Reagan was a rogue of an inferior order. Why else would he contest all his life to be a part of the thing he detests(Government) so much?
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Responding to some of Dr. Jiten Roy's Comments:J. Roy: I like what President Regan has said - government is not the solution, government is the problem.Response from S. Bain: On the face value of "government is not the solution, government is the problem", Ronald Regan should have moved to the jungle where the animals can do whatever they want and are capable of, as opposed to staying in the civilized world, where the government does regulate, where people can not just do what they want and are capable of, without caring about other people and the environment. With his 'government is the problem' political philosophy, Regan has done a lot of harm to the USA through his deregulation efforts. Deregulation helped the dishonest rich, not the regular working people. And I do include the middle class, the lower-middle class, and the working poor within that "regular working people" of this country.J. Roy: We have given trillions of our hard-earned tax dollars to the government, what they have done with it - they have given it to their cronies, sponsors, and people are still suffering. You know what happened with Solyndra and others green initiatives.Response from S. Bain: I am not for helping the rich cronies, neither is Robert Reich, on whose article we are having this discussion. Dr. Reich was advocating for a rich and decent America, where no working person should be poor and made to feel like a beggar.J. Roy: I have followed Barak Obama from the very beginning since his candidacy for the Presidency. He is more like a Marxist. American is like a giant ship, it is hard to divert her course. That's what happened with Obama. He tried to stir it to the left as much as he could, but due to sudden political shift in the Congress within a short time, he could not do so. That's why I trust in the American people and the system.Response from S. Bain: One really has to have a lot of irrational fixation to call Barak Obama a Marxist. To me, he is as much of a capitalist as any other leader of this country. He is no more liberal than what Lyndon B. Johnson or Franklin D. Roosevelt was. Dr. Roy should give some real examples where Obama was like a Marxist.Thanks to Dr. Roy and others for the discussion,Sukhamaya BainSent: Monday, December 5, 2011 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
I mostly agree with everything, except on one or two points. The good news is - Americans have started to pay attention to the politics recently - and this has made some impact on the political establishment already.I like what President Regan has said - government is not the solution, government is the problem. We have given trillions of our hard-earned tax dollars to the government, what they have done with it – they have given it to their cronies, sponsors, and people are still suffering. You know what happened with Solyndra and others green initiatives. These money will never come back. We just lost hem.I know many people think financial institutions (Banks, Wall Street firms, etc.) are the culprits, but that is not correct; these institutions either have paid then back fully or about to do so. The money given to the financial institutions will come back to the government treasury; we will probably make money on these investments.Free systems (political, social, economic, education, etc.) need to take care of our problems. This country has abundant opportunities and resources for everybody in this country. Those who do not want to avail them, nobody can help them. I know a recent immigrant young man from Bangladesh, who works in a restaurant as a waiter/delivery boy. He bought a one bedroom co-op house at Bronx, which he shares with a renter. I have visited his house recently. In contrast, I see many people here, who are second/third generations in this country, but have no place to live, and need government help to feed their families. Who can help them?Anyway, I have followed Barak Obama from the very beginning since his candidacy for the Presidency. He is more like a Marxist. American is like a giant ship, it is hard to divert her course. That's what happened with Obama. He tried to stir it to the left as much as he could, but due to sudden political shift in the Congress within a short time, he could not do so. That's why I trust in the American people and the system.Thanks.Jien RoyFrom: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 6:49 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
While Dr. Roy and I disagree on the political awareness of the American people, I can see some of his points, although with some different interpretations.I can understand the apprehension that the earlier generation Americans may have against the recent immigrants from failed and backward countries. When I say that the average American is very poor in politics, I mean they are poor in foreign as well as domestic political affairs.The way I see it, in a developed country, if a couple honestly works 40+40 hours a week, they should have a guarantee of the basic needs of life, such as food, clothing, a reasonable place to live, basic healthcare, and education for their minor children. That should happen no matter what kind of work they do; even flipping hamburger in a fast food restaurant is essential work for the system. That should happen without the couple needing help from any kind of charity, and feeling like beggars. I am sure the USA is capable of doing that without stopping the exponential capitalistic rewards for great innovators such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. I am sure the USA has the overall financial strength to do that without lowering the living standards of the middle class. The problem is, the big money players in politics are good in manipulating the politically unaware population, which is mostly middle class, to fulfill their greed through getting their cronies elected to power.In spite of what I wrote above, I agree with Dr. Roy that the USA is still a far better nation than most of the others in the world. For people like Dr. Roy and me, the USA is probably the best.Indeed there were many visionary leaders in the USA. However, many of them were as liberal as, or more so than, Barak Obama. If Obama were a socialist, I wonder what we should call FDR or LBJ!! I would not call even Robert Reich a socialist; he is a decent capitalist, similar to many of the past great visionary leaders of this country.While I criticize the excessive corporate and executive greed, I am also optimistic about the USA. To me, following are some of the reasons why the USA is most powerful, and will continue to be so for a long time:1) The country's ability to attract and keep foreign talents through respecting and rewarding people based upon their talent and upon the contents of their character. This would allow the country to maintain its scientific and technological lead.2) The population of this country is generally honest, decent, caring, and devoid of the nonsensical prejudices that prevail in many parts of the world.3) The country has a great political system (which would have worked better if the population as a whole were more politically educated).4) The country has an advanced judicial and law enforcement system.5) The country is rich in many natural resources.6) The country would not be overburdened by population any time soon.Well, so long for now,Sukhamaya BainFrom: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 4, 2011 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
