There was a time when political parties spoke about issues and philosophies that served as the foundation for their policies and their respective approaches to government. In recent years, however, political parties have allowed elected officials to serve as the voice and face of their “principled” organization, which made politics more personal.
After spending some time reading the economic proposals of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, it’s clear that the fundamental difference between them is found in a basic view of private property rights and the American government’s relationship to that private property.
Both nominees have laid out plans that on one hand significantly reduce taxes on the productivity of Americans from Trump’s proposals and on the other hand propose a minimum of $1 trillion in new taxes specified by Clinton.
When asked about the $19 trillion in debt, an anchor that is slowing America’s economy, the two candidates are clearly different. Trump declares, “We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt. I think we could do it fairly quickly over a period of eight years.” Through spending cuts, renegotiation of trade and aid packages and a restructuring of the current debt, Trump offers his plan to work with Congress.
Clinton’s new spending proposals are “paid for” by the aforementioned new taxes with the oft-repeated Democratic refrain: “We need to get the wealthy and the corporations to pay more of their fair share.”