Bernie Sanders Would Make A Good President

INTRODUCTION Counter-rebuttals are reserved for later rounds. For now, I will simply be looking at my opponent’s opening remarks. Let me also ask the voters that they do not count jamccartney’s forfeiture as a conduct violation. REBUTTALS Allow me to summarize my opponent’s opposition to a Sanders presidency in point-format. 9.5% reduction of gross domestic product Negative economic impact of fifteen-dollar minimum wage Capital investment decrease of 18.6% Average wage decrease of 4.3% Loss of 6 million full-time jobs Wage gap is a myth Free trade boosts the economy My opponent utilizes the Tax Foundation, as well as his own math, to come up with all of these different numbers. Alright, I am no economist, nor do I splendidly well in my math classes, but really, I will trust the economists before I trust the mass media or right-wing-biased foundations. And, of course, CNN has its biases, and I would argue it is biased towards establishment politicians from the left and right. If CNN publishes a story in favour of certain aspects of a Sanders presidency, then we can open our eyes. On 8 February, 2016, Tami Luhby wrote, “Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.” She cites Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst professor of economics, who I consider to be a greater authority on this than my opponent, who, in comparison to me, is certainly much better at math. Friedman, who believes in democratic socialism like the candidate, found that if Sanders became president -- and was able to push his plan through Congress -- median household income would be $82,200 by 2026, far higher than the $59,300 projected by the Congressional Budget Office. In addition, poverty would plummet to a record low 6%, as opposed to the CBO's forecast of 13.9%. The U.S. economy would grow by 5.3% per year, instead of 2.1%, and the nation's $1.3 trillion deficit would turn into a large surplus by Sanders' second term. Other economists, however, feel that Friedman's analysis is overly optimistic, saying it would be difficult to achieve that level of economic prosperity. Last week, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Sanders' plan to pay for health care would fall short by at least $3 trillion. Sanders' plan to pour $14.5 trillion into the economy -- including spending on infrastructure and youth employment, increasing Social Security benefits, making college free and expanding health care and family leave -- would juice GDP and productivity. (Friedman reduces the cost of Medicare-for-all to $10.7 trillion because he estimates the government would save $3.1 trillion by eliminating tax breaks for health insurance premiums.) Also, Sanders would raise the minimum wage, as well as shift income from the rich to the middle and working class through tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations. "Like the New Deal of the 1930s, Senator Sanders' program is designed to do more than merely increase economic activity," Friedman writes. It will "promote a more just prosperity, broadly-based with a narrowing of economy inequality." And I believe the facts I laid out in regards to free trade are more than adequate a challenge to my opponent’s remarks about it. My opponent argues that the gender gap is a myth. Well… no, it is not [2]. [R]esearch has shown that even when women enter traditionally “male” fields, they make less. In fact, research looking at pay changes over decades has shown that when more women enter a traditionally male field, pay within that field begins to decline. As The New York Times reported, when more women began working in parks or running camps, for example, median hourly wages declined by 57 percentage points. Same goes for fields like design, housekeeping and biology. Conversely, when more men enter a traditionally female field, wages go up. I urge my opponent to read the full Huffington Post article. CONCLUSION Again, I ask the voters to not count jamccartney’s forfeiture as a conduct violation. I thank him for his arguments and his rebuttals and look forward to his next remarks. SOURCES [1] http://money.cnn.com... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...