Seriously, How Can You Be For This?
It’s not a matter of FOR, in most of these. It’s a matter of reason. Trump is a challenged, problematic person for his current role, but his core priorities have value. It would be useful if you would recognize that there ARE problems with heartland employment, that there ARE ways that we can fund massive infrastructure spending in ways that conservatives will accept (Obama never figured out how to do that) and there IS a need for corporate tax reform, which you need if you want to have money to fund social priorities.
Hate him all you like. But I am reminded of Patton’s (Or Iaccoca’s) quote “Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.” (Keeping in mind that “lead” is not one of the options currently available to you, thanks to the American voter.)
“I know, I know. When Obama is for something, you have to be against it because you have this thing with Obama.”
Wrong. We have an issue with government overreach and regulation. If you don’t understand that that is the consistent, underlying principle behind policy changes like the one you criticize, you probably shouldn’t be commenting on politics at all.
“But you’ve made some exceptions in the past. You were for it when he saved the American economy.”
Oh, please. Ben Bernanke saved the economy. Obama sent up a feeble “stimulus” package, the best part being that a third of it was supply side tax cuts that Democrats otherwise claim don’t work. Krugman and the rest of the Keynsians, including Christina Romer, estimated that $3.8T in stimulus was required to reboot the economy. The Obama stimulus provided about 600M, or about 16% of it.
So you’re giving the credit to the guy who got 16% of it passed, and ignoring the guy who took care of the other 84%? Please. If you care about the economy at all, you ought to have Ben Bernanke’s portrait over your mantle.
“And you put differences aside when he ordered the operation that resulted in a room for rent in Osama bin Laden’s compound.”
Yes. Nice going. That proves, btw, my point: it wasn’t personal with Obama, that we give credit where credit is due. I appreciate you proving that point for me.
“I can empathize if you really don’t care about this.”
What I care about is that the “loyal opposition” remain loyal. If the first three months of this year are any indication, you’ve become an undependable partner in democracy, apparently preferring to chuck it if an election doesn’t deliver the leadership you prefer.
Why does half the country continue to support those who don’t have their best interests at heart?
First of all, we don’t agree that they don’t have the nation’s best interests at heart. Obviously. But more specifically:
- The first is that the brass ring of a full recovery with a stimulated economy growing at 3%+ is still out there, contingent on further deregulation, corporate tax reform, and infrastructure spending that’s still on the table. (Obama, btw, is the first president EVER to do 2 full terms without ever once hitting the 3% annual growth metric; and we need to reach that metric badly. Otherwise, we pay for missing it with our kids’ standard of living.) The Democrats had no chance of ever delivering any of this, considering deregulation and tax reform discussions cause them to break out in a rash, and they insisted on funding infrastructure with deficit spending.
- The second is that the other party spent eight years proving that they didn’t have our best interests at heart either; when unemployment falls but GDP stays weak, that means that the jobs “created” are low-wage. So, that argument is weak tea.
Hope that helps.
