The debate "Anybody but Hillary Clinton" was started by
November 12, 2015, 11:42 pm.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 16 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
There is a tie in this debate, post your arguments, call some reinforcements and break this tie.
liberalssuck posted 1 argument, bigB posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
Sosocratese posted 8 arguments, PsychDave posted 13 arguments, zoeclare7 posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
bigB, andrewkorman, liberalssuck, MarlemR, AstroSpace, DannyknowsItAll, AngryBlogger, codyray16 and 8 visitors agree.
Sosocratese, PsychDave, AnnaRrei, pajrc1234, historybuff, zoeclare7, josevazquez244, omactivate, AlenaMaisel, llemponen and 6 visitors disagree.
Good to know my math checks out.
no worries PsychDave. I had those numbers ready from an exchange on debate.org so I figured I'd just put them on here.
I have gone to her website and I've gone through the economic analysis of her tax plan. She is talking about increasing capital gains tax to 39.6% on investments held for up to two years. This is different from the previous tax plan which had a capital gains tax of 39.6% for any investment held for less than a year and then dropped to 24%. This would mean that capital gains tax would be the same as the highest income tax currently in place. She then plans to drop the income tax of the middle class. She can do so because the tax brackets of top earners vs middle class are different. I hope that makes more sense now since we seem to be talking in circles.
Since you like to challenge Hillary's tax code. Could you tell me how Trump's tax reform would work? Politifact, factcheck, and politco all seem to indicate that there is no way his tax plan could be revenue neutral and would actually result in a deficit.
On to the wall:
I can find no reliable source that suggests that illegal immigrants have a net negative impact on the country. I should also point out that I looked into economic impacts before 2000. Since net immigration from Mexico is near 0 since 2010 Trump's wall is a $25 billion dollar waste of money. Not to mention the near $1 billion dollars in maintenance we'd be paying for in perpetuity.
On to the $350 billion for free college
Most estimates say that by 2020, 65% of all jobs will require a college education. This means that 65% of our populous must have a college education by 2020 to be economically viable. Currently the US holds about $1 trillion in student loan debt. According to Robert Barro, a Harvard University economist, the real rate of return on an additional year of schooling falls at 7% per year. So for a 4 year degree, you're looking at an estimated 28% return on investment. Since the US can borrow at 2.7% interest rate over 10 years (meaning they pay an APR of 0.27%) is seems like a sound fiscal decision.
Economist Enrico Moretti from the University of California Berkeley has shown that well-educated people also increase the incomes of everyone around them. In fact, The New York Times reports, “The biggest difference in salaries between highly and lesser-educated regions is not found in the salaries of the elite but in those earned by lower-skilled workers. The spillover effects energize the economy at every level.”
go to her website she says tax cuts only for the middle class, not for the rich. she also says all tax should be equal.
Sorry to repeat you sosocratese, I was researching and typing when you posted, so I didn't see it until after.
yes and 23 billion is way less then 350 billion.
who is the spender? trump who's only big project cost 23 billion or clinton who has many big projects one costing 350 billion.
The closest example of a similar undertaking I can find if the Berlin Wall, which cost 25 million for a 96 mile wall in 1961 (inflation makes that about 200 million today). So if the entire border was easily accessible and fairly level, it would cost about 4.1 billion. The existing fence cost 2.4 billion, and it covers about a third of the border since it is nowhere near as easy to build along an entire border as it is to divide one city. Even then the fence is not built as well as was promised.
While you are right that people have built walls, can you cite one example of an undertaking like it since? Building a house and building a skyscraper require different skills, so why would you think that building a 2000 mile wall would be as easy as fencing your yard?
That doesn't negate the fact that you're wrong about her tax plan being contradictory
and do accountants understand the tax code? if they did why would there be super complex court battles on the tax code? if the tax code was 3 pages or so accounts would all know what it means.
Again, she's talking about income tax being equal. Increasing the capital gains tax and decreasing the income tax are not contradictory. You don't seem to understand the difference between the two.
As for the wall.... The Berlin Wall was about 96 miles long, cost about $25 million to construct, with inflation that's about $200 million. So if we round up to 100 miles of wall for $200 million, we can simply take $200 million multiply by 20 (2000 miles of US/Mexico border) and you get about $4 billion. That's best case scenario. Now, add $750 million per year in maintenence (as per politico) that's over half the budget of the entire border patrol in wall maintenance alone. Most estimates put the price around $5.9 billion. The $5.9 billion don't include any cameras or anything fancy. With electronic monitoring the price goes to about $11.5 million per mile so that would be $23 billion....
I'm sure the wall will cost less then 350 billion, the cost on free collage clinton is going pay for.
Accountants do understand the tax code, much like lawyers understand the legal code in spite of the fact that there is substantially more of it. That is their profession. While she is not an accountant, she is a very intelligent person and I would be stunned if she did not have people who specialize in the tax code helping her campaign since that is normal for all candidates.
yep nobody had build a wall since the great Wall of china.
Since it has not been attempted since the Great Wall of China (because it is a stupid idea) I have no idea. I don't think anyone, Trump included, has any idea how much it will take.
According to the CCH Standard Federal Tax Reporter, as of 2013, it now takes 73,954 regular 8-1/2" x 11" sheets of paper to explain the complexity of the U.S. federal tax code!
no I do not understand the tax code. I will be super supposed if anyone does.
her website said
1. make the rich and middle class pay the same
2. make the tax cuts on the rich go away
3. add tax cuts to small businesses/middle class.
conclusion: controdictory statements here.
Dave, in your opinion how much do you think a wall will cost?
