105
"Bidenomics" - Biden's vision for economic growth 'from the middle out and bottom up' aims to move beyond 'trickle down' economics (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 3 years ago* by to c/politics@kbin.social
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

President Joe Biden will tout his economic agenda in remarks Wednesday as he campaigns for a second term amid low polling numbers on his job performance and the direction of the country.

The president’s plan, which the White House dubbed “Bidenomics,” aims to “move beyond” the “trickle down” economic theory that it says disproportionately benefits the wealthy and big corporations through tax cuts while reducing investment in priorities such as infrastructure and education, and failing to protect market competition.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 52 points 3 years ago (19 children)

Tying his name to it seems like a bad idea. People opposed Obamacare because of the name; half the country gets off on hating Democrats mostly because of the color of the ticket. Calling it Bidenomics will only make it easier for the talking heads to shit on it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 40 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Is he/the White House doing it or is the press calling it that?
    Obama consistently called it the affordable care act.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    I don't know if he started it, but he was quoted as saying "Bidenomics is working", so he, at worst, is endorsing the name openly.

    And yeah, but that sorta proves the point. Tying a Dems name to something is all it takes to mob it down; ignoring that it was incredibly similar to "Romneycare"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    To the contrary, if you embrace the name your opposition is going to try saddling it with anyway, you can focus on fighting for the substance of it, rather than what it's called.

    Theoretically, at least.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    If there were a singular Bidenomics bill, I would agree. In this case, running for reelection, he needs to anchor discussion around his accomplishments. Historically, name-onomics has been a successful positive campaign pitch for presidential reelections. The risk is having the name tied to a downturn, which is (thankfully) not entirely under the president's control.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago

    I can see that. Plus by doing it himself, he has more control over the narrative. If it was bad, he wouldn't be openly touting it as his own.

    Idk, tho. I have no faith that people can rationalize information on their own. Whatever Tucker or Alex Jones says is gospel, because only their chosen media doesn't lie.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    If this economy is to be blamed on biden, then he's perhaps the worst president in history, because the economy is the worst it's ever been.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Regardless of whether you believe the economy is good or bad right now, saying it's the "worst it's ever been" is blatantly hyperbolic and untrue. The Great Depression and the 2008 Recession are two incidents we all still talk about. Today's economic situation can't hold a flame to how bad those periods of time were. I hope you're using exaggerated language without ill intent, but it certainly comes off as disingeuous and manipulatively partisan to use language like that when it's so clearly untrue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    I would say what we have now in 2023 is worse than 2008. I didn't live through the great depression so can't comment there. The older I get, the worse things become in both an economic and social sense. My comment indeed was a bit hyperbolic but the point stands. In 2008 we had large movements clearly pushing against the 1%. Nowadays such a thing really doesn't exist. Similarly there were far more mom&pops back in 2008 than today.

    I think one thing is that people talking about "recessions" or "gdp" and other such nonsense are really only looking at the rich. Which for them? yeah things are probably better than ever. But for regular people? No.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Meh. They'd do it regardless and it's not half, more like 25-30%. Rather a lot of the country doesn't vote.

    In any case, I think the focus should be on the substance of the policy, not what the local baboon population happens to be screeching about today.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    @CMLVI @kuontom

    Republicans will shit on Dem progress, no matter what it's called and people influenced by racism are a complete waste of the air they fucking breath.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Don't disagree, but we can be realistic about about a large portion of the voting populace. Saying they're a waste of breath doesn't prevent that bloc from voting

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    @CMLVI @kuontom The problem with them is you can't find that level of stupid with facts.

    They are a waste of breath, space and resources. In fact, they counter progress.

    But, surely you understand, there is no way they would ever vote for a sane candidate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Sadly everything I know about implicit racism suggests that we're ALL influenced by it to some degree. You can't live in the ocean without getting wet.

    But I figure you mean the people that embrace it, in which case, agreed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    Republicans are actually responsible for calling the Affordable Care Act "Obamacare" so that they could blame healthcare issues on him. Obama ended up actually liking that name despite the Republican attempt to use it negatively.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent