Trump used his time in office to benefit large corporations and the wealthy

The argument

Proponents of this position argue that Trump has used his time in office to implement tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, and has rolled back benefits and health insurance coverage for low income families — a combination that moved resources in the same direction at both ends of the income scale. The tax bill passed in 2017 cut corporate tax rates and lowered tax rates for the wealthy. Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates that 80% of these cuts will only benefit the top 1% of the country. His tax plan also served to reduce government spending in help programs like the ACA's Medicaid, which has meant eliminating subsidies and shortening enrolment periods, costing many low income households their health insurance. The two halves of that record are connected rather than coincidental: revenue given up at the top is what creates the pressure to reduce spending at the bottom, so the same policy that lightened one group's obligations increased another group's exposure. The outcome, on this account, is measurable in the position of working people. Trump's policies have left the American working class poorer than they were before the 2007 financial crisis — a comparison proponents treat as decisive, because it measures the record against the worst recent downturn rather than against the promises made. Furthermore, trade wars with China and cuts to healthcare coverage have raised prices and lowered living standards for the people who need the most support, so the same households were hit on what they pay and on what they receive. Voting for Biden, on this argument, means voting for the reversal of many of these policies. He will increase the available support for low income families, which has been sorely needed for the last 4 years, and that is why proponents hold the American working class should vote for him.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Trump has kept his campaign promises to lower taxes and cut down regulation. This, he argues, frees up businesses and allows the economy to flourish. He has also been working to restore manufacturing jobs to hardworking Americans which will benefit the American working class.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The figure is misplaced in time. The Tax Policy Center estimate that around 80 per cent of the benefit accrues to the top one per cent describes 2027, after the individual provisions are scheduled to expire; in the first years households across the distribution received a cut, and supporters argue the corporate rate reduction was aimed at investment and wages rather than at distribution. The premise reports a terminal-year projection as a present fact. [Rejecting P2] Coverage losses are real but their causes are contested. The mandate penalty was zeroed and enrolment periods and navigator funding were cut, and the uninsured rate rose — yet the Medicaid expansion was not repealed, several states adopted it over the same period, and premium growth predates the administration. The premise attributes the whole movement to policy without separating it from the underlying trend. [Rejecting P3] "Poorer than before 2007" is hard to sustain for the years preceding the pandemic, when median household income reached a record and unemployment fell to a fifty-year low with wage growth strongest at the bottom of the distribution. Supporters credit the tax and deregulation programme; critics credit the continuation of a recovery under way since 2010. The premise assumes the second while asserting the first, and its closing step — that another candidate would reverse the policies — is a pledge rather than a result.