Oh, the knuckle-dragging stupidity of this:
At the age of 16, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., suffered the death of his 55-year-old father. Because of his father’s early death, the government made survivor payments for a few years to Paul Ryan’s family – including for Paul Ryan himself. Ryan collected benefits for two years, until he turned 18.
But the Daily Kos blog is now using his father’s early death against Ryan. A Daily Kos diary attacks Ryan in a post entitled, “Entitlement-hating Paul Ryan collected Social Security benefits until he was 18.” Never mind that Ryan’s recent budget proposal doesn’t in fact seek to abolish entitlements, much less get rid of Social Security. It merely seeks to cut the rate of growth of exploding Medicare costs by eventually giving its recipients vouchers they can use to shop around for medical care.
Of all the banal and empty-headed Democratic debating tricks, this one is one of my least favorite: to pretend that somebody who believes a particular government service should be changed or reduced has a moral obligation to forgo the use of that service. That is the kind of sloppy thinking that should be self-refuting, but, alas, is not, particularly among our friends on the left, who are not famous for the rigor of their thinking or for the continence of their emotions, the most prominent of which is hatred.
Adult Paul Ryan — never mind teen-age minor Paul Ryan — is under no obligation to forgo government benefits. He is a citizen of the United States and, like any other citizen, subject to the obligations and privileges that go along with that. It is not as though Ryan had the choice to opt out of Social Security; liberals either believe that critics of government programs have an obligation to endure the liabilities attached to them while forgoing the benefits, or (more likely) they just love to scream “hypocrisy,” as half-educated adolescents have been doing since The Catcher in the Rye.
Barack Obama thinks the rich should pay higher taxes. Barack Obama took nearly $400,000 in itemized deductions in his 2010 taxes. Does that make him a hypocrite? No: He believes that the tax code should be other than it is — which is in no way incompatible with availing himself of the benefits of the tax code as it is. I dislike the federal highway system. I think it never should have been built. I want it defunded. Will I drive on I-35? Yes, until they plow it under. Is that hypocrisy? No.
I don’t know why I bother trying to explain this stuff to the ape-brained Kos kids. I know it is useless. But buffoonery is buffoonery, and it should not be allowed to stand.
"That is the kind of sloppy thinking that should be self-refuting, but, alas, is not, particularly among our friends on the left, who are not famous for the rigor of their thinking or for the continence of their emotions, the most prominent of which is hatred."
One of the best sentences I have ever read on NRO.
Thanks Kevin!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't know why you conservatives are still surprised that the amoral, contemptible and baseless Democrats would attempt to use every trick in the book to protect their religion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I don’t know why I bother trying to explain this stuff to the ape-brained Kos kids."
Kevin, I'm offended with this blatant insult of apes all across this beautiful earth. To compare Daily Kos writers with apes is unconscionable. An apology is order.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStrange how the reasoning never works the other way: Obama is out stumping hard to raise taxes on the "rich," yet he just paid his 2010 taxes at the selfishly un-American low Bush rates. If Ryan is a hypocrite for receiving Social Security benefits 25 years ago, isn't Obama a hypocrite too for not voluntarily paying more in taxes?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAhh, such is the mindless, vituperative world of the Daily KodPiece where only the appearance of hypocrisy trumps an argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHigh Life:
My sincere apologies to Pan troglodytes verus et al.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBy this logic, everyone who paid taxes in the '90s under the high Clinton rates but voted to lower them is a "hypocrite," right? Think about it, they ACTED one way, and VOTED to change it, right?
