AP tagline (08/14): “President Barack Obama used the anniversary of Social Security to trumpet Democrats’ support for the popular program and accuse Republicans of trying to destroy it.”

Remember the (stacked) Deficit Commission? Key relating quote: “everything on the table.” That was President Obama – including Social Security in the “austerity” mix. As a result, this is Ripe – as election season ploys (note recent articles on the sway of using Social Security as a mid-term campaign issue). “Obama said he’s ‘committed to working with anyone, Democrat or Republican, who wants to strengthen Social Security.'” Somehow, the person who put Social Security “on the table is also supposed to be the same person who is a champion of “strengthen[ing]” it? (Word game/setup alert: cutting can lead to solvency, even if there are no actual solvency problems.) On one hand, he scores points by “accus[ing] Republicans of trying to destroy,” based on the privatization issue. On the other, he had already opened the door to destruction, based on “self-sacrifice” and “personal responsibility” (after 75 years – and millions upon millions have lost their jobs).

This is what’s happening – with “everything on the table”: “Housing crisis reaches full boil in East Point; 62 injured.”

This is what’s at stake – under the auspice of “austerity: “Individual Mandates Bootstrap the Homeless.”

This is what’s still going on – while we hear condescending updates on “self-sacrifice”: “How Goldman gambled on starvation.”

Again, what was the (immediate) main target of Bush II after the 2004 (second stolen) election? Social Security. Since 1935, what has been at the top of ongoing goals for the conservative elite, as far as dismantling programs? Social Security. What was one of the main safety nets we Believed Obama would never allow to be Changed (gutted, step by step)? Social Security. As another domino is set to fall because of his administration’s continuous sellouts, there are no doubts of (progressive) betrayal remaining. The “collective good” they promote is a fascist focus as a guarantee for chosen corporations – and bootstraps as the only guarantee for the masses.

FDR, August 14,1935: “Today a hope of many years’ standing is in large part fulfilled. The civilization of the past hundred years . . . has tended more and more to make life insecure. Young people have come to wonder what would be their lot when they came to old age. The man with a job has wondered how long the job would last. This social security measure gives at least some protection to thirty millions of our citizens who will reap direct benefits through unemployment compensation, through old-age pensions and through increased services for the protection of children and the prevention of ill health.”

And now, we are maybe two “only a sliverPR cycles (“heated rhetoric“) away from the next Change We Can Heave In.

[Other notes: 1) Associated Press: “Unless Congress acts, Social Security's combined retirement and disability trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037.” Pure talking points propaganda. Reality: “The wildly pessimistic projections are based on assumptions that the economy will grow an average of 1.8 percent per year for the next 75 years – less than half the rate of the previous 75 years.” 2) Republicans: “An increase in Social Security taxes is out of the question, even for the wealthy.” But, of course.]

Original Post

Comments

tmark 2 years 49 weeks ago
#1

I think that we need to refraim this issue. Here is a much nicer way of looking at it.

Many allude to a resentment of older people, who have not saved for their own retirement, as being a "burden" on the working class. I know that there is not any wilderness available anymore for someone to go start over in, but if you could imagine being able to go out in a forest in Canada and start over, without the "burden" of having to pay social security to buy the infrastructure of America; would you really be better off. Maybe after felling trees for a cabin and clearing land to till the soil to plant crops, maybe, in a few generations of hard work in primitive conditions you might be able to produce something for export to trade for a generator. You certainly would still not be able to produce anything like that for yourself, much less internet and modern healthcare.

Social security is not charity, it is a great deal if you consider that it is purchasing the infrastructure of our nation from those that built it. It is the same as letting gramma and grampa Walton continue to live in the house and eat at the table even when they can no longer work, out of appreciation for passing along to you the house that they built. You could go build your own house, but you wouldn't be better off. You could kick them out and keep the house, but that wouldn't be right. Paying social security is something that I am grateful to be able to do and I want to improve the infrastructure of America, just like every previous generation has, so that I can be proud of what I pass along to my next generation. I don't think that those who would kick gramma and grampa out of the house and trash the place represent the best of America. There is no legitimate question of whether or not we can afford it, it is the first bill that we MUST pay, and then decide what else we can afford.

tmark.com@gmail.com

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Currently Chatting

The Death of the Middle Class was by Design...

Even in the face of the so-called Recovery, poverty and inequality are getting worse in our country, and more wealth and power is flowing straight to the top. According to Paul Buchheit over at Alternet, this is the end result of winner-take-all capitalism, and this destruction of the working class has all been by design.