Given the strong feelings that Trump elicits here, this is an excellent piece that I can relate to
CNN Why Do I Have to Love or Hate Trump
I mean look at Laurie's take on Trump's presidency...
CNN Why Do I Have to Love or Hate Trump
I mean look at Laurie's take on Trump's presidency...
"What makes it crazy for women (or men) to vote for Trump is he is mentally ill and unfit to be president. He falls outside the norm of typical or acceptable presidents. It is unprecedented in how bad of a candidate / president he is. He is uniquely unqualified to hold office. I though GW was a bad president, but Trump is beyond terrible as president. I expect him to be rated at the very bottom once he has been in office long enough to be rated (number 45 out of 45) (btw Obama has been rated as the 12th best president by presidential scholars.)"And Lord knows criticizing the President's words or actions in front of the Trump Conservatives is to pick a fight...
30 comments:
Business has to get along with government, especially the government of Donald Trump. It's not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but it's something to take a lot of pride in either.
--Hiram
It's interesting that many of the things the guy talks about in your link aren't exactly true. For instance, Trump's record on job creation thus far isn't great. Labor force participation is actually down since January, and Obama's Jan.-Oct. job growth in 2011-2016 was better than what has happened in 2017. Trump, thus far, hasn't screwed anything up as it relates to the economy but there really isn't anything you can point to that has created a distinct positive difference from what was happening under Obama.
Seems that the people agree with me.
WILL TRUMP BE REMEMBERED AS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY? ALMOST HALF THINK SO
Laurie,
Yes as Taylor said.
The haters will hate...
Just as the conservatives hated Obama.
Sean,
Yes. Obama was President while our economy was recovering which brought back jobs.
No work required on his part.
Trump has the bigger challenge. Preventing the next cyclical downturn.
Obama and the dems passed the stimulous and Obama saved the auto industry and a very large number of jobs
between Obama and Trump only one president is deserving of loathing. The opinion polls give clear indication of which one. Obama stayed unusually popular after serving 2 terms.
treating Obama and Trump as equal or somehow equivalent is idiotic and annoying. Have I mentioned that Obama is rated 12th best president? Trump will certainly be bottom 5. I am not a betting a betting person but I would put real $ on that prediction.
Obama’s success was do to his fortunate timing. The economy falls then it rises.
I have nothing against Obamacare, however his stats were pure luck.
Often it is.better to be lucky than good...
And what was there to dislike about Obama...
He gave good speeches and did not do too much after the first 2 years. :-)
As for Trump’s real results...
The jury is still out.
Laurie,
Is this the Ranking List you are referring to?
Scoring Details
In terms of worst president in history, George Bush sets a low or high standard. It's hard to find any other president that combines his record of both domestic and foreign disasters. In historical terms, Trump benefits from what I think of as the home court advantage of Republicanism. Since the Republican Party is the party of getting nothing done, they are by definition successful when they do nothing. Trump is a weak and incompetent person, and something weak and incompetent leaders do quite well is nothing. He doesn't even fail well. For example, despite saying in the clearest possible terms that Obamacare is dead, the program is doing well with higher than expected enrollments. Trunmp lies but people just don't believe him, and the result is success, something for which he will certainly take eventual credit. If he is not unlucky, Trump may get away with such serendipitous success for four years.
--Hiram
Great article! Unfortunately, much of what is said sounds good but just is not true. It comes down to this: where conservatives see differences in policy, liberals see differences in /values/. That is, liberals think policy differences with conservatives are because conservatives are stupid and evil, and should be banned from participation in the conversation. For example, liberals believe that those supporting school vouchers want to harm children, while conservatives support vouchers because they believe vouchers would HELP children. It's a total disconnect, beneath the policy level. We can disagree about the policy, but we must start by accepting that "We all want a better life for our children." I don't see that happening anytime soon.
A budget is a document that outlines or highlights values. We can clearly see how morally bankrupt the values of the Republicans are every time they propose a budget.
Moose
That is, liberals think policy differences with conservatives are because conservatives are stupid and evil, and should be banned from participation in the conversation
"We think more in terms of policy than policy differences, at least we try to. There are certainly lots of things conservatives believe, that I believe too. Presumably the same is true for conservatives.
--Hiram
This is one of the silliest opinions I have heard in a long time...
"It comes down to this: where conservatives see differences in policy, liberals see differences in /values/. That is, liberals think policy differences with conservatives are because conservatives are stupid and evil,"
How do groups of people continue to see themselves as the heroes / rational ones / etc and "those others" as the folks who are lacking?
I just keep thinking of Jerry complaining that "vouchers are a civil rights issue" !!! Now talking about a "values" argument...
One difference in rhetoric is that conservatives think in terms of money, liberals in terms of what money pays for. When conservatives talk about cutting taxes, people like me will reflexively talk about what those taxes pay for.
How do groups of people continue to see themselves as the heroes / rational ones / etc and "those others" as the folks who are lacking?
I am not a fan of logic, and not all that more enthusiastic about rationality. "Value" is a very complex concept, a very good reason to avoid using the word a lot, but as a first or basic idea, there isn't much of the rational about it.
I don't see how the issue of vouchers or public schools is much advanced by labeling either one a civil rights issues. Labels don't make things worse or better.
--Hiram
Now we have a discussion! First, Moose proves my point, saying that a [federal] budget is about values, when it is a policy document. "Morally bankrupt" is a pejorative term intended to discredit those with a differing policy view.
Hiram suggests what SHOULD be true, but isn't. We don't debate policy differences, we scream at each other across the divide. Look at media, the demonstrations, the extreme political posturing (impeach Trump AND Pence, Ryan becomes President and steps down in favor of Hillary-- an actual proposal), etc. Now, one-on-one I find liberals nice people, even reasonable. The same cannot be said for any group larger than about two.
