Talking Point Alert: Can we please change "Middle Class Economics" to "Trickle Up Economics?"

[TrollBuster9090]

I know, it's a small point; and I don't want to "LUNTZ UP" the joint.... But I see Obama and other Democrats making increasing use of terms like "Middle Class Economics," and "Middle-Out Economic Policies," and "policies that benefit the middle class."

This is bad because:

1. As a catchphrase it has no punch, invective, or contrast.
2. It allows Republicans to invoke the "Class Warfare" trope, and most importantly
3. The number of Americans who self-identify as middle class is shrinking. (Not shrinking as fast as the number of Americans who actually ARE middle class, but shrinking nonetheless.)

The term "working class" would be preferable, but again that allows conservative propagandists to pull the Red Bating stunt.

The catchphrase "Trickle Up Economics, not Trickle Down Economics" works better because,

1. It both contrasts Democrats with Reagan and his 'trickle down' talking point, and highlights the fact that we've been practicing 'trickle down economics' EVER SINCE the Reagan era, and things have only gotten worse!
2. Regardless of which 'class' Americans identify themselves as (middle class, working class, professional class), most would self-identify as being UNDERDOGS. Ironically, even people who are fairly well off would self-identify as being underdogs, who are at the bottom of the heap, economically; and deserve more attention in the Tax Code, and in government programs.
3. As a slogan, it has more PUNCH! (Think of the Sorkinism "floating opposites.&quot

Let's make it "TRICKLE UP ECONOMICS, not TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS!"

[MANative]

1. Right now we've got Geyser economics. Everything rushes to the top explosively. n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I don't like it.

'trickle' sounds like a 'trick' to me.

I like the word 'Demand' because it shows reality - Demand is the true job creator, Demand grows the economy, Demand is the only way anything gets done. Things for which there is no demand are not made, and are not sold. Demand has no 'class' attached to it. No matter how rich or poor you are, you can only drive one car at a time, eat so much food at a time, wear so many clothes at a time. Smart people buy what they need, less smart people buy things for which they have no need, just like businesses only hire the staff they need.

And 'Demand' is a forceful word. If you want 'punch', it's right there. Demand Economics.

[JonLP24]

5. Interesting you say that

since people with the money to buy plenty of things they don't need is good for the overall economy. It is why we went from the "Great Depression" to "consumerism". It also isn't helpful to monopoly to help explain why wealthy business owners & investors would back "trickle down" even though it isn't conducive to the overall health of the economy. It helps the very rich become richer but even Kmart suffers while Wal*Mart expands & grows. Money is like a drug to the Koch brothers types.

It fits with your demand emphasis.

[JonLP24]

3. As someone who went to school for economics

I prefer textbook terms but it is interesting you mention "trickle down" economics which is actually a phrase from the Hoover era Republicans. Reagan actually renamed it "supply-side economics". Truman accurately described the fallacy of "trickle down" economics theory in his 1949 State of the Union address. He was also pushing for farm subsides & other things like strong unions to counter the under consumption that doomed the Great Depression. The ironic thing is you could tell from his statements he thought the theory was completely discredited with the well known example of the Great Depression. His prediction of universal health care coming soon which he mentions the Republican (who he would often mention Wall Street in the same sentence) House on why it won't come during his administration.

It actually has been tried even before that and often claimed to be responsible for the panic of 1896 which would be yet another recession that happened as a result.

A reason why the 1% likes it so much even though it bottoms out consumer spending is that it increases the power of monopoly while the alternative would open the door to competition. Truman also urges businesses to resist the vices of monopoly in talking about his economic plan going forward in that 1949 address. Naomi Klein describes the mentality well in that for the most part the eventually crash & burn but like an addict, always want that next fix.

On edit -- the word you're looking for is Keynesian Economics which may not have that marketable phrase but it is a well-respected and supported by more economists than not though economists would also understand why the other would be preferable depending on who they work for or who they're advising.

[meow2u3]

4. Personally, I prefer the term "percolate up economics"