Prior to every election, the presidential candidates seek mass support from the citizens through their outlined economic policy stances. Different candidates have varying ways of attaining a country’s vision of maintaining a stable economy and boosting it to even greater heights. Eventually, elections always come back to the economy. In regards to economic policy, there are those issues which most presidential candidates agree with in uniformity although they differ on most aspects concerning the economy depending on their held personal beliefs. Economic policy is basically a course of action that a government implements with the intention of influencing or controlling the trend of the economy. The economic policy issues that will be discussed will be those relating to jobs and income and taxes.
According to Donald Trump, it is possible to create an economic boom when everything is done correctly. He refrained from the past Republican Presidents’ optimism and highlighted that the economic decline that the country is facing is almost irreversible. His promise was on a big boost in spending on infrastructure as well as on defense and at the same time cutting the budget for programs which are non-defense. His plan further included cutting on large taxes and making renegotiations on trade agreements. However, despite all these plans, there were no clear-cut specifications on how these goals would lead to increase in job availability or creation of new jobs.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
For Hillary Clinton, building a strong economy by simply working hard individually is a possibility because when an individual gets ahead, America gets ahead. Her proposed policy included increased spending on job training and education in the community colleges in broad disciplines of networks and infrastructure. She further campaigned for increased employee profit –sharing by using tax code which would provide breaks for companies (Timiraos & Rubin, 2016).
Gary Johnson, on the other hand, believes that it is not the government that creates jobs but rather businesses. He claimed that during his time as Governor of New Mexico, he recorded the highest job growth without creating a single job- the businesses did. In his opinion, it is the government which is an obstacle to employment through taxation and regulation of the economy. Thus, he sees a groundbreaking opportunity to use the current crisis to restore the economy and its prosperity through radical tax reforms (OnTheIssues.org).
On the issue of taxes, there was a major rift between the candidates. Trump’s stance was strictly on the cutting of taxes; the plan that he had proposed entailed slashing tax rates and also pushing many households off the income tax rolls. Clinton, on the other hand, had her stance on the wealthier citizens to pay more of their fair share when it came to taxes. Her tax policy would compose an increase in tax to the households earning higher incomes. Further, capital gains rates would be increased on assets which have been held between one to six years; this is to increase longer term investing. Gary Johnson took another turn on matters taxes; his stance was on doing away with the current tax reforms and replace it with Fairtax. The former deals with income and it basically penalize productivity instead of inefficiency whereas the latter is a tax on consumption. Taxes are not only used to collect revenue but also to manipulate individuals and industries to fulfill the dreams of politicians.
To compare the stances of the mentioned presidential candidates, each individual had a unique take on both the issues. Their positions on jobs and income are not the same, but it is common that they all aim at attaining growth of jobs as the end result. They contrast in that Johnson, for instance, believes the government cannot create jobs really whereas Hillary believes it is possible to increase jobs and income by concentrating on the job training. Donald Trump, however, does not give a coherent plan oh how he will attain job growth and income. Their stances on taxes are also very distinct and cannot be easily compared. While Trump’s wants to cut down taxes to all citizens, Hillary wishes to create partiality where the wealthy are taxed more heavily so as they pay a fair share and Johnson’s intention is simply abolishing the inherited taxation system and introducing a new one which will focus on tax on purchases. (OnTheIssues.org, 2016).
In the matters of employment, I strongly agree with Hillary because most people fail to get jobs due to lack of skills in the job. If more community colleges are in place, most citizens, especially the youth who were not able to attain a place in the universities, would be able to train themselves on a skill which the country could use in growing the economy. I would disagree with Trump for the reason that he does not give a clear picture of how he will curb the jobs and income crisis. This is a major area which ought to be dealt it with a clear, workable plan which will offer direction to the people. When it comes to taxes, I strongly agree with Johnson on shifting from tax on income to tax on consumption. The former has a massive deployment of the government’s force to the finances of citizens. I, however, disagree with Hillary in taxation; when people are taxed different, those with substantially lower income will tend to be comfortable in their situation to avoid heavier tax rates.
In terms of stances on economic policy, Hillary gives a rather clear outline of her vision for the country’s economy. Details in a candidates economy policy proposals are important as it gives an overview of the possible outcomes. Responsible citizens should be careful to look at these details before voting because matters of the economy affect individuals directly. Thus, we could agree with Hillary’s stance especially on the factor of boosting jobs and income. Most economic associations have different reactions to Hilary’s proposals; her policies seem easier said than done and the fact that her economic policy plan is too detailed may be where the problem lies after all (Anderson, 2016). The Chamber of Commerce, however, believes that with Hillary’s stances on the economic policy, she would be good for business especially after the prediction that she would support Trans-Pacific Partnership.
In conclusion, all Presidential Candidates during their time had the motivation to perform remarkable tasks that would contribute positively to the issues concerning the economy. However, they stood with different stances, and every citizen has a right to agree with their preferred side. Most importantly, the stances should contribute to the improvement of the economy.
References
Timiraos, N. & Rubin, R. (2016). Where they stand on economic policy issues . Wall street Journal. Retrieved from http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-on-the-economy/
Anderson, W., L. (2016). The Economics of Hilary Clinton . Mises Institute. Retrieved from https://mises.org/library/economics-hillary-clinton
OnTheIssues.org. (2016). Gary Johnson on Tax Reform . On the Issues. Retrieved from http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
