Group Survey Analysis: Three

George Kassimis, Tuathla Hefferan, Paige DeLuca, Isabella Dias

Gender Neutral Bathrooms and Elections

As human beings, we have come to require certain needs as civilized people. Fresh air, water, food, shelter, love, and a place to use the bathroom. And as our times are changing, we are forced to have to conform to age old standards and recognize where society places us. Whether it be by race, gender, sexuality, and everything in between, other people have a category we fit into, and there has been very little done to obscure these classifications. For trans people who don’t fit snug enough into the gender binary, a simple task like using the bathroom becomes a source of anxiety and becomes a place where they are more likely to be questioned or harassed. With each law being placed in front of a politician, the community is forced to wonder in fear. How will these laws be enforced? Genital inspection? It is a source of constant paranoia and almost always, these laws are placed to promote transphobia. Public restrooms are not public. They are bathrooms for those who fit neatly into the gender binary. But what shall a person who does not fit so neatly into these binaries do when they have to use the bathroom in public? Is it worth holding it in until you get home for the sake of not getting harassed? If one does not care enough to pay attention to those who deal with these problems, where is the limit? What about the people with body image issues? Why are we forced to judge others and leave them in paranoia over their bodies? To answer these questions, we must dream for a safer public for all humans. We have to pay attention to the wants, and the needs of all, absent of judgement. That is what our project hopes to prove. Not only that there is a need for inclusion of transgender citizens, but that there is a need as a society to rid ourselves of the judgement we cast upon others. To challenge and conquer the mainstream idea of what a body should look like, and present the importance of body individuality and acceptance.

To conduct this survey our group made two lists of questions that we thought were important. The first list consisted of general questions that we thought were necessary for conducting our survey; an example would be, “what gender do you identify with?” The second list of questions were related to our topic, gender neutral bathrooms; like “would you be open to using a gender-neutral bathroom?” As a class we decided to do one big survey, so we put together general questions that everyone agreed on. Each person that was in a survey group had to get thirty other students to take the survey. The survey was created on google docs, which made it a lot easier for us to get others to take it. We decided to make the survey multiple choice because it limited the types of responses we could get, and people generally prefer to take multiple choice surveys over short answer ones.

The biggest weakness in our survey and the method in which we collected our data was bias. Even though we took precautions in putting together the survey, like keeping the results anonymous and opening it to all students at the University of New Haven, we still saw bias in our results. 67.8% of our survey participants were first year undergraduates, with 53.5% being students in the Criminal Justice and Forensic Science program. As the survey initiators we naturally asked our friends and roommates to take the survey; we asked people who were similar to us. This bias wasn’t on purpose and doesn’t discredit the results of the survey, but it was a weakness that we noticed.

 

Some predictions for this experiment were that as a group, we would find that out of everyone surveyed more people would have voted for Hillary Clinton. This prediction was based off of an inference that more millennials would be voting for Clinton in general. A second prediction was that more hispanics and black people would vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Also, we predicted that more people voting for Hillary would be open to using gender neutral bathrooms. If they had used gender neutral bathrooms in the past, they would feel no difference and be open to using it again as well. The last thing we predicted was that gender neutral bathrooms would not be a major issue in the election.

After the survey was conducted, the results were compared and calculated out of 311 people.

 

	V otes	Open to using gender neutral bathrooms	Noticing no difference in bathrooms	Open to using them again	Whether it is an important election issue
V oted Clinton	150	(Yes) 108 (No) 42	(Yes) 14 (No) 54	(Yes) 53 (No) 13	(Yes) 82 (No) 68
V oted Trump	60	(Yes) 25 (No) 35	(Yes) 11 (No) 12	(Yes) 13 (No) 8	(Yes) 17 (No) 43
V otes Other	56	(Yes) 39 (No) 17	(Yes) 4 (No) 22	(Yes) 19 (No) 7	(Yes) 19 (No) 37

These results compared people who voted for Clinton, Trump, or other with how they felt about gender neutral bathrooms. After these results, we learned that some of our predictions were true. We learned that gender neutral bathrooms were not an important issue in this election for people who voted for Hillary, however not for Trump supporters. Also, more people who voted

for Hillary voted that they have used a gender neutral bathroom and they found no difference and would use it again.

