Imam Feisal’s main mistake was to think we might be as good as we like to pretend we are, as good as the people who thought they could build and deserve a 1,776′ tall “Freedom Tower.” (What kitsch! The only question now is whether our failure or our success at building it would be more of a self-parody.) How foolish of him to miss the more realistic view of America: A political class of non-entities, a public discourse dominated by demagogues, a people desperate for a mob to join, and a great readiness to waste the passionate intensity we could use for things that ought to matter on intrinsically meaningless symbols, exponentiated phantoms suitable for focusing and intensifying deep-seated paranoia, bigotry, narcissism, and overall moral and intellectual incapacity. His service has been to expose us to the world and to ourselves, and to expose American conservatives most of all, since they like to strut and posture as defenders of the holy principles, as hopeless hypocrites determined upon the path of inexorable decline, collectively deserving of the punishments that the world sooner or later deals out to people such as we’ve become. In the longer view, the unjust thing is that, even after the process has gone on for another generation, we’ll still probably be better off than most of our enemies. The just thing is that it will feel worse to us.
Personally, I’m open to the idea of raising the retirement age incrementally in light of longer lifespans, changes in the nature of work, and budgetary pressures – though I now believe it should come with strengthening of the “safety net” in light of apparent long-term structural unemployment. I don’t think we’ll get the improved safety net, however, until and unless Republican “small government” solutions have been tried and fail, or unless one or another catastrophe on the order of 2008 or worse (perhaps in assoc. with war) drives people back into the arms of the state.
Privatization is something different, and I think a much bigger pill to force the political system to swallow.
“His service has been to expose us to the world and to ourselves, and to expose American conservatives most of all, since they like to strut and posture as defenders of the holy principles, as hopeless hypocrites determined upon the path of inexorable decline, collectively deserving of the punishments that the world sooner or later deals out to people such as we’ve become.”
“CK,I believe this supports your Contentions above,but let’s include the Democrats in the extreme hypocrite group. I’am citing two articles that argue factually that underneath the appearance,the Obama Administration tagteaming with Congressional Democrats are the “larger” threat to the Social Security Program than either the standard Republicans,or the Tea People.
“The immediate threat to workers dependent upon Social Security benefits is not privatization, but rather the recommendations of the bipartisan panel to reduce the federal deficit. The panel is Obama’s, not the Republicans’, creation and is packed with opponents of Social Security. (A detailed discussion of the panel, its key members and its reactionary agenda can be found here. ) It is an open non-secret that the panel will recommend, after the fall elections of course, reductions in Social Security benefits and an extension of the retirement age. The fact is that “after meeting your responsibilities and paying into the system all your lives’, you will not “get the benefits you deserve.” That Obama can pretend to be a defender of the most popular social program in US history bespeaks his conviction that most Americans are either unaware of, or capable of being distracted from, his own promotion of an historic assault on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/nasser08182010.html
“The issue of privatization is germane when one considers the members of the Commission approved by the President. There are questions of possible conflicts of interest. As James Galbraith has noted, the Commission has accepted support from Peter G. Peterson, a man who has been one of the leading campaigners to cut Social Security and Medicare. It is co-chaired by Erskine Bowles, a current Director at North Carolina Life Insurance Co (annuity products are a competitor to Social Security and would almost certainly be beneficiaries of the partial privatization). Bowles’ wife, Crandall Close Bowles, is on the Board of JP Morgan, and she is also on the “Business Council,” a 27 member group whose members include Dick Fuld, Jeff Immelt, Jamie Dimon and a plethora of other Wall Streeters.
At the very least, these kinds of ties raise questions in regard to proposals for dealing with Social Security. Many members of the Commission stand to become clear direct and indirect beneficiaries of the privatization that the President is now warning against. It’s disappointing that these ties have not been fully explored by the press, and it is extraordinary that the President would exhibit such political tone deafness in making these kinds of appointments. It tends to undercut the message of his last radio address”
http://www.counterpunch.org/auerback08172010.html
For those of you that keep insisting that Obama is a Socialist,please consider the facts of Obama’s SS Commission.