IID: Kamala Harris Would Be A Worse President Than Donald Trump

The evidence of this is self-evident. The State of the Union, which is designed for the general populace to understand, of George Washington is much more advanced than today's college textbooks, for example.

The primary culprit of this is government intervention into the schools. [3] The government, today and historically, censors what can and cannot be taught, even at the college level, through funding, legislation, and grants. 

This creates a toxic learning environment where freedom of thought and research, the bedrock on which education rests and progresses, is stifled, leaving behind a legacy of stupider schools and stupider people

Kamala Harris wants to further this by making the government the ONLY beneficiary of most State Universities. This would cause bankruptencies of private universities and colleges, which would lead to larger strains in unemployment welfare, and a mass unemployment situation among college professors who will be unable to gain employment due to a shortage of schools. To counteract this, the Federal Reserve will either print more money, which will lead to inflation for ALL Americans and further devalue of America's currency, [5] or taxes will rise...

In contrast, President Trump wants to abolish the Department of Education entirely... The Department of Education costs 224 billion dollars in taxes each year, [6] additionally, it censors and stifles research and intellectual curiosity, as previously explained.

Price controls are dangerous because they distort the market and remove the most important signal for financial decision-making: the price.

the reality of that is Tariffs end up hurting the U.S. citizens by raising prices.

When the government imposes a tariff, it redistributes resources away from consumers and unprotected industries toward the protected industry. [1]

The most common way for countries to fight back against tariffs—aside from levying retaliatory tariffs—is to subsidize the domestic industries that have been hit. [2]

According to the Washington Post, Trump has publicly made upwards of 30,000 misleading or false claims.

1. The Washington Post purposely buried the proof of Joe Biden's bribery [3]
   
2. The Washington Post grossly understated the amount of crimes committed by illegal migrants [4]
   
3. The Washington Post peddled misinformation on hurricanes and climate change [5]
   
4. The Washington Post falsely portrayed the death of Michael Brown [6]
   
5. The Washington Post repeatedly botched fact checks on Trump's 2019 State of the Union [7]
   

This evidence is documented in a 2014 study published by the journal Electoral Studies. Based on survey data and election records, the authors of this paper found that the number of non-citizens who voted illegally in the 2008 election ranged “from just over 38,000 at the very minimum to nearly 2.8 million at the maximum.” Their “best estimate” is that 1.2 million or “6.4% of non-citizens actually voted.” [8] 

Based on current population data from the Census Bureau and voting data from previous elections, Just Facts has conducted a study to estimate the number of votes illegally cast by non-citizens in the battleground states of the 2020 election. The results—documented in this spreadsheet—show that such fraudulent activities netted Joe Biden the following extra votes in these tightly contested states:

• Arizona: 51,081 ± 17,689
  
• Georgia: 54,950 ± 19,025
  
• Michigan: 22,585 ± 7,842
  
• Nevada: 22,021 ± 7,717
  
• North Carolina: 46,218 ± 16,001
  
• Pennsylvania: 32,706 ± 11,332
  
• Wisconsin: 5,010 ± 1,774 [9]
  

As a result, health insurers found their insured population was in poor health and very expensive to cover. The low premiums insurance companies were required to charge to risky individuals did not cover the cost of care. Health insurers are leaving the individual market because of poor financial performance. The average medical loss ratio has risen to nearly 100 percent in recent years. Prior to the ACA, the average medical loss ratio in the non-group market was closer to 80 percent. (The medical loss ratio is the percentage of premiums an insurer spends on claims and expenses.) When insurance companies exit the market, consumers are left with few options and higher prices.

For example, Anthem recently pulled out of Virginia, citing financial losses. Humana left Tennessee, leaving 40,000 people without a single health insurer. In Iowa, Medica is the last remaining health insurer. Medica announced it was likely to leave the market in 2018. [10]

American higher education is a perfect example. In the 1960s, the total budget for all U.S. colleges and universities was about $7 billion; in the early 1990s, largely because of massive state and federal funding increases, it surpassed $170 billion. Yet tens of thousands of college seniors do not know when Columbus sailed to the New World, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, or why the Civil War was fought. Businesses rightly complain that they must reeducate college graduates in such basic academic skills as grammar, spelling, and practical math. . .

Why have college costs gone up? One reason is because Washington, D.C., is heavily subsidizing tuitions through federal grants and loans. This leaves colleges and universities free to jack up their prices. Who cares, after all, what tuition is at Harvard University, when nearly two-thirds of its undergraduates receive, financial assistance? [15] 

Consider a simple model. There is a total of $100 in the entire economy; $50 is currently being spent on Commodity A and $50 on Commodity B. If the price of A were to increase by 20 percent, then purchasing the same units of A would cost $60. That would leave only $40 with which to purchase B. . .