According to demographics, 150 people voted for Clinton, 60 people voted for Trump, and 56 voted for other (including their own candidate, Stein, and Johnson). 45 people were unwilling to respond. This also proved our predictions correct because more hispanic and black people voted for Clinton over Trump.

 

	Asian	Black	Caucasian	Hispanic	Multiracial	Native American	Middle Eastern
V oted Clinton	8	28	77	22	13	2	1
V oted Trump	0	2	50	4	3	1	1
V oted Other	7	7	34	3	3	0	2

As the data shows us, the issue of gender neutral bathrooms has not been talked about enough. Now more than ever before, the world is becoming more accepting of others and what they identify themselves as. Out of the 150 voters who voted for Clinton, 108 of them said they would be open to use a gender neutral bathroom at the University Of New Haven. That may not seem like a lot but only 42 said no to using one. This university is just a tiny portion of an issue that could turn into something much bigger. This matter definitely needs to be talked about and if people keep bringing it up, soon enough, it will find its way to the top of the list.

Group Survey Analysis: Two

By: Mareesca Gordon, Jacob Davis, Hunter Davis, Ben Michael

A survey is a sampling, or partial collection, of facts, figures, or opinions, taken and used to approximate or indicate what a complete collection and analysis might reveal. Often they are used to conduct psychological research or to provide a wide spectrum of results in an area such as a college campus. In this case, a survey was conducted on the population of the University of New Haven. We divided Life on Earth Class into several groups who created with their own surveys and ultimately compiled all the surveys into one master survey with a wide spectrum of questions. During the 2016 Presidential election, a large portion of first year undergraduate students attending University of New Haven could vote for the first time. The 2016 Presidential elect would then change the government throughout their entire four years in college.

As a class, we were surveying to see the political beliefs of the first-year students at the University of New Haven. However, the overall objective of our smaller group was to identify the beliefs of voters and to determine if their political stances on many controversial issues lined up with the views of who they were voting for. In doing so, we can potentially see how well informed some voters are by their beliefs, if they align with who they voted for. If they support something and they voted for someone who doesn’t support it, there’s a possibility that they weren’t fully informed on the stances of the presidential candidates.

Survey Methodology: As a group the entire class compiled their questions together so that it would be easier to obtain the survey results. To obtain our survey results each student was required to survey 30 first-year students at the University of New Haven. Preferably, randomly selected students at the University. Each instructor went to their dorm room-mates and people around them to have them complete the survey. Once the surveys were finished each group separated the data collection and analysed it.

Survey Weaknesses: The weaknesses of this survey would be the survey instructor’s choice of applicants. Most of the instructors (not all) surveyed people who were close to them in proximity,  which includes friends and room-mates. Thus, if they are Criminal Justice majors, the majority of people who are around him or her are most likely other Criminal Justice majors also. Thus, creating another bias to the survey results. If the instructor only surveys their friends, the applicants most likely had similar views to the instructor. Hence, most of the replies might not truly be random and representative of the overall population. Another dilemma would be truthfulness of the surveyed students. Some students may have felt pressured to take the survey because their friend was asking for them to take it.  Thus, they may have lied about how they felt about certain controversial questions. In this survey, we asked for first name, last name and email, to avoid duplicate surveyors. Although this information would not be used and the survey is in fact anonymous in regards to the answers for the questions, some people felt that it was not anonymous and refused to take the survey, hence leaving less room for diversity of applicants. Another issue would be that since the survey questions were compiled together, it made the survey look longer and many people felt it was too long to complete.

Predictions and Results: Prior to actually seeing the results of the survey, we were able to make certain predictions about the responses. We assumed that a majority of the respondents would be Clinton supporters with liberal views on issues, due to the fact that our age group is predominantly liberal, as well as the region that we are in. We were also able to predict the outcomes of  certain issues based on the population of University of New Haven. University of New Haven has a large number of Criminal Justice students, so it was no surprise that many of them overwhelmingly supported the second amendment.

While Clinton was a heavy majority favorite in the results, the results of the issues didn’t perfectly line up. While people typically agreed with who they supported, it was never unanimous, even with the main issues of the election. Although it was a cornerstone of his candidacy, 36% of the 60 Trump supporters did not agree with building a wall. This shows that certain issues can influence someone to vote for a candidate, even if they don’t agree with other things the candidate says. This also shows how candidates targets certains areas of the country with their topics, because in a state that is more affected by illegal immigration might support building a wall more. A majority of Trump supporters responded that they believe in human caused global warming, even though Trump is adamant skeptic of global warming. This shows how little effect global warming had on the election, even though it is a topic being talked about all across the world. This was one of the few issues that Clinton and Trump supporters agreed on, as well and support of the second amendment.

 

Conclusion The conclusion that can be seen with the survey results is that it seems like many of the respondents did not vote for one candidate based on policy, but on the basis of not liking the other candidate. While it could relate to social groups and how people view candidate’s behavior it does not surprise the group that a majority of people who filled out the survey voted for Hillary Clinton. A surprise result from the survey would be that half of the people to vote for Trump did not support Trump’s idea of him building a wall. However, more than half of them (49 out of 60) supported the idea of deporting illegal immigrants. This was one of the only elections where one idea a candidate had may have persuaded the voters, and one idea of the other candidates may have deterred them from voting. Another non-surprising factor that seemed to have shaped the election was how people got information from the election. Most people in surveys said they got the information from Social Media Facebook or Twitter, which could have resulted in fake news, and could have altered people’s views of one of the candidates. Although the UNH population largely supported the ideals of Hillary Clinton, they do not support the longstanding view of the other half of America who voted for Donald Trump. One thing that we can take away from the survey at the end is that most of the voters did not vote for the other person based on key political issues such as building a wall or deporting illegal immigrants, but they supported the other candidates based on other unknown factors (fake news or disdain for the other candidate).

Group Survey Analysis: One

Deanna Davis, Kat Grissom, Chantal Meggett, Andrea McIntosh

Do Millennials watch the news or do they take most of the information from Social Media?

Social Media are websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking. The Millennials are a generation of children born between 1982 and 2002.Our group chose the topic of social media as it relates to the 2016 elections because it is relevant to us millennials in today’s society. Most teenagers and young adults do not sit and watch the news, instead they turn to Facebook or twitter as their source of information. We thought that if all millennials were to vote in this elections, it would outnumber the baby boomers’ generation reason being there are 75.4 million millennials and 74.9 million baby boomers. (Fry) Our hypothesis stated that most millennials would use social media as their news source in the 2016 Election because college students today rely more on social networking site such as Facebook, Twitter etc. rather than Cable, Newspaper and Magazines to understand what is going on in the world and as entertainment (Griffin).

Survey Methods:

For our survey, we came together to establish questions that would help to answer our hypothesis. We then narrowed it down to three specific questions that we thought would get the best results. After finding numerous amounts of subjects in the University of New Haven Community from 1^st year students all the way to Graduate students to take the survey, we realized that several things could have hindered our outcomes. When finding people to take the survey, most of them were either 1^st Year Students or close friends rather than random people from different years. This could have happened because most of us are 1^st year students resulting in us knowing more 1^st years than we do the other years. Another weakness that could have hampered our results would be surveying people who were in the same hall as us. Most of our group members live in a Living and Learning Community which means that it created a bias to our survey because most people were either Criminal Justice Majors or Arts & Sciences, rather than it being spread out between the 5 Majors offered at the school.

Results:

Out of the people we people we surveyed there were 72 females and 61 males. Andrea surveyed 30 people, Chantal had 38, Kathryn surveyed 32, and Deanna had 33. From the questions who voted 47 females, and 40 males did vote and 25 females and 21 males did not vote.

From those people, we surveyed their primary area of study was either Arts and Sciences, Criminal Justice, Business, Fine Arts, and Engineering. The Arts and Sciences major had 20 females, and 33 males. Criminal Justice was the most popular major with 31 females and 21 males.

Another question we had was did social media influence your decision in the 2016 election and what is your primary source of News?

 

We broke down the races and the social media Influence then the race and the sources. Caucasians were influenced more by social media in the 2016 Elections than any other race. African Americans, Asians, and Native Americans uses mostly social media, Caucasians, Multiculturalist, Middle Eastern, and Hispanics used mostly news.

The most used source by the males was News 15, social media was 14, word of mouth was two and newspaper and magazines was zero. Males that voted and their sources were 3 for news,17 for social media, 0 for word-of-mouth, and newspaper and magazines1. For the males that did not vote their sources were 13 for news, 7 for social media, 3 for word of mouth, and 3 for newspapers and magazines, word of mouth, and 3 for newspaper and magazine.

Conclusion

As a conclusion to our survey we have concluded that many Millennials used social media as their source of news. This would be because we millennials rely more on our smart phones to tell us the news rather than cable and the newspaper. Because more millennials are college students, most walk around with their heads down looking at their phone with the possibility of them surfing the social networks. Because of this it would explain why they use social networking rather than cable because it is a faster and easier way to get news on the go from other people rather than sitting around and waiting for the 5 or 6 o’clock news to come on which could hinder them being some students have class at that time. This survey along with our results supported out hypothesis that most millennials would use social media as their news source in the 2016 Election because college students today rely more on social networking site such as Facebook, Twitter etc. rather than Cable, Newspaper and Magazines to understand what is going on in the world and as entertainment.

 

 Work Cited

Fry, Richard. pewreseach. 25 April 2016. 3 December 2016.

Griffin, Riley. Huffington Post. 21 July 2015. 3 December 2016.

The Top 1%

Trump wants tax cuts across the board and especially for the wealthy. He has often compared his tax cuts to those of Regan and he supposes that by doing this he will bring much prosperity to the US. He wants to do away with the estate tax which affects how much this One Percent of people will receive from their parents when they die and this could potentially by millions or billions of dollars in taxes. He also wants to do away with carried interest claiming that it is “unfair”.  He wants to simplify the tax code very much but he opposes a flat tax which he thinks will benefit the wealthy too much. He says that the tax code discriminates against married people and he wants to end this “marriage penalty” along with other hidden taxes. Though he was a Reform Party candidate in the past , even going as far to support a one time large tax hike on the wealthy to erase the national debt completely, he has changes his toon and become much more conservative in his views about taxes by endorsing tax cuts like those of Bush, and Regan which he thinks will bring back wealth to America rather than overseas.

Hillary Clinton said that she wants to make sure that “the wealthy pay their fair share” in taxes. She wants to increase the taxes that the richest one percent of people and use this influx of wealth to pay for other programs like debt-free college and rebuilding our infrastructure. She says that she wants to close tax loopholes that would allow the one percent to pay little to nothing in taxes. The one percent under a Hillary administration must pay at least thirty percent tax rate on every one million dollars they make. She would close carried interest loopholes which allows a hedge fund or private equity to avoid paying income rates on their incomes. She also wants to a law that would prevent millionaires from not having their retirement account be a safe haven for money since it will not be taxed. She also wants a “risk fee” for companies that are “too big to fail”. This risk fee would be graduated and according to her estimates it would gain one hundred fifty billion dollars over ten years. She also wants to end the “Bermuda reinsurance loophole” which allows people to avoid paying higher insurance rates. She also wants to close loopholes that make estates to look less valuable than they are so people pay less in taxes on their properties. The one percent under Hillary would see an increase in the amount they pay in taxes to the federal government.

