- Position‹2 of 2
- Joe Biden will be better for the coronavirus pandemic
The Biden administration would take actions to provide Americans with economic relief via a COVID-19 relief and response package, giving those struggling the best chance at returning to normalcy and revitalising the US economy.
The argument
The only way to fully restore the American economy is to get the virus under control. This gives people the best chance at resuming their normal lives. The Biden administration would take actions to provide Americans with economic relief via a COVID-19 relief and response package. This would also incorporate the necessary funding to improve testing and tracing, as well as specifications about how federal money should be spent. Biden would provide the struggling with increased unemployment aid and funding for state and local governments would be provided, based on legislation passed by House Democrats and interviews with aides. A Democratic government may also enhance the Obamacare tax subsidies and even possibly establishing the public health insurance option Biden says he supports. More economic relief should lower the pressure on states and businesses to reopen, and allow struggling workers, families, and small businesses to recover from the effect of the coronavirus pandemic.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Biden is not the only person who plans to help revitalise the struggling American economy. The Trump Administration is investing approximately $2 billion in community health centers, helping their 28 million patients in medically under-served areas receive the care and testing they need. Donald Trump also negotiated and launched the Paycheck Protection Program – helping to save 51 million American jobs. Donald Trump was also able to secure direct payments to help the countless Americans who are hurting due to the pandemic. His administration took executive action to give tax relief to workers, ensure unemployment benefits for those out of work, prevent families from losing their homes to eviction or foreclosure, and provide student debt relief for Americans already hurting due to the virus.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The premise reports campaign intentions and a bill passed by one chamber, which establishes what was proposed rather than what would be delivered — a relief package requires a Senate majority the argument simply assumes. The opening claim also proves less than it states: that controlling the virus is necessary for recovery does not show that this candidate would control it, which is the comparison the question asks for. [Rejecting P2] Each measure listed is a spending pledge rather than a demonstrated outcome, and the counter names comparable programmes already enacted — payroll support, direct payments, community health funding — so the premise does not establish a difference between the candidates on this ground. Easing the pressure to reopen is contested rather than obvious: the sibling position holds that a prolonged closure is itself the harm to workers and small businesses.