Social Darwinism

[B-Man]

Obama’s America

By Yuval Levin, April 3, 2012

 

On February 16, at a hearing of the House Budget Committee, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was asked by committee chairman Paul Ryan to describe the administration’s plans for addressing the mounting risk of a debt crisis. His reply was: “We’re not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.”

 

 

Today’s presidential speech to the annual Associated Press Luncheon was basically just a long, dishonest way of saying the same astonishingly irresponsible thing. In essence, the president argued that our country’s future depends on allowing our government to grow uncontrollably, and that any attempt to restrain its growth and to keep the size of government in relation to the economy where it was during the fifty years preceding his election would be heartless and irresponsible. Keeping that growth in check—not reversing it, mind you, but allowing the government to grow only about as quickly as the economy does—would, we are told, subject our nation to unimaginable horrors. If all of Ryan’s cuts in the growth of spending were “applied evenly,” the president argued,

 

{SNIP}

 

 

There is of course lots about all this that is simply dishonest and false. The Ryan budget doesn’t call for across the board cuts. And that budget calls for the Ways and Means Committee to propose a revenue-neutral tax reform that would lower rates while eliminating loopholes—so it wouldn’t deny the government revenue it now has but would seek ways to obtain it that are more conducive to growth (and of course those loopholes benefit the wealthy above all). But the dishonesty is not the most extraordinary thing about this speech. The most extraordinary thing is the basic vision of American life it lays out: The president talks as though the liberal welfare state were not crumbling all around him, as though his budget does not abide (indeed, prescribe) an unprecedented explosion of debt that will crush American prosperity in the coming decades, as though all the money earned by all Americans were simply a pot for the government to spend as it wishes and allowing people to keep more of their earnings were just one way to spend it.

 

 

 

He speaks as though the problem—our unsustainable entitlement state—were the solution, and as though the solution—a budget that restrains the growth of spending, modernizes and reforms our collapsing entitlement and welfare programs to avert their collapse, and charts a path toward economic growth—were the problem. In this upside-down, inside-out world, Barack Obama accuses Paul Ryan of putting the future of America’s younger generation in danger and inviting American decline.

 

 

 

A psychologist might call this projection. The president’s political advisors probably call it all they’ve got. Let us hope that voters will know what to call it this fall: reckless denial and cynical dishonesty from a failed president with nothing left to offer.

 

Or, if we are lucky, perhaps the last straw.

 

 

Yural Levin

 

.

[DC Tom]

Of course, it's pathetic and a testament to fiscal ignorance that anyone in their right mind would consider the Ryan budget -- or any budget proposed to Congress in decades -- as anything even in the same universe as "draconian".

 

Did you just suggest that ...lybob is in his right mind?

[B-Man]

Newt Gingrich responds to Mr. Obama using a quote from him in his speech today.

 

“

Once again the president shows just how willing he is to distort the facts to score cheap political points, and how dangerous his reelection would be for the future of this country. In fact, I have enthusiastically endorsed the House Republican budget, including the Ryan-Wyden optional premium support plan in Medicare. My concern over previous versions of this budget was limited to the fact that the premium support plan was mandatory rather than optional. That concern has been addressed. For the president to so blatantly distort the facts while offering no plan of his own just shows how little he is concerned with governing and solving the debt crisis enveloping this country.”

 

 

.

[KD in CA]

Did you just suggest that ...lybob is in his right mind?

 

Oops....something I don't think these posts all the way through when I'm also trying to half-listen to a conference call.

 

 

But still, a "draconian" federal budget?

[dayman]

And that budget calls for the Ways and Means Committee to propose a revenue-neutral tax reform that would lower rates while eliminating loopholes—so it wouldn’t deny the government revenue it now has but would seek ways to obtain it that are more conducive to growth (and of course those loopholes benefit the wealthy above all)

 

Eliminating loopholes w/ proposed tax reform is much easier said than done. Saying this to me is about the same as Obama saying "we'll reduce waste" to cover money for healthcare. It's pretty much meaningless until it's actually being done and real world way in front of our faces. This budget would deny the government revenue as far as I'm concerned.

[Doc]

And that budget calls for the Ways and Means Committee to propose a revenue-neutral tax reform that would lower rates while eliminating loopholes—so it wouldn’t deny the government revenue it now has but would seek ways to obtain it that are more conducive to growth (and of course those loopholes benefit the wealthy above all)

 

Eliminating loopholes w/ proposed tax reform is much easier said than done. Saying this to me is about the same as Obama saying "we'll reduce waste" to cover money for healthcare. It's pretty much meaningless until it's actually being done and real world way in front of our faces. This budget would deny the government revenue as far as I'm concerned.

But hey, it's a start. And it can be tweaked later.

[Alaska Darin]

But hey, it's a start. And it can be tweaked later.

We've got to pass it so we can find out what's in it.

[GG]

And that budget calls for the Ways and Means Committee to propose a revenue-neutral tax reform that would lower rates while eliminating loopholes—so it wouldn't deny the government revenue it now has but would seek ways to obtain it that are more conducive to growth (and of course those loopholes benefit the wealthy above all)

 

Eliminating loopholes w/ proposed tax reform is much easier said than done. Saying this to me is about the same as Obama saying "we'll reduce waste" to cover money for healthcare. It's pretty much meaningless until it's actually being done and real world way in front of our faces. This budget would deny the government revenue as far as I'm concerned.