People will be rich and people will be poor but it is by no means the government’s right or best interest to tax the wealthy profusely and spread all their earnings amongst the populous. If we heavily tax the rich they will this nation for another with lower taxes. This will take away much needed cash for investments in markets, corporations, startups, and small businesses. Without these investments, it will be hard to foresee growth.  Many One Percenters have been evading these taxes by moving their assets into places with very low tax rates like Switzerland and Ireland. The response in the US is to raise taxes more so that they can “pay their fair share” when they already pay more taxes on their income than any other income bracket in the nation.  The government has no right to tax its citizens so much simply because the One Percent can “afford it “. Taxing the rich simply because they are fabulously wealthy is discrimination based on their socio-economic level. Discrimination cannot be “afforded” no matter who you are, where you come from, or how much money you have. The One Percent is vital to the national economy so we should make incentives to have them spread their wealth via investments rather than through taxation. If we make it easier for the One Percent to spread their wealth through investment we can bring money, resources, and expertise back to the US rather than exporting it through excessive taxation to other nations. The men and women who are wealthy ought not to be punished for being wealthy. If we all wish to live in a society where all are created equal then we need to treat everyone as such, even those who we despise (for whatever reason) for being wealthy.

By Jordan Higgins

Gun Control

Donald Trump has frequently promised to protect the second amendment on the campaign trail and has his own concealed carry permit from his home state of New York. Trump has said that he will enforce all existing gun laws without making many new ones. Some new policies he has suggested is “no fly, no buy” which would prohibit people on terror watch list from buying guns. Donald Trump also wants to make a “national right to carry”. He believes that concealed carry permits should be valid in all fifty states and he would abolish gun free zones. Areas like military bases, recruiting centers, and other gun free zones would be allowed to use firearms. Trump also wants to put a judge on the Supreme Court that will uphold the second amendment. Trump is supported by the National Rifle Association and seeks to expand gun ownership, and rights. Trump also supports the expansion of mental health programs to diagnose people so they cannot buy firearms. Trump is not changing much about the current gun laws of this nation but he is going to enforce all the laws that are already in place.

Hillary Clinton has constantly repeated that she supports “common sense gun laws” that would keep “weapons of war off of our streets”. She wants comprehensive background check which would prevent all domestic abusers, mentally ill, and people on terror watch list from being able to buy guns. She wants to close “loopholes” as well. She wants to close the “Charleston Loophole” which allows people to purchase guns without a background check. She also wants to close the” Gun Show Loophole” which would require any person selling many weapons at once be held to the same standard as sellers at a gun store. She has also said she would repeal the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce Act. This act prevents victims of gun violence to be able to sue negligent dealers and manufactures for violence perpetrated by guns. By repealing this she hopes that since gun manufacturers would be being sued constantly that have to follow the new rules imposed under a Clinton presidency and put the gun lobby on the ropes due to lack of funds from having to defend all the suits. She also supports having a limited amount of bullets in a magazine to less than ten bullets, and an “assault weapons ban”. Hillary Clinton is being supported by pro-gun control groups such as “Everytown for Gun Safety” and the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” for the reforms she wants to enact as president of the United States.

Simply put, I am pro-gun. The reason we have the second amendment is to be able to fight a tyrannous government should it ever arise. This was amendment was made because the British attempted to confiscate American guns and without guns the Americans could not revolt against the King who was squashing their liberties. The founding fathers made the amendment so that this could never happen again and so that the people will always be able to revolt if the government overstepped its boundaries and duties. When this right is infringed, all our other rights are in danger. It is the second amendment that backs up all the other amendments. Guns give the populous a means by which they can be free when all other ways fail.  I support legislation that would provide mental health checks, and background checks for people who own weapons. Gun owners should also be able to show proficiency with their weapons so they cannot hurt people by accident or negligence. Guns are only as dangerous as their users; if they are unstable or dangerous they cannot or will not perform the duties needed to keep this country safe. However, a ban on certain types of guns is an abomination to me. If the British government had told the Americans that they could only own pistols, they would have never could revolt. The same rules apply today and with more intensity. As technology progresses rapidly, Americans should be able to own weapons that could prove useful and powerful, should the time ever should arise that they need to use them.

By Jordan Higgins

Economy

Trump does not support free trade deals as he supposes they take American jobs. He wants to withdraw from these trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership. He wants to personally negotiate trade deals with each nation instead in an effort to protect American jobs. He even wants to put up tariffs on countries such as China, and Mexico. To protect American jobs even further he wants to prevent outsourcing and bring back American jobs back. He wants to open collecting all forms of energy from coal, to fracking, to shale oil. He wants more American jobs in these areas to boost growth. He wants to cut taxes on the wealthy, corporate tax rates, and small business. He wants to cut government spending on the military and “cut waste” in government spending. However, he will keep Medicare and Medicaid the same. He also wants to reform the Veteran’s Administration giving more benefits to veterans such as small business loans, job training and placement services. He also wants increase funding to combat mental disease related illnesses. He even wants to add an OBGYN to every VA hospital. He does not support a raise in the minimum wage because he feels an increase would make it harder for American workers to compete for work. He also wants to spend one trillion dollars on building American infrastructure with American jobs. He says he will deport illegal immigrants which would also make more jobs for Americans.

Hillary Clinton’s main agenda for the economy is to expand the middle class and raise wages for the middle class. She wants to give tax cuts to the middle class and small business. She also supports making college affordable and she would do this through spending thirty -five billion dollars to refinance student debt and pay states to guarantee tuition. She even has supported a plan to make community college free. She also wants paid maternity leave and a program that would make preschool affordable by spending twenty- seven and a half billion dollars. She also has a plan to build American infrastructure through a plan that would cost twenty- seven and a half billion dollars. Her energy plan would be nine billion dollars and it would be used to repair oil pipelines and reduce carbon emissions. She wants a fifteen-dollar minimum wage with increased workers benefits. She wants more women in the work force and wants them paid the same amount of men. She would pay for all this by raising taxes on the wealthiest one percent of Americans to pay more in taxes. She supports free trade agreements and has supported the TTP and NAFTA. She supposes by doing this that this will lead to long term growth.

I support a Laissez-faire approach to the economy. I think the government has no business in the meddling of economic affairs and I believe that the economy can best take care of itself. However, I do believe it is in the governments best interest to protect the physical safety of their citizen through restrictions such as not using lead in paint for children’s toys. I support a flat income tax that is cannot be avoided by any corporation, or person. In this way people, cannot complain they are being taxed too heavily because they will all be taxed fairly in the same way. There will be no exclusions in this tax code and people will pay what is owed. I believe that we should boost spending on clean energy to produce jobs and energy for the future while also boosting jobs in areas such as coal and oil. I support putting a carbon tax on companies so that we can reduce our nations carbon footprint. While reducing our dependence on foreign oil I would export our energy (coal oil, gas) to developing nations to boost their own economies. Nations like India who are growing tremendously would benefit from this and in return we could get money and products here in the US. I would cut spending dramatically to pay off the national debt. However, with this cutting I also want one penny of every dollar going to fund NASA directly. I also will support full paid family leave for men and women. I will not raise the minimum wage and I will let the market dictate how much your services are worth to wherever you work.

By Jordan Higgins

 

Gender Wage Gap

Donald Trump has not stated his opinion on the gender wage gap.  He has stated before that he supports equal pay but at other times has shown to be undecided on the topic.  He has also appeared skeptical of the idea that men who perform the same jobs as women are paid less and has said that “if they do the same job, they should get the same pay.”  When asked questions concerning the topic he has stated, “You’re gonna make the same if you do a good job.”  Going on his website shows nothing on the gender wage gap and his position on equal pay is still inconclusive.

 

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton has voiced her opinion on the gender wage gap for years.  Her stance on the gender wage is very clear.  During her time as Secretary of State, Clinton has worked toward closing the gender wage gap and has fought for equal pay for women.  Fighting for equality and women’s  rights has actually been quite prominent in Clinton’s campaign and can even be said to one her main focuses.  She believes that the gender wage gap is an important political issue and will only increase if not dealt with soon.

 

There is not an easy way to compare these two candidate’s opinions.  Hillary is very open about her side on the topic and clearly sees it as a major issue in America.  Donald Trump does not have a clear opinion and has not given any solutions to dealing with issue.  This might mean that Donald Trump does not see the gender wage gap as an issue in America but that’s only speculations.  I believe that Clinton is the best option when it comes to this topic since the gender wage gap is an issue in America and she has openly voiced her opinion on the topic.

 

By Derrick G. Magbaleta

Taxes

Donald Trump has voiced his opinion on taxes and has stated his tax plan.  Trump knows that many citizens are paying too much on their taxes.  To remedy this, he has stated that he plans on reducing taxes all across the board,especially for the working middle class.  He has also stated that his tax plan will make sure that the rich will pay their share of taxes but not too much.  Trump has also stated that he will lower the business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. He explains that because of the high business tax many businesses have or are planning on leaving the country.  This has caused competition and the number of jobs in America to decrease.  Through his plan Trump hope to fix the economy.

 

Hillary Clinton has also stated her opinion and tax plan.  She believes that we need a fair system that works for everyone.  She states that taxes are usually in favor of the rich and wealthy.  Many millionaire and billionaires are able to find loopholes in our tax system that allows them to pay lower tax rates than lower to middle class families.  Clinton has promised to restore fairness in our tax system and that she will ensure the wealthy and rich pay their fair share and provide tax relief to working families.  She has promised to close tax loopholes and cut taxes for small businesses so they can grow.  Hillary Clinton wants to make the tax system fair.

 

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have two different tax plans.  Clinton’s plan is more focused on making the tax system fair and helping the middle to lower class.  Trump’s plan is more focused on helping businesses in America and fixing the economy.  Both plans also ensure the rich pay their share of taxes.  If you’re in the middle to lower class, Clinton is favorable since her plan focuses on you.  If you’re a business owner, Trump’s plan is more favorable.

 

By Derrick G. Magbaleta

Poverty

One of the biggest issues in America today is poverty.  Over 45 million Americans still live in poverty despite the many economic reforms that have happened in recent years.  However, president elect Donald Trump might have an answer to poverty.  He has stated that he plans on providing incentives for people to work.  He explains that the main reason why people are still in poverty is because they can make more money from sitting around all day than actually working.  Welfare, food stamps and any other assistance only motivates people to not work.  Trump wants to change that.  He wants to make it so it’s more rewarding to work, offer an incentive.  Trump hopes that this will be the solution to poverty.

 

Hillary Clinton also has her own solution to solve poverty.  Most Americans who live in poverty are usually of Hispanic or African descent.  These people have less job opportunities than others because of their heritage which results with them living in poverty.  Clinton believes that by giving these people equal job opportunities will help solve poverty.  She also plans on raising incomes to ensure that hard work is rewarded, create more affordable housing, and make healthcare more affordable for low-income families.

 

If you compare the two plans you can see the differences.  Trump’s plan is to reward working citizens.  It focuses on helping people who are working to get out of poverty and rewarding them on their efforts.  Clinton’s plan is to help people in poverty.  It doesn’t get people out of poverty but makes things more affordable to them.  I believe Trump’s plan is more favorable.  Clinton’s plan encourages people to not work since they’ll get many benefits from it while Trump’s plan encourage people to work.

 

By Derrick G. Magbaleta