The Four Candidates That Could Ruin America
Updated
With the Iowa caucus less than 90 days away, four candidates are leading the others by a substantial amount in their respective parties.
There are 13 Republican candidates and 3 Democrat candidates left in the 2016 presidential race. Out of these 16 candidates, four of them are leading the others by 13-25%. These four candidates include Donald Trump(R), Hillary Clinton(D), Ben Carson(R), and Bernie Sanders(D).
For the first time in months, Donald Trump, a successful businessman, was dethroned from first place by Ben Carson, a former neurosurgeon. This is according to a new national poll conducted by CBS and NY Times. But Carson’s lead is within single digits on Trump.
In the Democratic race, Hillary Clinton leads Bernie Sanders by over 20% nationally.
These top candidates are an embarrassment and have no business being in this race. We have major issues in this country such as our debt, immigration, abortion, foreign policies, and more. So why do the top four candidates include a politically-inexperienced businessman, an untrustworthy manipulator, a doctor trying to become a politician, and a socialist?
Donald Trump, former host of the Apprentice, started out his campaign with a major lead over the other Republican candidates but is now falling in the polls to Ben Carson. Donald Trump has no political experience and the only credibility he has is that he is a successful businessman. He is racist and out of line on many of his comments.
Hillary Clinton, wife of Bill Clinton, has had a political career filled with lies and scandals including the email scandal where she withheld public emails which is against the law. Her time as secretary of state was an absolute failure according to republicans and her fellow democrats. By law, she is not allowed to be in this presidential race and she could even face three years in jail because of her email scandal. Title 18, Section 1001 of federal law states that any person within jurisdiction of any of the three governmental branches that willingly conceals a device, i.e. the unlawful use of a private email server for a public purpose, is punishable by no more than 5 years in prison. To add to that, Hillary and her husband unlawfully profited from charitable giving towards their foundation. It is not even an issue of whether she should not be running, but how long she should be behind bars.
Ben Carson, former neurosurgeon, has no true political experience. He is the best candidate morally, but just because you are a good person does not mean you are fit to be running for president. That is like me saying just because I am a good athlete I am fit to be a doctor.
And last but not least Bernie Sanders, the senator who can’t stop yelling and hating on everything about America. Not only this, but he is a socialist. He believes that minimum wages should be raised to $15 an hour, but in reality, that would make it harder for people to get jobs as businesses would want to hire less. Bernie is also a big supporter of free college, but what many do not understand is that nothing is free. Taxes would have to rise in order to pay for it and why should we, individually, pay for other people’s collge education? He is very extreme in his beliefs and wants government to play a role in every thing. If Bernie wants socialism, he is welcome to leave and go to a country like Denmark or somewhere else in Europe.
Despite these four candidates being low quality, there are good candidates. The Democrat Party has Martin O’Malley, the only other candidate in the democratic party. The Republican Party has some bad candidates and some great candidates which includes Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, and more. So it makes no sense that people are choosing the only two Republican candidates that have no political experience. People say they like Trump because he “tells it how it is”, and although Trump is not the worst candidate in the race, if the people want someone who will tell it how it is, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio are the best options and they actually has experience.
America is in too desperate of a time to elect a racist businessman, or an untrustworthy manipulator, or a doctor with no political experience, or an extreme socialist. We lose at everything in this country, we lose to countries like Mexico and China. ISIS is still out there and they continue to threaten the United States and our allies. They just attacked our ally, France, last week and killed over 100 people. Obama’s foreign policy has been weak and him and Hillary continue to dodge this problem. We have illegal immigrants coming into this country taking away jobs and making it harder for immigrants trying to come in legally. It is not fair to them, and conservatives, including myself, are sick of being called racist and “anti-immigrant” for being against illegal immigration, it is offensive. We can support the law against illegal immigration and embrace legal immigration at the same time.
So truly think about the candidates, whether you vote for Martin O’Malley or any of the Republican candidates, but for America’s sake- don’t elect any of these four candidates. There are many different paths this country could take depending on the results of the election. And after all, do you really want a Trump hotel in every city?
