Irritating caller on CSPAN this morning, re: Social vs. Natl Security

[BurtWorm]

She was calling in response to a Bushist deputy on point for the bullshit SS privatization scheme. Her points:

* National Security (i.e., the war on terrorism) is more important than bellyachers about SS realize. If US is attacked, she said, getting SS will be a moot point.

* We're in the midst of WW III, she asserted. People are too "selfish" to see that.

* Nevertheless, she warned the deputy, because people vote for "selfish" reasons, the Bushists need to assure them that their SS accounts would be secure, no matter the fluctuations in the market. (That actually is a good point.)

Now here's what irritated me about the call. Let's start with the condescending, "the grownups are in charge" tone she took, a tone common among Bush supporters. Here are people who are putting their blind faith in an idiotic, destructive son of a bitch (literally) mainly because he says he loves Jesus--and they want to lecture the rest of us about "grownups" being in charge? They're living in a fantasy world and they want to tell the rest of us what "really" matters?! No thank you!

Furthermore, did anyone have to tell the average American in 1944 (three years after Pearl Harbor) that a serious world war was on? If the American people have to be told we're in the midst of a world war, are we really in the midst of a world war? Is it selfishness that prevents us from seeing the seriousness of the war, or is it just that we are being poorly led and inured to being lied to?

Finally, the deputy responded either to this caller or to a previous one with the usual Bushist bullshit: "Trust us. We'll put safeguards into effect so no one will get hurt by market fluctuations."

Anyone who trusts these jerks for anything almost deserves what they get coming to them.

[Flailey]

1. But...

"National Security (i.e., the war on terrorism) is more important than bellyachers about SS realize. If US is attacked, she said, getting SS will be a moot point."

The answer to this one (maybe not the best talking point but true) is that she's completely wrong.

If we were attacked 10 more times as bad as the first, we'd lose about 30,000 Americans (and a couple more buildings too I suppose)


If we just stopped paying social security tomorrow and didn't have an alternate plan in place we'd probably lose a million or more people within the first year.

It's not hysteria just an obvious statement of fact -- cutting off access to food and shelter for several million americans over 65 would be a far graver threat to our nation.

[BurtWorm]

2. Very good point.

Not one a candidate for president can make, unfortunately, because it's too true for comfort.

Of course it's also possible that the US is such a fundamentally weenie nation that one more attack will cause us to throw the Constitution and the Republic right out the window.