Love how you just dismiss my very real experiences with a “So?”, that kind of attitude doesn’t help things.
I live in California and I live off of VA disability rated at 100%. I can’t work without having my benefits slashed, and would end up with less money in the end.
And presumably such people have always felt downbeat about the economy.
Between “Biden 2024: Just Be Happy You’re Not On Fucking Food Stamps” and “Biden/Harris: So What? There’s Always Been Poor People”, I’m going to run out of space on my car’s bumper with all this great economic messaging.
Yep, the lack of empathy here is very telling. I guess the plan is to just gaslight us until we believe the economy is terrific!
A bumper sticker slogan that you created.
Just my $0.02.
I did NOT read that “so” as a question or a minimization of your situation.
I read it as the way many people start a sentence, particularly in spoken English.
And I mean many people.
It was a comma, not a question mark. To me, that’s meaningful.
Could be wrong, but …
I was summarizing his attitude there. It was absolutely what he meant.
I think the “plan” (narrator: there isn’t one) is to recognize that nobody has said “the economy is terrific”, and to recognize that not everyone is doing great…
While at the same time seeing that the overall economic indicators for the country are positive, and have improved a shit - ton since Trump was at the helm.
I recognize this is nuanced. But work with me here.
Don’t take a “so” as dismissive. It’s just how I talk sometimes. I wanted to get better understanding of your situation. And I will note that we’ve always had a very unequal society. It breaks my heart to see Veterans barely scraping by.
I consider it a long-term problem that persists regardless of the macro-numbers.
Some of you are overly sensitive. No dismissal intended.
I have doubts this is true given your attitudes throughout the thread, but okay sure. But no, our society has definitely become more and more unequal over time, and income inequality shows no sign of reversing course.
You think they got it bad? I hear some folks can’t afford Mexican vacations or a trip to Disneyland.
People should vote for who they think will do a better job addressing their needs.
If you think Trump will improve your economic situation and that is your most important issue, then by all means you should vote for Trump.
Well, sure. But the thread is about why Biden is having trouble convincing people that HE will be best for their economic situation.
No, this is thread about why the supposed attitudes of supposed Biden supporters is causing people to not vote for him.
Nothing to do with any actual economic message from Biden.
I’m sure the reason they can’t afford them is Starbucks and avocado toast, right? 
I hesitate to give a “this is my experience which one might use to extrapolate why other similar people could feel down on the economy” example, but here it is:
I’ve been on the market for a house for ~3 years. The combination of having some specific needs and an incredibly hot market have meant it’s taken a long time.
After year 1 of the house search, I switched jobs and am now making about 70% more than I was before, and am able to turn that into maybe $10k of additional savings a year.
When I got that raise/new job I thought “finally… I’ve got a great salary, and will be able to afford the kind of house we want.” Nope. The increase in income enabled us to afford close to (but not quite) the same houses we could have bought three years ago.
That’s been a frustrating experience. I don’t blame Biden, but I absolutely feel like the “promise” of the American economy has been pulled out from under me.
From the OP:
It’s not about “Supposed Biden supporters”, it’s about the voting population as a whole and why 60+% are down on the economy. Unless you think 60% of the population is Biden supporters in which case, hey, great news for Biden!
Got any response to what Biden and Company are actually saying to Americans?
No clue. No one I know has money to burn at Starbucks.
It’s standard retail politics. Every politician wants to take credit during a booming economy. “Our policies are working!”.
When things go south, they want to act like spectators or blame the other guy. They have to thread that needle carefully. Is it “fair” to blame a president for even half of this stuff? Of course not, but as the saying goes “All’s fair in Love & War”. For my part most of it is a distraction. Presidents, and Congress even, just don’t move the scales that much. They can f&@$k a lot of things up, and they do, but a lot of the damage to the economy is done over the long term by regulatory agencies. This provides needed cover for politicians.
20 years ago something like 90 million people were on “food stamps”. Doubt that has improved since then. I don’t know how “unemployment” numbers are calculated but I’m sure they are pretty much nonsense on bath salts. Modern retail politics is geared towards bribing the public for votes, or tax cuts, etc etc.
Old school elections revolved around good jobs to some degree. We don’t hear too much about that, or offshoring of industries. Unions were a hugely powerful political force.
The math seems weird, here. I presume you were making more than $14k before, right? So a 70% raise should mean that you can save a lot more than $10k more than you were before.