Your donation will support the student journalists of San Juan Hills High School. Your contribution will allow us to cover our annual website hosting costs.
This year, Dallas is currently a junior. He lives in Ladera Ranch. He has 7 siblings! Dallas enjoys playing golf, listening to music, and hanging out with...
James • Dec 18, 2015 at 1:31 PM
Regarding the word socialist, America has had forms of socialist systems since its inception. We have public roads, public law enforcement, public education, and many more social enterprises. We also have variations that mix private and public, and capitalistic ventures flourish alongside.
Capitalism could never be as profitable without socialism. The two live side by side. It’s the levels of each that the government plays an important role negotiating. Capitalism has never thrived anywhere as much as America, and it’s precisely due to the social protections our government has provided. Just try building a capitalist venture to success without the the roads, police, and protected consumers. It’s all part of a system that works. That doesn’t mean though that it doesn’t need tuning up now and then.
Minimum wage was one of these tune ups. As I said before, capitalism can’t flourish without a consumer. Capitalism must exploit every loophole, that’s it’s function. A CEO would be remiss if he didn’t generate profit by every legal means necessary. Morality never enters into the equation. The balance to that is enduring we pass laws that keep the capitalist venture in check. Checks and balances, both in government and in business. Don’t agree with me? Look at the Goodyear venture in Africa. That was as capitalist a venture as there ever could be, and without government controls it was a disaster.
Bernie Sanders understands that balance and knows we are unbalanced in America. The top is too heavy and the bottom too light. We must go back to a system that worked and provided more prosperity in America than any other time in our history, the pre-Reagan tax era. That’s the only was to being balance back.
Amelia Tehrani • Nov 20, 2015 at 10:29 PM
I believe that you expressed your opinions extremely well and in a way that allowed for great discussion about what was said. Despite this, I did not find the arguments presented extremely compelling and think that if there was some more data backing up the claims you made in this piece, more people may have swayed their opinions. I think that some comments that were posted prior to mine may have had more compelling arguments. Additionally, although not completely, I tend to disagee with some of the points you made. Overall, it was a well thought out piece that provided arguments for and against both parties and your opinions were clearly stated.
Steven Jeffcoat • Nov 20, 2015 at 4:44 PM
Dallas,
Given that this is an opinion piece, as opposed to a straight news story, I think you did a fine job. As they say on “American Idol” or “The Voice”, it was a little pitchy in places, but overall well done. To answer the larger question of why inexperience is currently leading in the polls (on the Republican side), I believe it is due to extreme frustration among the voting populace with anyone who appears to be a Washington insider. The current administration has done nothing of any significance with bi-partisan support and the republican party has done nothing to stop the administration from getting their way. Those who are firmly planted on the right, are appalled at the lack of backbone in the republican party and unfortunately, whenever the republicans dig in their heels, the press paints them as monsters and they lose their next election. It’s a pretty tough place to be when the fourth branch of government, the media, holds so much sway.
The “idea” of an outsider is very appealing because they come with no baggage. In Washington, everyone has a debt to pay and you never know when the debt will be called. An outsider brings none of that with them. That is part of the reason why insiders do not like outsiders; the insiders can’t control the outsiders. Trump doesn’t have the typical corporate or wealthy donor alliances because he has all the money he needs. Carson has a large grass roots organization that is not beholden to large donors and thus no baggage. The insiders are scared to death of the outsiders, because the outsiders can come in and do things that are sensible and logical instead of what is demanded from a special interest group.
In the business world, when a company is failing, the board of director may bring in a turnaround expert to fix the company. Most of the time these turnaround experts know nothing about the particular business they are turning around. These experts know how a business should run and they look at things with no baggage. They don’t understand the “this is how was have always done it mentality” so they break complex processes down to understand the fundamentals and then they reorganize things to work more efficiently. I have seen this first hand and I have seen it work. The people who are not part of the solution are moved out and the best and brightest are retained and the new organization emerges better and stronger than it was before. Sometimes the business cannot be saved and it sold as parts which is the most efficient solution in some cases. The government of the United States cannot be sold, it must be saved. Someone needs to go through the budget line-by-line and get rid of all the pork. Someone needs to understand all the parts and reduce the unnecessary parts. Someone needs to do what is right for the American people and at the moment there are no insiders that have the confidence of enough people to be leading in the polls.