Dr. Bain: When it comes to politics, American people are probably the most idiotic in the developed world.JR: I respectfully disagree with the above statement. Yes, it is true - American people do not care much about the outside world as people from other countries do. And, yes, Americans are not as political as recent immigrants, like me, from other countries. Why would previous generation of Americans listen to our opinion? Many of these immigrants came from failed countries anyway. In fact they don't. That's a good news.When I analyze, I see the following. Apart from foreign affairs, previous generation of Americans have done pretty well in the domestic front. They have made pretty good decisions when it comes to internal politics. The proof is everywhere, if we care to look around sincerely with open mind, not biased by religious and political biases/interests.While most of the developed European world was almost devoured by communism, Americans fended this beautiful land from it, and built their country a superpower in the world. It became so because of their right social policies and structures. I always get amazed by the subway system in the New York City - that was built more than 100 years ago, when it was totally unnecessary. You can easily imagine - what type of visionary leaders is needed to make that decision. I love and appreciate everything these people have achieved; I am grateful to them for allowing me to share their wealth and opportunity, which no other country in the world will do. I cannot call them 'politically most idiotic in the developed world.' I just can't prove it.It is true - the political system is not perfect, but it is better than anywhere else. I can't find any other polical system that will be better than this. The system is so fair that a socialist (Obama) can also raise billion dollars for the election.Many people say – better days of America are behind; I don't think so. I believe American people will make correct decision in 2012 to elect social conservatives, as they always do. Usually, they balance power towards center-right. American academicians are hell-bent to indoctrinate young generations to social liberalism. The good news is - they have been doing so forever with little success; once Americans grow up - they revert to social conservatism. My worry now with many more social liberals in the recent immigrant communities in the country.Jiten RoyFrom: Arif Tuhin <etothepowerpi@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2011 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
The other day i saw republican debate i was pretty disgusted by their ideas. They will never change and will try to feed the same crap about how anything related to wealth distribution is socialism and hence evil. Another frenzy was about who was better christian. I think Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he heard this argument. And that female candidate, i forgot her names already told in a Q/A that she will push for teaching intelligent design in school text books. I guess in coming days as liberals are not taking the country anywhere I'm afraid a far right orgy is in place.With Best Regards
Ariful Hossain Tuhin
email: etothepowerpi@hotmail.com , etothepowerpi@gmail.com, etothepowerpi@yahoo.com
skype: freeburn1986
phone: 8801673301175
facebook: http://www.facebook.com/etothepowerpiFrom: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 2, 2011 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
When it comes to politics, American people are probably the most idiotic in the developed world. I remember the then Vice-President Dick Cheney was once asked about what he thought about the fact that a majority of the American people thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. His answer was that he was not surprised. Of course, he was not surprised, because he was smart enough to know that the average Americans were only-the-sports-page-reader idiots, and that they had no real idea why the USA had to go for a war in Iraq.Talking about the American people taking the initial step of electing some clowns in 2010, I think in this country the elections are controlled by big money doing big propaganda, not by the consciousness of the American people. Even Obama was a billion dollar fund-raiser.I think people like Dr. Roy should make informative counter-arguments against Dr. Reich's comments, as opposed to just calling him an ultra-liberal democrat.Sukhamaya BainFrom: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
After getting tired of ceaseless empty promises and rhetoric from Obama and other democratic liberals during 2008 - 2010, American people took the initial step at the end of 2010 – by electing conservative Republicans in the Congress. That's step one. Now, step 2 is coming at the end of 2012. In the mean time, the national debt has surpassed unthinkable 15T, without the prospect of economic recovery. If liberal policies could revive the economy and create jobs, it would have happened by now. Robert Reich is an ultra-liberal democrat; what else can he say, except bunch of liberal blathering, when he has nothing to show?To understand the consequence of liberalism, please look at the EC, especially Greece and Italy.Jiten RoyFrom: Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com>
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 2:36 PM
Subject: [mukto-mona] The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
What kind of society, exactly, do modern Republicans want? I've been listening to Republican candidates in an effort to discern an overall philosophy, a broadly-shared vision, an ideal picture of America. They say they want a smaller government but that can't be it."
![Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)]( "Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)")
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
The Rebirth of Social Darwinism
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog01 December 11hat kind of society, exactly, do modern Republicans want? I've been listening to Republican candidates in an effort to discern an overall philosophy, a broadly-shared vision, an ideal picture of America.
They say they want a smaller government but that can't be it. Most seek a larger national defense and more muscular homeland security. Almost all want to widen the government's powers of search and surveillance inside the United States - eradicating possible terrorists, expunging undocumented immigrants, "securing" the nation's borders. They want stiffer criminal sentences, including broader application of the death penalty. Many also want government to intrude on the most intimate aspects of private life.They call themselves conservatives but that's not it, either. They don't want to conserve what we now have. They'd rather take the country backwards - before the 1960s and 1970s, and the Environmental Protection Act, Medicare, and Medicaid; before the New Deal, and its provision for Social Security, unemployment insurance, the forty-hour workweek, and official recognition of trade unions; even before the Progressive Era, and the first national income tax, antitrust laws, and Federal Reserve.They're not conservatives. They're regressives. And the America they seek is the one we had in the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century.It was an era when the nation was mesmerized by the doctrine of free enterprise, but few Americans actually enjoyed much freedom. Robber barons like the financier Jay Gould, the railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, and the oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, controlled much of American industry; the gap between rich and poor had turned into a chasm; urban slums festered; women couldn't vote and black Americans were subject to Jim Crow; and the lackeys of rich literally deposited sacks of money on desks of pliant legislators.Most tellingly, it was a time when the ideas of William Graham Sumner, a professor of political and social science at Yale, dominated American social thought. Sumner brought Charles Darwin to America and twisted him into a theory to fit the times.Few Americans living today have read any of Sumner's writings but they had an electrifying effect on America during the last three decades of the 19th century.To Sumner and his followers, life was a competitive struggle in which only the fittest could survive - and through this struggle societies became stronger over time. A correlate of this principle was that government should do little or nothing to help those in need because that would interfere with natural selection.Listen to today's Republican debates and you hear a continuous regurgitation of Sumner. "Civilization has a simple choice," Sumner wrote in the 1880s. It's either "liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest," or "not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members."Sound familiar?Newt Gingrich not only echoes Sumner's thoughts but mimics Sumner's reputed arrogance. Gingrich says we must reward "entrepreneurs" (by which he means anyone who has made a pile of money) and warns us not to "coddle" people in need. He opposes extending unemployment insurance because, he says, "I'm opposed to giving people money for doing nothing."Sumner, likewise, warned against handouts to people he termed "negligent, shiftless, inefficient, silly, and imprudent."Mitt Romney doesn't want the government to do much of anything about unemployment. And he's dead set against raising taxes on millionaires, relying on the standard Republican rationale millionaires create jobs.Here's Sumner, more than a century ago: "Millionaires are the product of natural selection, acting on the whole body of men to pick out those who can meet the requirement of certain work to be done… It is because they are thus selected that wealth aggregates under their hands - both their own and that intrusted to them … They may fairly be regarded as the naturally selected agents of society." Although they live in luxury, "the bargain is a good one for society."Other Republican hopefuls also fit Sumner's mold. Ron Paul, who favors repeal of Obama's healthcare plan, was asked at a Republican debate in September what medical response he'd recommend if a young man who had decided not to buy health insurance were to go into a coma. Paul's response: "That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks." The Republican crowd cheered.In other words, if the young man died for lack of health insurance, he was responsible. Survival of the fittest.Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late nineteenth century. It allowed John D. Rockefeller, for example, to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was "merely a survival of the fittest." It was, he insisted "the working out of a law of nature and of God."Social Darwinism also undermined all efforts at the time to build a nation of broadly-based prosperity and rescue our democracy from the tight grip of a very few at the top. It was used by the privileged and powerful to convince everyone else that government shouldn't do much of anything.Not until the twentieth century did America reject Social Darwinism. We created the large middle class that became the core of our economy and democracy. We built safety nets to catch Americans who fell downward through no fault of their own. We designed regulations to protect against the inevitable excesses of free-market greed. We taxed the rich and invested in public goods - public schools, public universities, public transportation, public parks, public health - that made us all better off.In short, we rejected the notion that each of us is on his or her own in a competitive contest for survival.But make no mistake: If one of the current crop of Republican hopefuls becomes president, and if regressive Republicans take over the House or Senate, or both, Social Darwinism is back.
