College Loans

College loans possess a big portion of debt in the country currently, which may lead to a poor economy in the future. College affordability has become one of the biggest worries within families for years. The issue of college affordability and college loans was not discussed much in the presidential debates, the candidates only mentioning the word college 11 total times in the three debates combined. 

Although based on what was discussed in the debates, and throughout Clinton and Trump’s campaign trail, this is their stance on this important national issue.

Hillary Clinton’s stance

In the third debate, Hillary spoke about making college more affordable.

“I feel strong that we have to have an education system that starts with preschool and goes through college. That’s why I want more technical education and community colleges, real apprenticeships to prepare young people for the jobs of the future. I want to make college debt-free and for families making less than $125,000, you will not get a tuition bill from a public college or a university if the plan that I worked on with Bernie Sanders is enacted.”

On her website Clinton outlines similar proposals such as free tuition at four-year public colleges and universities for in-state students whose families earn $85,000 or less a year. Free tuition at all community colleges, lower interest rates on federal students loans and debt relief for currently borrowers to refinance their loans at current federal rates.

She also supports increasing taxes for the rich in order to reduce interest rates for student loans.

Donald Trump’s stance

Trump had less to say about college throughout the debates, although his website outlines some aspects of his stance when it comes to college affordability.

Work with Congress on reforms to ensure universities are making a good faith effort to reduce the cost of college and student debt in exchange for the federal tax breaks and tax dollars, and “Ensure that the opportunity to attend a two or four-year college, or to pursue a trade or a skill set through vocational and technical education, will be easier to access, pay for, and finish.”

Trump does not support Common Core national standards, believing that education should be handled at the state and local level instead of at the national level. 

Healthcare

Both Trump and Clinton have similar views when it comes to healthcare, although there are a significant amount of controversies when it comes to healthcare in the United States. 

Hillary Clinton’s stance

According to her website, Hillary Clinton supports the Patient Protection and Affordance Care Act. She also believes the government should regulate the prices of life saving drugs and should regulate the price of all prescription drugs. Clinton supports the legalization of marijuana for medical use only and also believes the federal government show increase funding of health care for low-income individuals. 

Donald Trump’s stance

Trump does not support the Patient Protection and Affordance Care Act, believing that the markets should be open so insurers can compete across state lines and reduce costs.  He also believes the government should regulate the prices of life saving drugs and should regulate the price of all prescription drugs. Trump supports the legalization of marijuana for medical-use only and believes the federal government should increase funding of health care for low-income individuals. 

Economy and Jobs

This year’s presidential election features sharp disagreements and views of the U.S. economy. Throughout his candidacy, Trump continually points out that the economy is slipping into an irreversible decline. Opposing his take, Clinton points out the recent gains in the aftermath of the financial crisis in 2008 under Barack Obama. 

Hillary Clinton’s stance 

According to Clinton’s website, her vision is to raise pay, create good paying jobs, and build an economy that works for everyone, not just the wealthy. 

“I’ll cut taxes for the middle class, raise minimum wage and ensure the wealthiest pay their fair share. I’ll invest in infrastructure, clean energy and education. And I’ll help parents balance work and family.”

Donald Trump’s stance

According to his website, Donald Trump’s vision is to create a dynamic booming economy that will create 25 million new jobs in the next decade. For each 1 percent in added GDP growth, the economy adds 1.2 million jobs. Increasing growth by 1.5 percent would result in 18 million jobs (1.5 million times 1.2 million, multiplied by 10 years) above the projected current law job figures of seven million, producing a total of 25 million new jobs for the American economy. Reform policies with a pro-growth tax plan, a new modern regulatory framework, an America-First trade policy, an unleashed American energy plan, and the “penny plan.” Boost growth to 3.5 percent per year on average, with the potential to reach a four percent growth rate.

Tax Analyst Stance

According to the Tax Foundation, the nation’s leading independent tax policy research origination, Hillary Clinton’s plan would raise tax revenue by $498 billion over the next decade on a static basis. However, her plan would end up collecting $191 billion over the next decade when accounting for decreased output in the long run. Clinton’s proposals to alter the long-term capital gains rate schedule would actually reduce revenue on both a static and dynamic basis due to increased incentives to delay capital gains realizations. 

According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would reduce GDP by one percent over the long-term due to slightly higher marginal tax rates on capital and labor. 

On a static basis, the tax plan would lead to 0.7 percent lower after-tax income for the top 10 percent of taxpayers and 1.7 percent lower income for the top 1 percent. When accounting for reduced GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would fall by at least 0.9 percent. 

The Tax Foundation’s research claims that Donald Trump’s tax plan would significantly reduce income taxes and corporate taxes and eliminate estate taxes.

According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, the plan would reduce federal revenue by between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion on a static basis. The amount depends on the nature of a key business policy provision.

On a static basis, the plan would lead to at least 0.8 percent higher after-tax income for all taxpayer quintiles. The plan would lead to at least 10.2 percent higher incomes for the top 1 percent of taxpayers or as much as 16.0 percent higher, depending on the nature of a key business policy provision.