation hasn't been accounted for. As the value of money decreased the funding for college and education did too (as Congress didn't raise it according to inflation). With less funding, colleges needed some way to pay there faculty, build new campuses, and some way to make a profit, which, like it or not, is the ultimate goal of most colleges. The way colleges could continue to make the same amount of money (counting for inflation) was to raise tuition, so they did. It is sad that as they raised tuition, the government raised the loans, but both were a problem, not just the government involvement in loans. Government policy is a problem when it comes to loans, but it is also the solution. If we get rid of the governments role is loan price and increase the role in funding, the government would be able to get rid of tuition altogether (for public and community colleges). I have already stated how this 75 billion dollars would be paid for, and in order to save space I will not explain again. My source for this argument was the New York Times, and then a little personnel investigation (into statistics, where I applied inflation, with numbers according to the Labor Department).
You stated that "College is not for everyone," I do not believe this is true. In our world today, at various rates, jobs are being destroyed by technology, specifically computers. As they get more advanced, it becomes cheaper to use them over people due to them being much less likely to make mistakes, and due to them not needing a salary, and most importantly, due to them being so efficient, so fast, that a single job that could take a person an entire work day can be completed in a few seconds. With this loss of jobs, it is good to prepare for the future, by having more and more highly educated people. As the use of technology gets bigger and as the technology gets more advanced, simple jobs not needing a college education will be replaced. New jobs will be created, but the majority of these will require higher education. These jobs range from specialized coding developers, to micro engineers making computers smaller and more efficient. Hands on factory jobs will be destroyed, and eventually even managers, but the supply for engineers, coders, developers, will increase greatly. If we make college free over the next number of decades, we won't have to in the future, colleges will just need to increase tech classes which they are already doing. You said
->We will need janitors, construction workers, and other labor work. With free college, a decrease in the hard labor force will likely be a result.
This is true, but by the time colleges truly become free (it won't happen in a month, a year, likely not even in less than a couple decades), when the plan/program is completed, we will not need as many labor workers. Robots can already take over factory jobs, not all we have to do is lower the price (which won't take long, if you look at other technologies, for example something with the tech capability of the Iphone 6s would likely cost thousands if not millions of dollars in the 90s, in the 2000s it would still cost in the thousands, versus the current price of 800. In the 90s we may have lacked some of the technology, so that would explain for the cost increase, but in the 2000s, we would have had the tech to make a Iphone 6s, just it would be much more expensive. We (humans) are also developing basically giant 3d printers to build homes, which have actually been used, just currently, the "printers" cost more than the lot and materials combined. In 20 years, this will likely not be true, and home builders may not even be needed. Janitors and jobs similar to that, do actually need to get special learning, public colleges do actually give this learning, therefore there would not be a decrease in them.
You said making the degree will devalue the degree, making jobs harder to find in today's world yes, but other policies of Sanders would combat this. Also, in the past high school cost money, when it became free, college degrees were worth much more. If we make college free, a post-graduate degree will be worth more, be payed more, etc. Also, current people with college degrees, will not get payed less, as they will have more experience. And lastly, a new form of school would likely emerge, for specialized subjects, post-post-graduate degree for extremely specialized doctors, engineers, developers, chemists, as science evolved, so will the job structure of the world, more and more jobs will be specialized, less and less not so.
You said college won't be truly free, this is true. Books, housing, food, but this can be paid for with a summer job, or part time (all year) job. You also said more people in Sweden have college debt, sure, but this does not increase and is much smaller than, averaging at 20k total (like you said), vs 30k in the US according to many places, including the Atlantic!
I am gonna move on to the gender wage gap. The reason places don't just higher woman is because of the civil rights act which bans discriminating in the work place (hiring) based on gender among other things (section 713 I think, around there), so they can't take advantage or they would be sued/taken to court/shut down by the gov. What you said about hours is false, as you have to take into thought that currently in the US less woman have jobs (either they are unemployed and looking, or stay at home parents). I have looked at the website you used, it polled men and woman, with jobs and without. The numbers saying that woman get payed less take into thought hours and only look at cases of working men and woman for the same job (or at least the same job roles). Also both your websites had a small sample size (in the low thousands) and a large margin of error (higher than 3%). Also none of those polls have been recognized by a national/reliable source.
When I said Sanders would be fine legalizing Marijuana, I meant he would do it if the legislation passed through Congress, I did not mean he would lobby for it in any way, I just said he would sign a bill if it came to him. What source has told you Marijuana is bad. You can of course OD, like pretty much anything else, you can OD on potatoes, if you didn't know, pretty much every has an OD point, but alcohol is much worse than marijuana, the OD point is much lower and it is much worse. Marijuana and driving is bad, but not as bad as drinking and driving, alcohol can make you pass out and lower levels than Marijuana, according to pretty much every health study in the past decade, you would have to eat pounds of it to pass out and you would have to smoke, even more, to pass out. Marijuana, is not just not that bad, but it can help many people who have chronic pain, it has been proven to help with no side effects (unless allergic, or way way to much) and lastly it is a great economic opportunity. In Colorado we have seen the business of selling marijuana blow up, making millions, why shy away from this economic opportunity, for what, non scientists saying that its harmful, vs real ones saying it's fine.
I would like to state that all of Sanders costs would be easily paid for by his tax plans that he would install. EASILY, nothing would be added to the national debt, the extra money would be used to further Sanders plans or to fight the debt. Also we do owe 20 trillion, but only 6 trillion is to actual entities, the other 14 trillion are owed to the local and state level government (national level pledges money and never gives) and to the IRS (3 trillion), national reserve (5 trillion). We only owe 1 trillion to China, infact less than we owe to the EU (2) and to Japan (1.5). These stats have come from numerous investigations by numerous organisations such as Forbes magazine.
Overall many of your facts are false, by either single (not peer checked) reports, or by un-reliable organisations (GOP).
My source for sanders Policies come from Sanders website and what he has said. Stats come from numerous organisations including NY Times, Atlantic, Washington Post, Sander's Website, etc
-> "You said the reason college is so high, is because the government is increasing the price of loans, I do not disagree, this is fact, but Sanders would get rid of this, as in take out the governments role in increasing student loans."
You are missing the point where he is getting the money from. I researched who would be at a loss with free college education, and it turns out that the states will take 1/3 of the student debt under his plan. (http://www.cnn.com...#)
-> "You stated that "College is not for everyone," I do not believe this is true."
I will just use facts to support my argument that college is most definitely not for everyone. "In 2011, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 68.3 percent of students who graduated high school in 2011 were enrolled in college." (http://classroom.synonym.com...)
More than 30% of people do not attend college. College is not for everyone because some do not want to spend most of their lives in school, some chose different paths. You cannot deny the fact that college is not for everyone, because there will always be a time where some students are not attending college because it is simply just not for them.
-> "Robots..." (You stated a bit about how robots were taking jobs, etc.
All I can say here is that there will always be a need for human labor and even if there is not, there will need to be humans to look after those robots.
-> "You said making the degree will devalue the degree, making jobs harder to find in today's world yes, but other policies of Sanders would combat this."
You did not state a single policy of his that will combat this. The fact is that if college is free, just like high school public education, more people will attend college because it is free. This will devalue the degree simply because more people have a college degree. It is supply and demand. Just like a high school degree, it will then because that much harder to find a job with a college degree, which will not benefit the American people. The last thing we need is more unemployment.
-> "You said college won't be truly free, this is true." "You also said more people in Sweden have college debt, sure, but this does not increase and is much smaller than, averaging at 20k total (like you said), vs 30k in the US"
Well, you did confirm that at least college still will not be free due to the costs other than the degree itself. You forgot to mention the fact that more students are in debt in Sweden than in the US because of this. Almost 30% more! I am making an argument at the end of my rebuttal that will go into further detail about this.
-> "The reason places don't just higher woman..."
Have you ever been to Hooters? They are hiring all women. They have been put to court several times but get away with it each and every time.
-> "What you said about hours is false..."
I will use multiple sources to show you that this is true.
You said " I have looked at the website you used, it polled men and woman, with jobs and without. "
Here is one that looks at all working men and women stating, "The Labor Department defines full-time as 35 hours a week or more, and the "or more" is far more likely to refer to male workers than to female ones. According to the department, almost 55% of workers logging more than 35 hours a week are men." (http://www.wsj.com...)
Also, "Women, in fact, make up two-thirds of America's part-time workforce." (http://www.wsj.com...)
This next source looks at all men and women working from 3 to 98 hours a week. All of them are working, it does not consider any unemployed men or women. Look at this, "Average hours for men were 41.3 per week, whereas women worked 35.6 hours per week on average." (http://www.statcrunch.com...)
There are other factors such as women tend to stay at home more, etc.
-> "but alcohol is much worse than marijuana"
In I previous argument I already rebuted this. I stated, "Before you use the alcohol is legal approach so marijuana should be, I must add that I am not arguing about alcohol, I am trying to prevent another substance that can harm citizens to becoming legalized and accepted. It is better to stop the acceptance of marijuana before it becomes too late."
But, you used the argument anyways which I had already previously stated that I was not arguing that alcohol is more or more healthy than marijuana.
Now, I will add one argument as to why I do not like Bernie Sanders.
You even stated, "I would like to state that all of Sanders costs would be easily paid for by his tax plans that he would install." This is one big factor as to why he should not become president. I am a huge believer in less taxes and more spending cuts, supply-side economics. I will use the one and only, Ronald Reagan, and his tax rates that he set and show you the results.
He cut taxes on the top from over 70% to 25%. This did not just make the rich richer, but it made all income brackets richer. Hence, the name trickle down economics.
20 million new jobs were created
Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
Real gross national product rose 26%
The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988 (http://www.reaganfoundation.org...)
On the other hand, Bernie Sanders wants to tax the rich more. This may sound fantastic at first, but the truth is that system is punishing the rich for being successful. Instead of raising taxes, lower them not on only the rich, but lower them on all income brackets and try to reach a flat tax. Instead of having the government involved, keep them less involved. I am generally against Bernie Sanders idea to get more government involvement by creating more programs that will cost more money and create a larger government. This is fundamentally wrong. The whole point of America is to be capitalistic, free, and determined (at least in my mind). Bernie Sanders always references to other countries doing so well and we should copy their system of free college and so on. He always says how great Sweden and Finland and Europe are doing. America does not need to become Europe. There is a reason why were the most powerful nation in the world and its not because we made economical decisions based off of what Europe is doing. I know you will disagree with all of this completely, but America needs to lessen their burden on the American people, rich and poor. Their job is to keep the people safe, unoppressed, and keep justice. They are not here to create endless programs and put the country into more debt and strip the well earned money of the American people.
You said under Sanders, 1/3 of college debt would be taken by the government this is true, but much better than today. Today, 2/3s of all student loans are backed by the government. Sanders would cut this in half, and not completely in order to not remove to much funding from the Gov. His plan would still public colleges completely free, and lower the price of all college through cutting government backed loans in half (colleges could continue to charge the same, yes, this would actually be better though, as non public college degrees would become worth more).
When I stated that "You stated that 'College is not for everyone,' I do not believe this is true." I did not mean that everyone wants/needs/does go to college, I meant that everyone should have the ability and the choice. Today many people are unable to attend (at all or for the full 4 years) or even apply for college due to the massive cost that they know they cannot pay for, I do not believe we should refuse people from the ability to have a good education. You cannot deny that we are refusing the right to many lower class citizens, which you cannot deny is unfair, you may say the world isn't fair, sure, but this is a time where we can make it fair for the better of society. With more highly educated people society will advance faster, and crime will go down (http://eml.berkeley.edu...) according to Berkley, the lower educated are much more likely to commit crime. By default, as people become higher educated, crime will go down.