Jacqueline Tran • Nov 19, 2015 at 10:18 AM
I think it’s important to make the distinction that socialism isn’t the same thing as the communism of China, North Korea, or Cuba that we are so strictly against. Also, just because Bernie Sanders is socialist doesn’t necessarily mean our country will suddenly become socialist too. He’s heavily influenced by socialist ideas of equality as seen by his plans to reduce wage gaps between classes, improve gender equality, promote LGBTQ rights, and even make college tuition free and debt free. I’m all for capitalist ideas of earning what you work for and deserve but this can’t be done if we don’t all start with fundamental equality. Some Americans are already disadvantaged since birth because of where they’re born, the race they’re born, the gender they’re born, and the sexual preferences they are born having. Sanders want to give everyone equal opportunity to achieve their potential, not hinder potential through absolute equality.
Amanda Jackson • Nov 19, 2015 at 10:18 AM
I feel as if you expressed your opinion very well, but have hardly any proof to back many of your points. Also, I disagree with your comment on illegal immigrants “coming into this country taking away jobs and making it harder for immigrants trying to come in legally.” Many people would not take these jobs because many of them are very physically demanding, and they would want an increase in pay. Although it may seem good in theory, it’s unrealistic.
Katarina Mai • Nov 19, 2015 at 10:14 AM
You stated your opinions clearly, but the piece was not very persuasive because of the lack of evidence. I feel that your argument would have been stronger if you analyzed a contrasting opinion as well and stated why your’s was better to give context. What are some positive things that the candidates have done that you say are outweighed by their negative attributes? However, I do agree with some of your points about America’s future. We may end up having to choose the lesser of evils.
Daniel Muniz • Nov 19, 2015 at 10:12 AM
I’m not going to dive too deep into political ideology and such. However i will speak my mind as to why we possibly have these candidates as our top 4.
Trump wants to build between us and Mexico? That’s so bold of him, vote Trump! Ooo we have a neurosurgeon running for the presidency? That’s admirable, he should win! We have the former First Lady of the Clinton administration running too? Rock on sister, we support you. As for Sanders, he holds many popular views that many people like. And he has the stigma of being a democratic socialist. Some people like that.
These are the mindsets of many people i believe. With the augmentation of media and the average citizen’s decreased interest in our nation’s politics, its only logical that certain candidates with “popular” or “entertaining” ideals share the spotlight in the media.
Claire Vansell • Nov 19, 2015 at 10:12 AM
This article makes some good points and some irrelevant points. Donald Trump is in fact a racist businessman and has no business being in this election. Ben Carson has no idea what he’s doing and as Kelsey pointed out, has made anti-Islam comments, and he does not represent the interests of women. Hillary Clinton has had some political hiccups, but recent Benghazi scandals have been blown out of proportion and drawn-out. This explains why so many Americans, such as Dallas, perceive her as “untrustworthy.” Hillary is not a bad candidate, as her experience in foreign service during her term as Secretary of State is crucial to current instable US foreign policy regarding the War on Terror. With all the current events surrounding ISIS right now, a strong Executive leader with experience in foreign policy is needed. Regarding other comments made in this article, 1. Chris Christie will never be America’s “the best option,” even in comparison to Trump 2. What are we ‘losing to Mexico” exactly? You mentioned this, but didn’t explain in any way. 3. Americans are not losing jobs to illegal immigrants, no American person wants to pick grapes in central California.
