Thanks to Trump, real median household income is at its highest level in US history. Census Bureau data shows this figure has jumped by 6% since 2016.
The argument
In an effort to “Make America Great Again,” Donald Trump has kept America first when handling situations. It is evident that Trump has prioritized American families as the median household income has increased by almost 7 percent during the Trump presidency. President Trump has benefitted—and will continue to benefit—the American economy and should be re-elected in the 2020 election. The Trump Administration has a plan to implement a new trade agreement between the United States and Japan. This policy would reduce barriers to trade and increase American exports to Japan. Ultimately, the US-Japan trade agreement would benefit American families and boost the median household income. In addition, the Trump Administration will continue to impose tariffs on China and Europe to benefit American families. The billions of dollars from such tariffs would boost the US economy. As the American economy prospers, families would become wealthier and the median family income would rise. President Trump has held America first and boosted the median family income during his first four years. He should be re-elected in the 2020 presidential election, so he can continue to make America wealthy.
Premises
Counter-arguments
While President Trump claims that he has single-handedly boosted the economy to its peak, his efforts are just a continuation of Obama’s economic growth. Following the peak of the 2009 recession, President Obama stimulated the economy with an upward trend. The economic boom of the Trump Administration was only possible with the foundation laid by President Obama. In addition, Trump’s tariffs have not benefitted the United States but instead started trade wars with China and the EU. For example, the tariffs have already caused the loss of over 300,000 jobs and an estimated $316 billion in lost revenue by the end of 2020. Clearly, Trump’s tariffs are doing more harm than good for the economy.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] A rise in median household income during a presidency does not establish that the presidency caused it. The counter-argument on record makes the continuity point: incomes had been rising along an established trend since the recovery from the 2009 recession, and the argument offers nothing to separate the continuation of that trend from any new policy. [Rejecting P2] The trade measures are cited as future intentions rather than as causes of the increase already claimed, which leaves P1 unsupported by P2. The counter also disputes their effect, pointing to estimated job losses and forgone revenue from the resulting trade disputes. [Rejecting P3] Tariff receipts are not a transfer to households. They are paid by importers and typically passed through in higher prices, so the assertion that 'billions of dollars from such tariffs would boost the US economy' skips the step where the cost falls on domestic purchasers. [Rejecting C] The argument was also written before the pandemic-era collapse in employment, and a case resting on a continuing income trend cannot be assessed on the years it forecasts rather than the years it describes.