Also you said that not everyone goes to college because they don't want to spend all there lives in school, true, but this is not the majority of people who don't go to college, and even if it is (which it likely isn't, I don't know for sure) they still need to have the right to attend college, the ability!
You replied to me saying robots will take jobs, which you agreed with, but you said there still will be labor for example to watch the robots, the jobs of watching the robots will always require higher educated people, of course they need to clean them and do basic things like that, but they also need to be able to fix malfunctions, bugs in the coding, they will need to have engineering, developing, and technician degrees.
You said I didn't state any policies of Sanders that would employ people in general and higher educated, well I will now:
-Infrastructure plan would last 20 years (payed for with the tax on the rich) and would employ around 17 million people, ranging from labor work, yes, but also an estimated million jobs that would employ technicians, engineers, architects, and also the 16 million hard labor/labor jobs of course would employ people without higher education (there are easily enough people without higher educations that would take these jobs).
-Clean energy program! This would hit two birds with one stone, it would lower the countries carbon impact helping combat climate change, and would employ hundreds if not thousands of big and small business's to install solar fields, wind fields, geo-thermal energy, nuclear plants, and many more things. These things would need to be built by a range of people, ranging from literary no education, for people who did not go to college (or even high school sometimes) to extremely specialized technicians and other roles needing education as high as a doctorate (expesially for nuclear plants).
We would not be devaluing the degree as more companies would come to the US looking for higher educated staff! Also there would still be plenty of private colleges, where the worth of there degrees would triple (likely more).
When I said that college is not truly free, I meant because of the books, housing, and stuff like that, but when people come out of college in the US with thousands of dollars in loans, this, for the most part is not because they couldn't afford books, housing, or food (they couldnt've after the college bill came though) it's because they couldn't afford the yearly costs in the tens of thousands. According to https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org... made by the same organisation that makes the SAT, books and board cost an average of 1200, this is a fraction of the average debt in the US after college of 30,000. If you have a summer job and you only had to pay for books, board, and food, you would easily come out of college without any debt, you likely would've made money over the 4 years!
In Sweden they come out with debt because the average Swedish student (according to there Gov) does not work during their college career, then there debt does not increase throughout there life (like in the US), the government actually helps pay for it, and it does not pass on to family members once you die, and lastly if you apply for bankrupcy it will actually go away unlike here.
Hooters is able to higher woman over men for another reason, they argued that they highered people off attractiveness (which is aloud when they work infront of other people) and not gender, therefore they are aloud to higher woman. This excuse does not work for the average business. You cannot argue against the civil rights act! (Hooters argued that what they were doing didn't have to do with the civil rights act, not that they were aloud to be excempt from it)
You said "The Labor Department defines full-time as 35 hours a week or more, and the "or more" is far more likely to refer to male workers than to female ones. According to the department, almost 55% of workers logging more than 35 hours a week are men." less than 5% cannot explain the average 15% gap between men and woman salaries, it's basic math 5X00;15!
The polls that find the 15% gap between men and woman salaries don't just take a random group of people, they look at people with he same job and the same hours, I don't need to give you sources, all you have to do is search, "Poll finds wage gap between genders!"
It doesn't matter if more woman work part time if the polls look at people with the same jobs and same hours!
You said that you don't want to allow marijuana as it's bad. It can actually be quite helpful (better when eaten as any smoking is bad). For medical uses it is a great pain killer and is pretty much impossible to overdose on, the average pain killer is much easier to overdose on, think about it, it takes pounds of a not very dense object to OD vs less than a bottle of a pills. Marijuana for medical use is also given out in smaller amounts making it impossible to OD on unless you get it illegally, it also in smaller doses (the size it is used for medical purposes) has no side effects besides numbing pain, minor sleepiness, and the high feeling.
