Either Trump or Hillary, they both seek to give our organizations competitive advantages. Sanders supporters are self-loathing people who hate economic success.
Either Trump or Hillary, they both seek to give our organizations competitive advantages. Sanders supporters are self-loathing people who hate economic success.
Just about any Libertarian party candidate.
Or someone who proposes dissolving the US completely. You wouldn't have a national debt, there would be no military to spend money on, you could literally just look at whatever your local taxes were and that would be IT. You'd be paying rates like 5% income and 10% sales, and if the rates were increased youd see VASTLY more social services in response, whether or not you think they should exist.
Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, probably the edge going to Clinton due to Sander's protectionist leanings.
Republicans have been universally terrible for the economy since they swallowed the supply side/trickle down/voodoo economics koolaid. The economic performance difference between the two parties is massive.
The tax rate for most people doesn't really change. The increased tax mostly affect the top richest people.
And if the tax money are used for free education and medical care, it will benefit all Americans. Less expense on education and medical care = increased income for average families.
On the other hand, higher minimum wage can affect a lot of people, higher minimum wage = higher income = higher purchase power, which is a good boost for economy.
Bernie's policy is basically tax the rich to help the poor people and shrinking middle class. He does what he says.
It depends how the sales tax is applied, to some extent. Generally how it is applied it does affect the poor more, which isn't even necessarily a bad thing economically. Not that I was advocating for it, just thats typically how the tax situation is already set up in most states.
As far as the rest of it goes, I think anyone would agree that not having an astronomical national debt hanging over every citizens head would be an economic boon.
Nothing necessarily wrong with taxes as long as they hit proportional - and fair - to the income/wealth. The US have pretty low taxes for higher incomes/wealth - you could easily increase those a bit and generate a lot of additional income that could be spent on other issues.
Last edited by mmocc02219cc8b; 2016-03-11 at 07:18 PM.
I can almost guarantee you if there was intervention against ISIS, but all of the costs of intervening had to be paid by donations that it would NEVER happen. All you'd have to do is estimate the costs and kickstart the intervention, put a price tag of 100B on it and go over there when the goal is reached. You probably couldn't even raise 20B to take out ISIS.
Gary Johnson. Consumption tax with prebates on necessary goods. If you're really interested in your middle-class audience's money, the elimination of income tax will benefit you the most.
Hilary, only pro free trade candidate I think. It's like people don't learn about the causes of the great depression or something.