Hayley Curtis • Nov 19, 2015 at 10:11 AM
Although I do agree that we have to do something about illegal immigrants, I do not agree with the statement that they take away jobs from US citizens. Illegal immigrants are exploited by businesses and most of the jobs available to them include back-breaking labor and are paid almost nothing for their work. Most people would never accept those jobs unless they have no other choice and not many would be willing to submit to that kind of work. Unfortunately, illegal immigrants are paid under minimum wage but have no way to speak out against it. If legal US citizens start to work those jobs, the wage will have to be higher, causing the same problems that you are worried about if the normal minimum wage is increased. Basic foods and commodities will become more expensive and may lead to the same adverse economic effects.
Ryan Hallal • Nov 19, 2015 at 10:10 AM
I acknowledge all the points you state about the candidates and issues our candidates face, yet all I mostly see is negative statements complaining about the issues we face and the problems with each of the candidates. I see no reasoning with who is the best choice in your opinion and why because you are too occupied with degrading the actions of the candidates. I understand that you do not feel so strongly with most of the candidates, but positive inputs that they accomplished would be helpful in rationing out the unqualified candidates.
Genevieve Scullion • Nov 19, 2015 at 10:07 AM
I think this article was good in the fact that it voiced concerns equally regarding candidates from both parties; however, I do feel like the article has some flaws. First of all, there is no way Hillary Clinton, by law, is not allowed to be in this race for presidential candidacy, as she would already be out by now if that was true. I also don’t agree with your stance that Ben Carson is the best candidate morally, as he wants to defund planned parenthood, which provides healthcare services to thousands of women who would otherwise have zero access. I understand that he wants to defund it because of their abortion services, but that makes up only 3% of what they do, and the other 97% of the organization should not have to end and leave thousands of women stranded without the services they need as a result of his own moral beliefs.
Adrienne Pham • Nov 19, 2015 at 10:06 AM
Although you seem very passionate in your analysis of Trump, Carson, Clinton, and Sanders, I do not find your argument convincing. I know where you are coming from based on my own prior knowledge, but I do believe that you could have provided more concrete evidence to be more convincing. For example, in what other ways do you believe that Sanders is a radical socialist and Carson an incompetent candidate? You mentioned some social programs and personal attributes, but what about these candidates’ views on foreign policy and how they want to deal with the rising threat of terrorism? Also, you did not even attempt to explain thoroughly why the other candidates are better options, which could have reiterated and strengthened your main points.
Jasmine Powell • Nov 19, 2015 at 10:19 AM
I agree with Adrienne. I think there was a lot of potential for some strong argument in this, but I feel that there was a lack of information as for really why this candidates are not good options. I also feel that some of the information in this article is not really true. For instance, is Clinton’s political life really entirely filled with scandal? Because as far as I know there have only been two, one of which was technically her husbands. While I agree that scandals are bad I don’t think it is accurate to say that he “political career filled with lies and scandals” and if the email scandal was really against the law, then she wouldn’t be allowed to run for president.
Keller Brown • Nov 19, 2015 at 2:17 PM
Regardless of whether he addresses it or not, which he could in fact not due to limitations on bias placed on his article, Bernie Sanders’ foreign policy, along with the rest of the Democratic Party, is flawed. Not only does he support the normalization of relations with the Communist regime of Cuba, providing an influx of funds to support the deprivation of democracy in the region, he is overwhelmingly contradictory in his Middle Eastern agenda.
In his earlier days as a Senator, he opposed the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. He now advocates for more intervention in the region, including flying drones over the Middle East to kill suspected terrorists. Sanders denounced Clinton for approving of such policies in the post-9/11 era but has now flip-flopped to say that we do in fact need to intervene.
He has also staunchly disproved of national security measures such as the NSA and other components of the PATRIOT Act, which is a grave mistake. We find ourselves in a world being increasingly threatened by terrorists who are evolving on a highly technological level. Terrorists are now utilizing such outlets as social media, applications, and now even game consoles to communicate and spread propaganda. Shutting the government out of its primary duty to protect the country is highly irrational and would put not only America but its allies as well into immediate danger.
Jordan Giraldin • Nov 19, 2015 at 10:05 AM
Okay. Dallas, on the topic of immigrants “coming into this country taking away jobs”, are you willing to do unimaginable hard labor for below minimum wages? I don’t think so. So why don’t you stop spouting off about other people and take a good long look at yourself? You call Trump a racist for his views on immigration (I agree that he is a racist) but you state that you have the same view in your second to last paragraph. Figure it out and take a stand for what you believe in not just bashing others for their beliefs.
Evan Relf • Nov 19, 2015 at 10:00 AM
You describe at length why the most popular candidates are so horrible, yet you don’t explain why we should vote for Martin O’Malley or Marco Rubio for example. The popular candidates are supported by more people because more people agree with what they stand for. What reasons do you have for us to even consider the other candidates you praised; why are they any less extreme?
Kelsey Hampson • Nov 17, 2015 at 10:42 PM
Many interesting points were brought up in this article. I always expect political articles to say “You should not vote for the blank party and here is why,” but your article equally examines the facts on both sides of the election equation. I agree that Donald Trump is too much which is frustrating for the Republican Party because he is going to split the Republican vote and make it harder to unify the party. Additionally, I think the presidential office needs to done with Clintons and Bushes. They had their time and I think America has been through all the ups and downs possible with the two family names. Personally, I believe that the American economy benefits most from a Democratic president and an entirely Republican Congress. This can be proven historically with America experiencing a boom in its economy during Bill Clinton’s presidency. But the difference between his presidency and those of other Democratic presidents? A solely Republican House balancing the government for the benefit of all.
Sam Hunter • Nov 17, 2015 at 10:12 AM
This is a well written article. I agree with your points entirely that the leading candidates are not the best option for America’s future. Your point brought up about sanders wanting a 15$ minimum wage was explained clearly. It totally makes sense that businesses would be trying to hire less in order to be cost efficient. I also agree that marco rubio and ted cruz are great options for the republican party. With threats of ISIS become larger and more real. This presidential election is crucial not only for america’s future but also for the world.
Katie Brady • Nov 19, 2015 at 9:52 AM
I appreciate your fresh stance on the upcoming election. I too agree Trump benefits from his personality and “tell it like it is” approach, but do not agree that Chris Christie has the like able bluntness that Trump has mastered.
Darci VanRyckeghen • Nov 17, 2015 at 10:11 AM
Throughout your article, you mentioned some of the other candidates involved in the political race this year like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina. You said that these candidates are also very good choices for the American people to choose to lead the country who are equipped with experience and an overall decent image. On the contrast, you stated how the leading four candidates right now, Trump, Clinton, Carson, and Sanders, are not good choices for president and that American citizens should not vote for them because they are either associated with racism, scandals, extreme beliefs, or no experience. The thing that does not make sense is why is the American people showing popularity in future voting decisions for these four candidates who are associated with all these bad characteristics and not the other candidates that you are saying are better options? Is it possible that similar negative assumptions can be made about the other candidates, but have not been found because of their lack of popularity compared to the other four leading candidates?
Allie Oglevee • Nov 17, 2015 at 10:05 AM
I think you did very well in stating your stance very clearly, but I think that your argument would be stronger if you provided more statistics and/or information rather than just your own thoughts. It would be more swaying to others if more evidence was included. And regarding Hillary, how would she come this far in the race if what she did would earn her jail time?
Rhea • Nov 17, 2015 at 10:03 AM
I fully agree that Ben Carson would be a bad choice for president, but you claim him to be the “best candidate morally,” yet this is the man who said he believes a Muslim should not be President and compared American protesters to extremist fighters.
Keller Brown • Nov 19, 2015 at 11:39 AM
So someone’s overall morality should judged by one statement? While I am an advocate for equality, our relations with the Islamic culture has been highly questionable. Specifically President Obama’s support of the “moderate” jihadist group, the Muslim Brotherhood (which is undeniably radical, and has been labeled as a terrorist organization by several Middle Eastern countries), to “reform the Middle East”.
Radical jihadism is a growing threat throughout the world, especially salafism. If you do not believe we should be cautious about our ties with Islam, you most likely stand with Obama’s outrageously weak foreign policy which has been responsible for innocent lives being taken worldwide.
