Actually, Bill Clinton must be something even worse than a social Darwinist. That’s because the title of this post is wrong. Obama said that Paul Ryan’s plan (which allows spending to grow by an average of 3.1 percent per year over the next decade) is a form of “social Darwinism.”
But the proposal from the House Budget Committee Chairman only reduces the burden of federal spending to 20.25 percent of GDP by the year 2023.
Yet when Bill Clinton left office in 2001, following several years of spending restraint, the federal government was consuming 18.2 percent of economic output.
And by the President’s reasoning, this must make Clinton something worse than a Darwinist. Perhaps Marquis de Sade or Hannibal Lecter.
Here’s a blurb from the New York Times on Obama’s speech.
Mr. Obama’s attack, in a speech during a lunch with editors and reporters from The Associated Press, was part of a broader indictment of the Republican economic blueprint for the nation. The Republican budget, and the philosophy it represents, he said in remarks prepared for delivery, is “antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everyone who’s willing to work for it.” …“Disguised as a deficit reduction plan, it’s really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It’s nothing but thinly veiled social Darwinism,” Mr. Obama said. “By gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last — education and training, research and development — it’s a prescription for decline.”
I’m particularly amused by the President’s demagoguery that Ryan’s plan is “antithetical to our entire history” and “a radical vision.”
Is he really unaware that a small and constrained central government is part of America’s history and vision? Doesn’t he know that the federal government, for two-thirds of our nation’s history, consumed less than 5 percent of GDP?
Of course, that was back in the dark ages when people in Washington actually believed that the Constitution’s list of enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, actually enumerated the powers of the federal government. How quaint.
No wonder this Ramirez cartoon is so effectively amusing. It certainly seems to capture the President’s view of America’s founding principles.
[…] President Obama Accuses Bill Clinton of “Thinly Veiled Social Darwinism” […]
[…] I posted yesterday about Obama’s demagoguery against the Ryan budget and criticized the President for sloppy budget math, tedious class warfare, and a deeply flawed grasp of America’s founding principles. […]
[…] President Obama Accuses Bill Clinton of “Thinly Veiled Social Darwinism” […]
[…] to the question that Bret Baier asked your press secretary. And how many, as have conservative and libertarian bloggers looking into the misleading claims you made in the very speech when you hectored the […]
The repubs should place much more emphasis on the ratio of spending to gdp. The current level of 24% is an unprecedented high, and completely bloated. The typical average for the last 30 yrs is 18% that was reached during clinton. The previous pre Obama high was about 20%. Ryans budget, only bringing it down to 20% actually does not cut enough, although it is at least a good start. My answer to dems that say we need a “balanced approach” is that the current level of 24% is already completely out of balance on the spending side. Once we have an actual fy where it falls below the previous pre obama high of 20%, then maybe we can talk about mixing in some taxes with the cuts to get to balance at 18% for both taxes and spending. But until then, approving any new taxes is equavalent to giving an alkie a bottle of rum.
I wonder how many people who heard that statement have any idea of what ‘Social Darwinism” was, and why Obama thinks it is a bad thing. Maybe the Republicans should respond by accusing Obama of disrespecting Charles Darwin and the theory of Evolution.
[…] Read the whole thing! […]
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Knowing the dislike between the Obama and the Clinton camps, I’m sure Obama would have included the former president, had he known.
Why yes, I’m one of those cavemen your mother warned you about: a Republican who actually believes in the Constitution and that the expenses should NEVER exceed income. Rep. Ryan makes a good attempt, but his budget is not going to save the country or the economy.
Rep. Paul’s budget plan, however, is closer to the mark as it cuts $1 Trillion from the budget in year one and continues to cut expenses and regulations so the economy can grow. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/
I’ve posted this challenge to any and all southpaws on the boards I frequent: I’ll accept end-of-Clinton-era tax rates and breakpoints (adjusted for inflation) if you will accept end-of-Clinton-era spending levels (adjusted for inflation and population growth). That would put our annual budget at roughly $2.6 trillion and revenues around $2.4 trillion, leaving a manageable $200 billion annual deficit.
I haven’t gotten a single taker on the Left so far.
[…] I posted yesterday about Obama’s demagoguery against the Ryan budget and criticized the President for sloppy budget math, tedious class warfare, and a deeply flawed grasp of America’s founding principles. […]
[…] Comments « President Obama Accuses Bill Clinton of “Thinly Veiled Social Darwinism” […]
Reblogged this on Talon's Point.
Focussing on balancing the budget is a dangerous approach. Just gives the lefties an excuse to lambast us with taxes.
[…] President Obama Accuses Bill Clinton of “Thinly Veiled Social Darwinism” « International Libert…. Share this:TwitterRedditFacebookEmailPrintDiggStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this […]
The average person and certainly those likely to vote for Obumma have no clue what the truth is. They will believe whatever Mr. Hopey-Changey says without a second thought. With the willing accomplices in the media spewing the same Bravo Sierra, and the dependence on the “man” to send the next check to nearly half the population how will it change?
Dan, you have hit a home run with this post. If Congressman Paul Ryan could get criticized for wanting to bring down our federal spending to around 20% in 11 years and earn the label of “social darwinist” from President Obama then surely President Obama would have thought President Clinton’s effort to cut spending to 18.2 % of GDP in 2001 as extremely devilish.
I remember thinking back in 1981 when the Democrats called Reagan’s first budget cuts all kinds of names, that maybe conservatives should take a meat axe approach to spending cuts. The liberals are going to accuse us of it anyway. I like the approach that Rand and Ron Paul take to budget cuts. Why not balance the budget now!!!
What really makes me mad is the fact the way we are financing our debt. We used to actually get people to buy our treasury bonds, but when China told Obama three years that they could no longer do that since the deficit was exploding, then we allowed the Fed to do it with funny money. WHAT A HOUSE OF CARDS!!!!
[…] President Obama Accuses Bill Clinton of “Thinly Veiled Social Darwinism” […]
Too bad the Ryan budget is not one for a small and limited gov’t. What would the reaction be to a budget that actually spent less than it took in?