Then John chimes in with a "both sides do it" argument, when I have clearly pointed out the essential difference, CONFIRMED by those studying the issue. And saying that
vouchers are a civil rights issue IS a policy statement. By denying it, the other side is making a value judgment about those supporting the policy.
Classifying "heros" based on which side thinks the other is "rational" or otherwise proves my point. We are not debating the policy, but the character (i.e. values) of the other. And I don't think "rational" is the debate we need to begin with. I think it is accepting that rational people can reach a different conclusion without being stupid and evil.
Finally, Hiram trods close to the truth. The policy discussion is NOT advanced by labeling one side or the other (or both). For example, if I say something is a "liberal idea," it is a shorthand way of saying "bad for a whole lotta Very Good Reasons," but it doesn't add to the discussion and tends to stifle it. If the other side pursues those reasons, we have a policy discussion. If I am attacked for being a heartless conservative, the policy difference becomes personal, and we can NOT have the discussion.
Really? Source?
"clearly pointed out the essential difference, CONFIRMED by those studying the issue"
How funds are allocated tells us a great deal about what it valued. That's the thing...you're impervious to the idea that the things we spend money on affect people. You're only concerned with the balance sheet.
Moose
Moose,
Thank you for proving that Liberals also make broad unsubstantiated stereotyping claims.
Classifying "heros" based on which side thinks the other is "rational" or otherwise proves my point. We are not debating the policy, but the character (i.e. values) of the other.
I don't think people who differ from me have better or worse characters. I think Donald Trump is pretty contemptible, but that has less to do with his politics than the fact that he doesn't seem to have any. I don't think Bill Clinton is very big in the character department but I voted for him twice. John McCain is a man of remarkable character, but I would never for a moment consider voting for him for anything.
Value is such a vague and complex concept that it's almost impossible to talk to anyone about it productively, because it's so unlikely that any two people are talking about the same thing. When I listen to two people discuss values, almost invariably I am hearing two people talk past each other.
I don't know that conservatives are heartless, but I think many conservatives have gone down a very dark path. It's part of why and how our country is failing. For example, Donald Trump recently talked about how he wants to control the Justice Department in order to prosecute his political adversaries. That isn't any conservatism I understand in any historical sense, quite the opposite really. When Richard Nixon used the powers of executive branch to attack his opponents, it was conservative Republicans who put the decisive pressure on him that brought him down. Yet when Trump said what he did, what we heard from conservatives was silence. To me that says that there is something wrong not just with conservatives, but also with the political class, of which both liberals and conservatives are a part, and that that is bringing down our country.
--Hiram
"Thank you for proving that Liberals also make broad unsubstantiated stereotyping claims."
You're welcome, I guess. But the proof is in the current budget proposal.
Moose
A lot of assumptions are required to see that as “proof”...
I might be misunderstanding this comment thread as I have only skimmed it. Is the argument over does the GOP budget and tax plan reflect their values? I think these documents contain a great deal of evidence about their values and priorities. It seems to me that the fundamental difference is about progressive taxes and govt services.
My values lead me to the opinion that the super rich do not need a huge tax cut. That it is better for the govt to keep / spend this money for the greater good.
Laurie, always good to here from you, so if I may? I may be agreeing with Hiram, here, in saying that to say the budget, or anything else, reflects the "values" of those supporting it is almost certainly correct. Where the great political divide arises is when one side insists that the "values" of the other side have no value and proceeds to impugn the character, integrity, etc. of "those people." In my experience, it is actually worse than that, now. That is, there is a simple assumption that, because Republicans are so "stupid and evil" that ANYTHING they propose is not "who we are," as Obama constantly said, and must be opposed. It was ALL personal, with no hint of a real policy objection.
For example, I point out that the current House GOP plan would make taxes MORE progressive. Trump would pay more. Is that acceptable? It isn't fair by any means, if that is a value you wish to hold on this issue.
"For example, I point out that the current House GOP plan would make taxes MORE progressive."
Not true at all.
Sean, basis of that statement? I am basing that on the fact the top bracket is retained and the exclusion of SALT hits the rich harder, plus everybody else sees higher starts to their brackets and lower rates.
All you have to do is look at all the various analyses of the distributional impact -- whether from JCT, CBPP, TPC, Tax Foundation (which represent the full spectrum of ideologies) they all show more benefit (in absolute and % of income) accruing at the top of the scale, especially after all the temporary middle class measures fall off in five years.
In that case I'm all for it. But you are looking at the Senate bill. Try looking at the House bill, it seems better all around, and since tax policy must originate in the House, I'm hopeful.
It's a question of "values," again. Do we value "sticking it to the rich"? Or do we value reducing taxes and promoting economic growth? I would say that one of those motivations is not like the other.
I would say that one of those motivations is not like the other.
Then why not make them like each other?
Do we value "sticking it to the rich"?
Do we value "sticking it to the poor? Or to the middle class"?
Is it possible to avoid sticking it someone altogether?
Here is an example of what I was talking about in terms of how we frame issues:
Conservative framing: "Or do we value reducing taxes and promoting economic growth?"
Liberal framing: "Or do we value reducing services and and forego what they provide?
Now I am pretty comfortable with the conservative framing, because I understand how it doesn't really work. We can reduce taxes, but what that means is that we simply pay for tht in different ways. Cutting health care taxes doesn't necessarily reduce health care, it just shifts the burden of paying for it on someone else, someone who by the way, will probably charge a fee for such services on top of the original cost. And since the same, possibly even more expensive burden while being reallocated, is still there, it still had the same downward effect on economic growth. Even the most skilfully managed game of three card monte imagninable, the queen has to go somewhere.
--Hiram
Post a Comment