And as for the morality of the Democratic field, I see standing up there on that stage a lying criminal, a senator who denounces the rich while making far more than the average American and supports normalization of relations with an inhumane Communist regime, and a nobody.
Rachel Moore • Nov 17, 2015 at 10:02 AM
I do agree with the fact that Sanders is a socialist; however, there are other points to be brought up besides the negative ones you pointed out. In no way am I defending Sanders, but out of the four poor candidates you mentioned, he is the strongest. He supports equal rights for women, which is extremely important to me personally (and many other women) in this day and age. Likewise, he approves of a more affordable education system, which will impact future generations. Bernie works with the needs of the people of this day and age and understands the interests of not only the current generation but the future. Nevertheless, I must point out that these candidates are poor; it is sad to say this, but we truly are limited in our choices for a President based on the current political candidates and their stances.
Alex Royal • Nov 20, 2015 at 3:39 PM
Everyone would love more affordable education, for themselves, but why should I have to pay for your education, or vice versa? Thats what he would have us do.
Ana Avendano • Nov 4, 2015 at 3:04 PM
You make some interesting points, but you include some major inaccuracies, which throws into question your credibility. You say that, “by law” Hilary Clinton is not allowed to run in this race, but that’s just not true. Nor has there been an adjudication that she broke the law with regard to her emails. I’m no fan of hers, but truth is important.
On that note, your characterization of Bernie Sanders as an “extreme socialist” is equally off. What does that even mean? There are lots of Democrats and even some moderate Republicans who support a $15/hr minimum wage. The great weight of the evidence is that raising wages does not hurt people’s chances of getting a job; quite the opposite. People who make more spend more–more money in the economy means more jobs. Henry Ford was a strong advocate of that principle.
If we want to have a just society, where everyone has an opportunity to have a decent life, we need to elect politicians who will adopt policies that benefit regular people. Cruz, Rubio and Fiorina have long track records of going all-out for corporations at the expense of regular people. The United States will suffer greatly if any of them take control of the economy.
John Fischbeck • Nov 6, 2015 at 9:27 PM
Ana, Bernie Sanders is an “extreme socialists”, he is a self proclaimed socialist. He fights for $15 an hour minimum wage. If you don’t earn a minimum of $25 an hour in America your screwed especially in Southern California where you should make a minimum of $35 an hour. He (Bernie Sanders), wants higher taxes for corporation and individuals. Let me explain something to you… I own a business, if the government comes in and raises my taxes here is what I do. I fire 10% of my work force and tell the other 90% to work harder. Do you think it cost me anything? Nope, sorry. No matter what happens I don’t lose. So you should want lower taxes so there are more jobs available with lots of opportunities.
Jose Soler • Nov 17, 2015 at 10:04 AM
The problem with raising the minimum wage is that every business will do exactly what you said and just fire 10% of their workforce, or whatever percentage they need. Now you have tons of unemployed people because every business just fired employees to be able to pay for the new wages and no one is going to hire when they just fired to not lose money. The minimum wage hike would benefit those who still have a job after the smoke clears, but it would leave a large amount of citizens unemployed. You might not sweat it, but others will. Looking at the big picture and not just a business man’s point of view, it hurts America as a whole to have high minimum wages.
Jay Tretter • Nov 17, 2015 at 10:43 AM
John,
You have a few misconceptions and problems in this reply. First Bernie Sanders is a self proclaimed “Democratic Socialist.” This does not automatically make him an extreme socialist. If you actually looked at his economic platform you would see he has modeled it off of many countries in the European Union, Scandinavia, and Canada. All of these countries offer high minimum wages, free healthcare, and much more affordable education than the United States. These first world countries also have a much higher happiness rating than the United States in world studies. Furthermore I also own a business and there are many other things I can do than fire a tenth of my employees and tell the rest of them to suck it up and work harder. Even with your given plan you say, “Do you think it cost me anything? Nope sorry. No matter what happens I don’t lose.” So I must ask you, why are you not supporting the extreme socialist Bernie Sanders because as he increases taxes exponentially there is still no way you can lose John.