Reagan's idea of lowering taxes on the rich and having money trickle down, worked to a slight effect, but it got us to the place we are today. In the US 1% of the population owns as much property as the rest of the population. 60% of all new income goes to the top 1% this is not how the US economy should work. Reagan's plan worked in the short term sure, the rich got richer, everyone got richer, the rich are still getting richer and the poor have it a cap, they aren't getting richer anymore, they aren't buying more, they are getting poorer. The idea of cutting taxes on the lower class makes much more sense. They are more of them and they NEED to spend money, all of them, vs the rich doing it for fun/lavishness, the poor will never stop spending money, the rich could and the numbers make up for them not having as much money. With lower taxes on them, they are also more likely to move up the "food chain." We would start to see the bottom percent by more and own more than the top percent again!
Sanders taxes on the rich would not make them drop down a class, it would not prevent them from becoming billionaires and from taking advantage of the lower 2 classes, but it would make it so the government can help shrink the lower class!
(this is off topic, but....) The point of America is to be free like you said yes, and this is what I always found ironic about the Republican Party and Conservatives, they wanted less government fine, you can argue that its to make America better and more free, but they also barge into peoples business, ban people from getting abortions, ban LGBTQ from having rights (if they good), hate immigrants!
I would also like to add that we shouldn't stick in the past, it's not how a functioning society should work, freedom, fine keep it always, but pure capitalism does not work as well today and it didn't even work then. In Europe capitalism made a separation of stone between the upper class and the lower class, if you were lower class you would never be upper, final. You could not build up an empire (at least it was very hard at least). This society was susceptible to xenophobia, easy to sparring, anti-Semitic..... It just wasn't that good overall. America was meant to find a middle ground, give freedom to people and to business, not to the rich and business, to the people and business!
The government does not need to pay our debt, just so you know I already explained, about 5 trillion we actually owe not 20. The rest of the 20 is to ourselves, which I explained, the 5 tril we owe to other nations we don't have to pay, nobody is gonna sanction the worlds biggest economy (they would be committing economic suicide, no matter who they are)!
Bernie Sanders will grow the middle class, shrink the lower, and re-instill the American Dream. He will make it possible to build your way up, and then, once you get to the top you will help the rest of the population build up again. The people of Americas wealth will increase in increments. Lower classes makes money easier, some become upper, less and less the lower 2, then the people left behind, pulled up by the upper, and upper get richer!
Sanders stated to the people that he is a democratic socialist. He believes in theis so much that, "he refused in the first Democratic debate in Las Vegas to call himself a capitalist..." (http://time.com...) Because of these views he strongly believes in the concept of people paying large taxes to fund government programs. I cannot describe how huge these taxes are, so I will quote experts who have reviewed his tax plan. "Sanders" tax plan "represents probably one of the biggest tax increases in American history," said Goldsmith. Sanders" proposal includes increases in federal income, payroll, business and estate taxes, along with new excise taxes on carbon and financial transactions. In some cases, rates would be raised to rates well above historical levels in the U.S." (http://finance.yahoo.com...) Bernie Sanders has this idea that we owe the government and should trust the government what to do with the nations money. On the other hand, several other candidates understand that it is the people who not only need the money, but have the fundamental right to use what they earned. Not have a system where the government pays you money for failure and takes your money when you succeed. This is fundamentally wrong in my opinion. Even if you may not agree, you cannot dispute the fact that he wants to hike wages to historical levels that will cost the taxpayers a fortune. True, he may be raising these wages for the rich, but, as I argued previously, this is not beneficial.
Sanders is also not a proven leader. I guarantee that many people have not heard of Bernie Sanders, a senator from Vermont, before this election took place. This could possibly indicate that he was not a strong enough leader to make major reform in Congress or at least give an attempt so he would be noticed in the media. This is not a big deal, but I am mentioning this because it is a concern of mine that he will not be fit to lead.
Sanders wants to legalize millions of illegal immigrants. I am against this, not against immigration, but against illegal immigration.
I could go on and on, but I will just stop here with a final statement. Looking at history and looking at the foundation of this nation as a whole is necessary to look at. Especially, the economy. As you can tell fro my arguments I am mainly against his economics, which are derived from his socialist thinking. The vote on this debate we had is going to be based off of whether the viewer wants America to become socialist, and more like Europe, or wants America to stay as capitalistic as possible just like prime leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan have proven.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.