It's no less idiotic a train of thought.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin-- keep after these leftist punks. The Obamaniac's $400k of deductions is an excellent catch. NOTHING in the IRC FORCES the Obamaniac -- or anyother taxpayer-- to claim deductions. You can waive them, and pay the higher tax. In the Obamaniac's case $150K+ dollars FOR THIS YEAR ALONE. But no, Obamaniac took those legitimate deductions and reduced his taxes by $150+K, a number for THIS YEAR that dwarfs any meager survivor benefits young Mr. Ryan got for 2-3 years. The Left are a sick joke; Obama is a joke. We should never fail to prove that over and over again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseyou know, if Obama thinks that people "who have been fortunate like him can afford to pay a little more" then he could just write a check to the Treasury. And ask Stephen King to do it, too. When I was unemployed in 2009, I took advantage of Obama's program that paid 2/3rds of my COBRA, and the unemployment compensation extensions, but I didn't feel like a hypocrite that I thought the programs were a bad idea.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin, how can you miss the brilliance of this strategy? If all people receive a goverment payment at some point, whether due to a dead father or subsidised student loan, and accept criticism from only those who have never received a government payment, then goverment handouts can never be criticized.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am not sure I understand your confusion:
Obama takes the tax breaks, but that they should not be there and would be satisfied to pay more.
Ryan takes the government benefits, but says they should not be there. Yet he does not say he would have been satisfied with the result had he not been eligible for benefits.
If Ryan were to come forward and say: "I took the benefits. Because of the benefits, I am where I am today. Yet, had my plan been in place, I would not have gotten the benefits and not be where I am." A temporal anomaly in the making (sorry for the Star Trek reference).
Personally, I do not begrudge Ryan for receiving the benefits. I just think he should acknowledge how they helped him and that he does not think other, similarly situated, children should get them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis argument is often heard in the context of the states that accepted the stimulus money and whose governors were against the stimulus. I find it very frustrating and I am glad you pointed it out, needless as that pointing out really is.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAllajn,
Obama doesn't have to take the deductions, whether they 'belong there' or not. He actively deducted from his tax bill. Plus, I haven't heard him "acknowledge how they helped him and that he does not think other, similary situated, [taxpayers] should get them."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a great post, and I particularly like the swipe at "Catcher in the Rye", which I've dispised since being forced to read it in 10th grade. I do think it's somewhat hypocrital, however, for the Warren Buffets of the world to argue that they ought to be taxed more, and then do everything in their power to pay as little in taxes as possible. The Treasury always accepts money, and the logic of their argument seems to point to paying whatever amount they believe is appropriate, regardless of what other people pay.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust to paint with a slightly broader stroke here:
It's not hypocritical to take food stamps if your eligible but think the program should be abolished--agreed.
But there can still be good reasons not to take the food stamps. For example, "I don't want to give the required personal information to the government on the application or in the case worker interview." Or, "I don't want to set an example for my son of relying on a handout from the government." Or, "I'd rather retain my sense of self-reliance and rugged individualism through earned success by doing odd jobs till an engineering spot opens."
But we cannot opt out of certain programs. And the Swedes, say, cannot opt out of nationalized health care. They can pay for private care when the queue is too long. But they must still pay for the public scheme. Should, per infinitesimal chance, they be vexed by the idea of being forced to participate in their national-wealth-sapping-monster of a medical plan, well, too bad. But they would still not be hypocritical for using it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Allajin - Since Paul Ryan has never suggested that Social Security survivors benefits should be reduced in any way, your argument just kind of falls into shreds, don't you think?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin:
Your post is great, and needed. But I feel it misses a deeper moral point. To heck with the question of Social Security benefits (which Ryan's father paid into the system and obviously never collected himself). The more telling point is this: Ryan lost his father at 16 (a fact of which I was unaware). And yet these barbarians are perfectly willing to take what must have been a family tragedy, and use it to score cheap and stupid political points.
It's not enough, Kevin, to call these people out as "kids"; they're adults, and indecent ones, who deserve contempt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, it's worse than you say, Kevin. Because what they really want to claim is that critics of government programs have an obligation to endure the liabilities attached to them while having forgone the benefits at all prior points of their life.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs Idaho Dan correctly points out this is a big part of the reason the libs/dems/rinos want as many people on the dole as possible, so the dole can never be ended.
However, Congressman Ryan can properly point out that he only got benefits for 2 years, back in the better old days orphans used to get benes all the way through college.
So he's a living example that reduction of gov't benefits doesn't lead to a life of misery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin,
Why do you not like the fed highway system? I am mystified.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse