Just yesterday, the presidential candidates, Democratic Congressman Matthew Santos and Republican Senator Arnold Vinick squared off in a live debate moderated by Forrest Soyer. During Vinick’s opening statement, the candidates decide to forgo the negotiated rules in favor of a less constricting debate format. The two address multiple current topics, some of which include: gun control, illegal immigration, tax cuts, health care, and foreign debt relief.
Gun control has become an upfront issue due to increases in mass shootings. Vinick believes otherwise. He states the constitution gives all citizens the right to bear arms and protect themselves and their personal belongings. Santos somewhat agreed to Vinick statement, saying while gun control is not necessary, bullet control is. Bullet control is more effective because in order to use a gun, bullets are needed. Police would be able to trace bullets. There would be a severe restrictions, and a licence would be needed. Those who want guns will still be able to acquire them.
The tax cutting standpoint is a classic example of a Democratic vs. Republican argument. Like most Republicans, Vinick supports tax cuts for all, the rich and poor alike. To ensure a balanced budget while cutting the taxes, he plans to decrease Congresses’ allowance. Santos, on the other hand, will not cut the taxes.
…show more content…
Due to health care’s absurdly large price, not all citizens can afford it. Vinick believes health care should be tax deductible, reducing its cost. Santos states his healthcare plan would cover 15 million citizens. Even so, that is not his ideal plan. His ideal plan would give all citizens the option of receiving medicare. Medicare is the most efficient healthcare with a 2% administrative cost compared to the 25% and above administrative costs of private healthcare. This would greatly increase the Medicare tax, even so, it would be a cheaper alternative to private health