Alex Royal • Nov 20, 2015 at 2:18 PM
Heres the problem, that most people in this argument are missing. America can not be compared to other countries for a few reasons. The first being it is much larger, in placed like Denmark, the population is small enough that it is easy to micromanage, lots of Americans underestimate how small places like that really are, you can’t just abuse a system there like you can here. The second is that we argue are small ideas such as minimum wage, and funding planned parenthood (Dont make this a debate about planned parenthood please). The second issue is this, people in those countries, are very similar. They are normally mostly the same race, they have mostly the same political views, they feel its wrong to cheat the system. Thats not how America is, we are a VERY diverse group of people, who while connected, generally don’t feel bad about cheating welfare or social security, because they don’t see the effects. The last, and most important problem is the simplest to understand. If presented with the option of work and play, people will choose play. Almost all of the books we spend so much time reading in English, Lord of the Flies, Animal farm, etc. all convey this theme. If you got $3 no matter what, why would you try to work harder then your friend who is also getting three dollars, but playing football outside instead of working at McDonalds. Our system of success should be encouraging people, that if they work harder then their neighbor, then they’ll be richer, and whether you believe it or not. From where I’m sitting, thats almost always true.
– Alex Royal, 10th Grade
Megan Lee • Nov 17, 2015 at 10:01 AM
I agree that raising the minimum wage would be beneficial. There also have been studies done to see the effect on raising the minimum wage, and they have proved that there would be a slight to no effect on the economy (see link). I feel like it really does make it hard to believe an article that uses ad hominem, especially when it simply attacks the people rather than what they are trying to do for this country.
http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm
Keller Brown • Nov 19, 2015 at 10:13 AM
Ana,
First off, “by law” Hillary Clinton should be in federal prison. Title 18, Section 1001 of federal law states that any person within jurisdiction of any of the three governmental branches that willingly conceals a device, i.e. the unlawful use of a private email server for a public purpose, is punishable by no more than 5 years in prison. To add to that, Hillary and her husband unlawfully profited from charitable giving towards their foundation. It is not even an issue of whether she should not be running, but how long she should be behind bars.
Secondly, a minimum wage increase is absolutely ludicrous. A basic economic concept is that if labor costs for businesses increase, they will make cuts elsewhere. Most point to the fact that it will stymie job growth at the minimum wage level but another very real alternative to that is that prices will simply balloon. That in turn will lead to calls for more wage increases and we will find ourselves in a perpetual cycle. Stating that people will have more money to put into the economy is a reasonable claim, but that will not come through minimum wage increases, but instead should come through cuts across the board in individual taxes and corporate taxes which can only be fulfilled if the federal budget is stripped to essentials.
Dallas’s claim that Bernie Sanders is an “extreme socialist” is incorrect, so you were right in that regard. In fact he is hardly a socialist, as socialism would call for the government to own all factors of production. Sanders simply wants to supersize existing social programs and make higher education a part of that plan, which would sink America further into debt. If the government were to announce today that higher education would be paid for out of taxpayer pockets, it would cost around $203 billion for EXISTING students. That is, that number does not factor in the fact that the label of ‘free’ would attract droves of more students. This would all result in higher taxes on the rich and poor alike, taking money out of the hands of those who need it most. In fact, the quality of publicly funded social programs such as healthcare is often low and leads to more expenses. What makes you think education being provided for free would also decrease in quality? The government would likely strip college budgets in order to reduce stress on taxpayers but in turn decrease the quality of said education.
Lastly, liberal economics simply does not work. California is living proof that liberalism is a failed methodology. The state is #8 in highest unemployment, #1 in income inequality (despite Democrats preaching against it), #1 in middle class shrinkage (again, ironic), and in the bottom half of business start ups. Instead of increasing taxes on corporations forcing them overseas and putting up red tape, let us practice the economic system that helped build this country to what is today. Why must we move towards a similar system as Europe’s? America was built upon the American Dream and stood as an outlier of the world, but now the left wants us to follow the trend that has plunged numerous European economies into turmoil.
– Someone with sensibility