I don't think you understand the tax code. What she is talking about is capital gains tax increase which would be unaffected by an income tax decrease.....so I'd say until you read up on how that plays into the equation nothing you said has any real value since it's based on a misunderstanding of the issue.
Investments are another issue you are lumping into the wrong category. Government investments actually have an incredible high amount of return. For example
The human genome project :
Invested : 3.6 billion
Return : nearly $750 billion per year in economic output from various bioscience companies.
The DOE also has a higher rate of success picking clean tech winners than private venture capital. Private venture capital funds are considered successfully if 30% of their investments succeed (due to high rate of return). According to blumeberg news, only 3.6% of the DOE's portfolio default on their loans. That's a 96.4% success rate on department of Energy investments. And yes solyndra is factored into that number.
As for spending. You'll have to look at the actual numbers. I'm not an economist and I don't have the desire to crunch the numbers of revenue increase Vs spending increase, etc.... So I'll reserve my opinion for that once I see some hard numbers. I agree that we need a balanced budget, but there is always room for compromise. I doubt that Hillary expects to actually achieve all of her fiscal plan. So you always have to account for the fact that some of the propositions are simply there to be negotiated away and to end negotiations on a net "win" (if there is such a thing as winning in economic negotiations).
I can't imagine anyone voting for Trump over her. How many billions of dollars in wasted money on building, maintaining and manning an ineffectual wall would you consider worse than cutting taxes on middle-class families while raising it on the wealthy?
I don't disagree because of all the main canadate I would choose anyone but her.
and that is why I am neutral on this debate, I would rather have her then a criminal.
I was explaining how she is a terrible businesswoman and how her polices are not only disagreeable, but impossible.
her policies also contridict each other. this proves she has no idea what she is talking about or is saying whatever she thinks will make america like her. after reading that website I've reached one conclusion on her
she doesn't give a **** what happens to america as long as she is the president.
OK, so you disagree with her on tax cuts. That is a valid argument, and one that will likely happen if she gets the Democratic nomination. Whether you disagree with her policies influences who you would rather see elected, but if it doesn't mean you would elect a communist child molester before being willing to vote for her then you should be disagreeing with "Anyone but Hilary Clinton".
spending money you only don't have bit have a huge debt.
it's like trying to turn -10 into 10.
to invest money you need money.
I saw spending, investments, and more spending. I also saw added tax cuts for the middle class. With trillions of dollors on debt, and taxes being cut how the hell is she going to pay for her "investments"
also this made me laugh
hillary wants to take away tax cuts for the rich. ok. that's good if the rich pay the same % as us. what was funny is she wants tax cuts on the middle class. if the middle class gets tax cuts, then according to hillary ' equal % idea the rich should get tax cuts too!
The answer is 4 times. Trump has run 4 businesses into bankruptcy, even with millions of dollars to play with from modest loans from his father. Obama came from a middle class family and became a very respected lawyer. That doesn't mean he is a good businessman, but it does show some difference in character and values.
Aside from that, Obama is irrelevant to this debate, unless you are suggesting he would be a better candidate than Hillary. Trump came into the conversation because he is a current candidate and, in my opinion, would be a much worse choice than Clinton.
I'm not saying he is polite. I'm only saying he is not bad, and better then Obama.
I'm not sure how many businesses trump has ruined, very few if any, but Obama has run the us into the ground raised the debt 7 trillion.
How many businesses has Trump run into bankruptcy? How many people has Trump alienated already, just since he decided to run? Do you honestly believe that he would be polite to foreign leaders when he can't even be polite to his constituents?
"Trump is a terrible negotiater"
because that is how you run a billion dollors buisness.
look at the iran deal
and the trade deal being discussed right now. those deals are an example of terrible negotiating.
in the iran deal iran got everything they wanted, while we got almost nothing. really bad.
note I don't agree with all of trumps negotiating plans, but he is way better then the current pres.
the statement "anyone but Hilary includes any person, any where. it could be Hitler, it could be Joffery Baratheon. it could be Pol Pot. we don't have to provide a specific example because they are all examples.
Bigb, I'll put it a different way. You're question is irrelevant to the topic. There doesn't need to be an actual candidate with any of the views we're ascribing because the topic doesn't specify that the person for whom the topic would advocate needs to be a candidate.
Because they had already been provided. When a question has been answered, most people stop asking it.
I asked for examples. Tell me, how is that foolish?
The topic is open ended allowing even for imaginary characters to be considered. With this slogan I could argue that people in the pro position would prefer Hitler, Stalin, etc... To hillary.
Are you not reading my responses? The topic doesn't specify that she is the worst candidate, it says anyone but her. I had already explained that twice and sosocratese started his comment by pointing it out.
Beyond that, I have already said Trump is a worse choice. He is very much for laissez-faire commerce since it would benefit him, he is a terrible negotiator and would alienate all international leaders who did not simply do whatever he told them, and is a shortsighted idiot with a short temper and the maturity of a child.
Please read the responses before replying to avoid looking so foolish in the future.
again, what candidates are there that are extremist? Are not going to answer the question because you don't know?
Are you saying that there are no extremists, sociopaths or criminals in the US, or that you feel they would be better candidates? I don't need to point out a specific person to show that there are worse potential candidates.
and what people?
Wow, and again is there such a candidate?
There is not such a candidate (though Trump fits some of the description), but there are many people who would fit that description in the US. The topic doesn't restrict it to just current candidates.
is there such a candidate?
Anybody? So if I presented you with a clearly psychotic candidate, hell bent on a nuclear war with Russia, complete laissez faire market agenda, and in favor of sharia law, you'd vote for them before Hillary Clinton?