 

Way to go. Declare tax reform dead before even debating its merits or trying to pass it.

[KD in CA]

We've got to pass it so we can find out what's in it.

 

What's your alternative, to have elected officials waste time reading a thousand page bill knowing it might not pass?!? Congressmen are busy ya know. They have re-elections to win.

 

And that budget calls for the Ways and Means Committee to propose a revenue-neutral tax reform that would lower rates while eliminating loopholes—so it wouldn't deny the government revenue it now has but would seek ways to obtain it that are more conducive to growth (and of course those loopholes benefit the wealthy above all)

 

Eliminating loopholes w/ proposed tax reform is much easier said than done. Saying this to me is about the same as Obama saying "we'll reduce waste" to cover money for healthcare. It's pretty much meaningless until it's actually being done and real world way in front of our faces. This budget would deny the government revenue as far as I'm concerned.

Ah yes, "close loopholes for the rich".

 

Translation: Lower the income threshold for when Schedule A deductions start to phase out. (Quick liberals, Google 'Schedule A')

[dayman]

Way to go. Declare tax reform dead before even debating its merits or trying to pass it.

 

I wouldn't declare it dead but I think it's fair to acknowledge how difficult it is. If there is one thing that is forever talked about and never acted upon it is that issue so it's I wouldn't hinge the budget on reform. That said if you are willing to just say "yea, it will reduce revenue and I'm ok with that but there's a possibility with tax reform we can eventually approach the levels we have now" that's ok but to say that it doesn't reduce revenue is as disingenuous as anything Obama has said that enrages the right.

 

I'm no tax expert but it seems people are all for it until the special interests get involved, the value of people's houses are thrown into jeopardy...etc...I mean am I wrong? I'm not trying to be some know-it-all in a competition with anyone on this just genuinely asking if you would agree that tax reform is a difficult beast to conquer politically. Or if it's even realistic that this congress could do it.

Edited April 4, 2012 by dayman

[Oxrock]

Social Darwinism? I like it. Survival of the fittest. Adapt or become extinct. I think the GOP should embrace it. Turn it around. Now, it's Obama and the left who want to remain static. "Stay the course" so to speak. It's the GOP who want the economy to grow and evolve. To adapt and survive.

[DC Tom]

Social Darwinism? I like it. Survival of the fittest. Adapt or become extinct. I think the GOP should embrace it. Turn it around. Now, it's Obama and the left who want to remain static. "Stay the course" so to speak. It's the GOP who want the economy to grow and evolve. To adapt and survive.

 

Everyone who foresees the Republicans adopting a Darwinian metaphor, raise your hands...

 

 

Yeah, didn't think so.

[B-Large]

Everyone who foresees the Republicans adopting a Darwinian metaphor, raise your hands...

 

 

Yeah, didn't think so.

 

Not a chance, but perhaps a take from Ron Swanson:

 

"Capitalism: God's Way of Determining Who is Smart and Who is Poor"

[Oxrock]

Everyone who foresees the Republicans adopting a Darwinian metaphor, raise your hands...

 

 

Yeah, didn't think so.

 

Yeah, I forget the stereotype that Republicans don't believe in evolution. Crap.

Plus, from what I've heard, most don't even know what he meant by that metaphor.

 

Andy Levy had a good one though: (paraphrasing) "Without "Darwin" in "Social Darwinism" you're left with "Socialism".

[B-Man]

"So, if the Republican budget approach is, as President Obama says, “SOCIAL DARWINISM,” then does that mean that Obama’s approach is some sort of Social Creationism?

 

Because I’m not seeing any evidence of an Intelligent Design there". . . .. . . . . . .

 

Glenn Reynolds.

[3rdnlng]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/220089-mitt-romney-paul-ryan-ron-paul-champion-the-exceptionalism-of-greed-while-barack-obama-and-democrats-champion-the-exceptionalism-of-america

 

 

If DiN could write this could be him.

[IDBillzFan]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/220089-mitt-romney-paul-ryan-ron-paul-champion-the-exceptionalism-of-greed-while-barack-obama-and-democrats-champion-the-exceptionalism-of-america

 

 

If DiN could write this could be him.

Holy crap. Mitt Romney is the anti-Christ and wants everyone to die!

 

Romney is the rich man's candidate who believes in a Social Darwinism (fervently supported by Paul Ryan and Ron Paul) in which the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the middle class gets crushed, wealthy factions can buy elections, big money dominates, women are punished, Hispanics are disenfranchised, Medicare is destroyed and Social Security is attacked while these programs would be turned into profit centers for Wall Street firms under Republican rule.

[Chef Jim]

Holy crap. Mitt Romney is the anti-Christ and wants everyone to die!

 

 

 

You're just now learning this??

[IDBillzFan]

You're just now learning this??

I thought Santorum was the anti-Christ. I mean, he wears a sweater vest and believes in Jesus.

 

That's bad. Really bad.

[Chef Jim]

I thought Santorum was the anti-Christ. I mean, he wears a sweater vest and believes in Jesus.

 

That's bad. Really bad.

 

Hmmm good point. Can there be more than one anti-Christ?