For the increased price of one or many products not to be offset by reduced demand for others, new dollars must enter the economy. This is the only way it is possible to spend more on A and go on spending the same or more on everything else. . .

New dollars can only be created permanently by the Federal Reserve. The reason prices have steadily risen over the past 111 years is because the Fed has constantly increased the supply of dollars over that period. [16]

As an opening point of rebuttal, I would like to call to attention that my opponent did not make a case for why Kamala Harris would be a better President than Trump. Because of this, the debate must automatically default to mde, since my opponent did not follow the debate prompt. This is unlike what I did when I compared and contrasted the two candidates and showed why Trump was better. That being said, here is my mandatory yet unneeded rebuttal since my opponent did not fulfill their side of the debate prompt, and I must adhere to the debate rules of not forfeiting rounds.

Con has erroneously stated that tariffs are always bad for an economy, saying, without evidence:

the reality of that is Tariffs end up hurting the U.S. citizens by raising prices.

This could not be further from the truth in today's non-free-market global economy.  Multiple economists have raised a warning flag about the uncompetitiveness of American products overseas due to global protectionist tariffs on American-made goods. This is simply and succinctly explained by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation:

To protect American businesses and jobs, the experts have spoken loud and clear, either force all countries to remove their tariffs on American goods, and violate their national sovereignty and engage in colonialism in the process, or impose tariffs on all foreign goods to keep American goods competitive and preferred, thus protecting American jobs and companies from going bankrupt. 

In addition to their misunderstanding of the economy, this same misunderstanding is given to the journalistic process and fact checking. My opponent states:

According to the Washington Post, Trump has publicly made upwards of 30,000 misleading or false claims.

However, The Washington Post has a very open history of being a publication that peddles both misinformation and disinformation regularly.

My opponent also is peddling disinformation about the reliability and safety of the 2020 election. Studies have repeatedly found that illegal migrants vote by the millions in U.S. Elections, as Just Facts, a non-partisan think tank cited by colleges and educational institutions writes:

The Affordable Care Act has completely upended and destroyed the not only peoples' health, but also the healthcare sector. The American Institute for Economic Research explains it best: (see opponents argument for direct quote)

Increases in the amount of government involvement in the health sector would simply exacerbate these issues and drive worse and worse coverage going forward for ALL Americans, unlike what my opponent inaccurately claims. Once again, Trump's policies of repealing the ACA are the preferred ones.

While the Biden Administration did impose some Tariffs, they were not meant to be protectionist

In response to China’s unfair trade practices and to counteract the resulting harms, today, President Biden is directing his Trade Representative to increase tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on $18 billion of imports from China to protect American workers and businesses. [1]

“Insurance premiums … respond strongly to competition, and markets with more insurers have substantially lower premiums,” economist Martin Gaynor wrote in 2020. Gaynor cited economic studies showing that eliminating an insurer for an employer to choose from can lead to premium increases of up to 16.6%.

Since Obamacare’s burdensome regulations began imposing barriers to entry, insurance choices have been disappearing.

In 2011, the median state had 30 insurers participating in the individual market, where consumers purchase health insurance themselves. That is, half of states had more than 30 insurers in this market.

By 2020, the median state had only 10 insurers in the individual market. The median number of participating insurers likewise fell for small employers (from 13 insurers to five) and large employers (from 12 insurers to eight). [2]

As of March 2024, no fewer than nine US states had passed laws to ban the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035. Meanwhile, the Biden administration recently doubled down on an EPA policy to begin a coerced phase-out of gas-powered vehicles — even though the federal effort to build out the charging stations to support EVs has flopped spectacularly (despite $7.5 billion in funding). [3]

California has doubled down on renewables in its quest to be the leader in carbon emissions reductions, as it produces one-third of its electricity from renewables. But this comes at a huge cost to consumers, particularly in the late afternoon and evening, when the sun sets and when household demand for electricity spikes. During this period, system operators must walk a tightrope in transitioning the system from renewables to natural gas. One false step, and voilà, blackouts or brownouts pop up. Operators face the opposite problem around high noon, when so much solar power is produced in California that it risks damaging the grid. [4]

President Biden has proposed doubling the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour. Democrats have pushed to include the increase in their $1.9 trillion relief bill being debated in Congress. But with millions of people unemployed and small businesses struggling, now would be an awful time to impose such a costly mandate. Fortunately, the president now suggests that a minimum wage increase may not be included in the current relief bill.

Yesterday, the CBO estimated that a minimum wage increase would eliminate 1.4 million jobs. Entry level workers would be hard hit. Milton Friedman noted that the “minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying employers must discriminate against people who have low skills.” [6]

In summary, this is a factual website from a sourcing standpoint and is impressively researched. [8]