> Bidenomics worked great
in exchange of +10T of government debt.
in exchange of +10T of government debt.
The question is: where are you getting your information? Because it is lying to you.
Not plausibly can you argue that either of those things (which are not synonyms) were started by Trump (one started earlier, the other later.)
Okay, then make the argument, rather than just allude to your abstract ability to do so.
By the same logic, I can argue that "bidenomics" (printing money) started when the Federal Reserve was formed, in 1913. Or that it started when the FED closed the gold window in 1971.
Though all three of those arguments would be reductive and stupid, and I'm sure we're both above that, so let's not.
But really, reconsider your sources, because they're lying to you.
Compared to what baseline and, most crticially, where is the argument that there is an alternative set of policies that would have avoided that additional debt and had outcomes that would have been better than those of Bidenomics including the additional debt?
No, I don’t expect you to back up the claim at all.
At least in the predictive, as opposed to normative, sense of “expect”.