With Monday Night’s Presidential Debate coming up, we thought it would be useful to have a plain English side-by-side comparison of Clinton and Trump’s policy positions and proposals.
For example, we hear a lot about how Trump will be “strong” on National Security. But what are the candidates’ policy proposals to get us there?
National Security
Well, for Trump, this means (i) an aggressive bombing campaign of ISIS territories, and killing of terrorists’ families; (ii) use of torture as an interrogation technique; (iii) as ideological test for Muslims wishing to enter the U.S., and (iv) for captured terrorists to be tried in Guantanamo Bay.
Clinton, on the other hand, has proposed strong U.S. involvement in fighting ISIS, short of deploying boots on the ground, a no-fly zone in Syria, as well as training of Syrian rebels, and to work with U.S. allies to dismantle terror networks.
Economy
On the economy, Clinton proposes raising taxes on high income households with a tax plan that is expected to generate $200-500 million in additional revenue for the federal government. She would raise the minimum wage, and has proposed increased infrastructure development and related job production.
Trump’s proposal is to cut taxes for all, including corporations, with a strong emphasis on lowering taxes for the rich. His tax plan would cost the federal government $9.5 trillion. He would also push the decision on minimum wage to the states, and proposes deregulation of the banks.
For the rest, check out our chart below. (For a full size PDF, click on the image and download)
We will be live tweeting and blogging during Monday night’s debate.
Please join in this important conversation!
—
Photo Credit: Associated Press/File
Source: 30dB.com – Clinton and Debate vs Trump and Debate
“Looks like social is more supportive of Hillary going in tonight’s debate, but this may play into the high success bar set for her vs. the low bar set for Trump problem. Since when is grading on a curve ok for our next President?” – Howard K. 30dB
Here’s the problem as far as I can see it. We’ve already been down that liberal path in the mid 70s with Carter. Yes we had problems but nowhere near what we have today. In 4 short years he absolutely ruined this economy and started the fostering of a complete nanny state. He didn’t do it alone of course, but the liberal agenda back then was an utter failure. Foreign policy was a disaster, which also fermented the rise of middle eastern terrorism. Reagan inherited a MEs. Interest rates were 13% nobody could buy a house. Wal St almost collapsed… Read more »
People rarely see the big picture. Progressives push a minimum wage and I agree in theory. People should make a minimum amount of money or it’s slavery. The issue that gets lost is that labor is a commodity as well. Of course if you have liberal immigration policies you’re interfering negatively in the labor market so to try and correct it, you create a much larger minimum wage than is necessary. Sure there is an issue with the work visas. Do companies really need to bring people in from over seas and not hire developers over here. I don’t think… Read more »
Can you explain why liberal immigration would lead to a higher minimum wage John? Not understanding your viewpoint. I agree. There should be a minimum wage. One that doesn’t impact inflationary pressure, and allow untrained, probably specifically youth to enter the workforce, yet also won’t negatively affect the overall employment or employment hours result.
“Can you explain why liberal immigration would lead to a higher minimum wage John? ”
It doesn’t. It depresses the value of labor so government needs to keep it artificially high by establishing a minimum wage.
That’s why there is suspicion that some companies abuse the visa system to artificially inflate the number of developers in the country to reduce the value of labor. These abuses need to be addressed as well. Unfortunately, I don’t feel either candidate is looking at that.
Hmm. I can see your point on depression of wages because of this aspect of immigration. Back in 86 I literally laughed at the INS officer who made us responsible for the checking of proper I9s. I know then we were having a problem they couldn’t control. Illegal immigration is one of the worst things to happen to us. I always advocated a fine of a million dollars to the businesses for each one caught employed. But that’s another cluster freak to be discussed. Cesar Chavez hated illegal border jumpers. He used to go out on his own to deter… Read more »
All of this political ranting, from both sides, is getting us absolutely nowhere. I’m proposing, here, we take merely one subject, and dissect kit from our various viewpoints and see what we can come up with. Since I believe employment and jobs impacts so many areas, I propose that’s topic one. Here are my views, feel free to critique. I’m done with the broadbrush feelings and broadbrush posturing from either side. I believe that we’re in a social, economic, and international quagmire because we’ve had no policy of job creation and economic enhancement fine at least the last 15 years.… Read more »
So it’s basically 3rd term Obama as hillary’s policies. You all seriously like where we’ve been for the last 8 years? Not me. My original post dealing with job creation was gone too. The left wants no debate really.
BTW not sure why the last comment was deleted (probably because it correctly stated that the building of a wall could be considered a public works project so the cost associated with it could be considered as a stimulant to the economy.
I Will suggest though that suppressing statements that don’t follow the narrative you espouse is a lecture not a conversation.
Yep. They completely nuked all the comments that were here before. Sorta makes my comment about certain leftists not really liking freedom of speech very ironic. I mean I couldn’t ask for a better case in point
Accordingly I chose not to comment. Way too many flaws in what’s being projected as “policy” positions that leave out the “meat.” Prime example is free education which isn’t free, someone has to pay for it.
Clinton isn’t proposing debt free education. She’s simply switching from the individual seeking an education having to pay it to the tax payers paying for it. It won’t be student debt. It will be national debt, but it’s still debt.
Beautifully done. Facts!