One pungent criticism of Reich is that the regressive Republicans never did quit being Social Darwinists, so they didn't have to go back to form.
But his blog triggered this most amazing conservative reaction: (edited for clarity with emphasis added)
"Reich, you are the one who has it backwards!!! Stop the bleeding-heart-liberal, give-it-all-away crap. Some will suffer who have made bad choices, that is appropriate. Those who had no savings, but had cell phones; those who had more children than they could afford; those who bought houses they couldn't make the mortgage payments on; those who have bad diets and do no exercise who get diabetes; those who choose poorly should all pay the price. And NO, the government should not bail them out, just like the gov't should not have bailed out the automakers, or the banks, or Solyndra, etc. Failure is part of life and those that succed should not shoulder the debt of those who have done poorly. If the successful CHOOSE to help out the unfortunate it is through charity. Do not tax those who have made good decisions to take care of those who have made poor choices. Get real!"
What is real? This man believes in Social Darwinism. "Survival of the fittest" as defined solely by economic success - by whatever means needed. His "Golden Rule" is "Who has the Gold writes the Rules!"
President Obama spoke about faith and charity at the National Prayer Breakfast this morning. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/national-prayer-breakfast-president-obamas-speech-transcript/2012/02/02/gIQAx7jWkQ_story_1.html
He said:
"And when I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense."But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required." It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who've been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others."
So the counter-argument as blasted about on KKKOB-AM and Jim Villanucci, is that the government is not "charity"; that it is "more efficient" for those who "unto whom much has been given" to choose to give. Of course, dictators are more efficient than democracy. But do they make good choices?
But really, who among the "successful" will chose to help "the least among us?" The AIDS sufferers, the unwashed, the addicts - when, by their failings, they "should all pay the price." And what price is that? Sounds like he believes they should just go away and die - someplace else, out of sight.
American history is littered with examples of the many ways and times "private charity" did not solve problems of poverty, ignorance, homelessness, hunger, illness, workplace injuries. So we voted for change. We voted for effective solutions that the federal government could create - Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, the Public Health Service, and more. The facts, the data, support the belief that by voting for Progressive policies, we can see a measurable improvement in our quality of life.
As one wealthy man noted, "I don't want to be a rich man living in a third-world country." If the critics need examples, may I suggest Kenya? A lawless Libertarian success story.
Americans all pay a small price to care for our neighbors who are struggling, and we're probably not paying enough - or we can pay a much larger price and live in a sad, third-world country.
American history is littered with examples of the many ways and times "private charity" did not solve problems of poverty, ignorance, homelessness, hunger, illness, workplace injuries. So we voted for change. We voted for effective solutions that the federal government could create - Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, the Public Health Service, and more. The facts, the data, support the belief that by voting for Progressive policies, we can see a measurable improvement in our quality of life.
As one wealthy man noted, "I don't want to be a rich man living in a third-world country." If the critics need examples, may I suggest Kenya? A lawless Libertarian success story.
Americans all pay a small price to care for our neighbors who are struggling, and we're probably not paying enough - or we can pay a much larger price and live in a sad, third-world country.
