Chomsky: Bush's handlers have already won the Social Security debate

[Karmadillo]

At least in the short run. The article does a good job of laying out the class interests involved in the debate. Social Security, which isn't in crisis but which isn't needed by the rich, must be "fixed" (i.e., destroyed). The health care system, which is in crisis but still works well for the rich, must be left as it is. Of course, as long as the rich own the media and both political parties, it's unlikely you'll hear Chomsky's analysis repeated anywhere.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=10&ItemID=8102

In the debate over Social Security, US President Bush’s handlers have already won, at least in the short term. Bush and Karl Rove, his deputy chief of staff, have succeeded in convincing most of the US population that there is a serious problem with Social Security, which opens the way for considering the administration’s programme of private accounts instead of relying on the public pension system.
The public has been frightened, much as it was by the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

The pressure on politicians is rising as leaders in the US House of Representatives hope to draft Social Security legislation by next month.

For perspective, perhaps it should be noted that Social Security is one of the least generous public pension systems among advanced countries, according to a new report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

<edit>

Social Security is of little value for the rich but is crucial for survival for working people, the poor, their dependents and the disabled. And as a government programme, it has such low administrative costs that it offers nothing to financial institutions. It benefits only the "underlying population," not the "substantial citizens," to borrow Thorstein Veblen’s acid terminology.

The medical system, however, works very well for the people who matter in a system where health care is effectively rationed by wealth, and enormous profits flow to private power for highly inefficient management. The underlying population can be treated with lectures on responsibility.

more...

[acmavm]

1. bush** hasn't won anything on this issue, at least nothing that I can

see. He hasn't got the support of the American people and he's losing the support of some moderate republicans. How is that perceived as being a win?

Maybe it's because I didn't get a whole lot of sleep last night but this article, and others like it, really gripe my ass when they give blivet credit for 'winning' this or 'cashing in on him political credit' that, when it simply has not happened. That part of how this shit gets shoved down our throats. Tell people in advance that the BFEE have already won, so don't bother to fight it. And so many think that way.

[Karmadillo]

6. I think the "winning" point relates to the short term. A recent poll

by NBC shows 14% think social security is in crisis, 39% think there's serious trouble, and 36% think some trouble. That shows a certain amount of effectiveness in the Bush effort to torpedo social security inasmuch as the system isn't really in trouble.

http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm (it's the third poll down)

Also, I don't think Chomsky is suggesting we don't fight back. In fact, he's suggesting we expand the fight to address the health care crisis.

[acmavm]

10. But bush** should NOT BE GIVEN CREDIT for winning this argument.

Not even in the short term.

A lot of why people think there's a problem with Social Security is because for decades it's been a hot button issue. It really wasn't until Clinton's presidency that the funding for the future looked pretty good. Now we're hearing about 'problems' in the fund. Do you know why we have these problems now? BECAUSE THE bush** ADMIN. HAS LOOTED IT, that's why. Like they've looted everything else. (Soon they'll do a Caligula and make it mandatory for American citizens to will their property over to the state when they die.)

Anyway, acknowledging a problem in the funding is just the same as saying "yes we realize that old sticky fingers and his gang have managed to steal every penny in the fund they could lay their hands on". It is not that bush** has won any argument. It's just that articles like this give him credit where no credit is due. Articles like this just provide more cover for the crimes of this administration. It also prevents a lot of people from facing this issue and making their feelings known because they get the idea that it's already a lost cause, pointless. And it lets them get away with yet ANOTHER FRIGGING LIE. In fact, more than one. It lets them cover the fact that Soc Sec is in deep doo doo mostly because of them and it promotes the lie that bush** is thinking about us old croaks and our long term economic situation. WELL THAT'S COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT.

[cthrumatrix]

2. Can't entirely agree... America knows bush is "liar" first

Second...they have learned that Bush and others have been wrecklessly spending Soc Sec contributions in the annual budget.

Thirdly, we all agree that simple demographics require changes "down the road" becuase the govt screwed us.

[Edgewater_Joe]

3. I Must Disagree With Prof. Chomsky On This Point

The fact is, most people see S.S. as a funding problem, but hardly the kind of serious problem that Bush continues to LIE about. People have rejected that notion wholeheartedly.

Besides, in this debate it is clear that the Democrats have the upper hand. Astonishing, but true! Any reform now looks like it will not include private accounts and will not even vaguely look as if it will destroy the system.

And we must also remember, as in the filibuster debate (although in that instance it was a bitter victory for us): anything less than a 1,000% victory for the Republicans is a defeat for the Republicans, since they see victory as "We get everything we want, you lick our arse and say 'thank you'." That CLEARLY won't happen with S.S.

[Terran1212]

4. Does anyone but the topic poster actually read Chomsky?

While DU loves to make "Bush is Hitler" photos and stick them in their topics, they fail to realize that Bush is just a puppet in a much larger Establishment that pretty much goes along with most right-wing agendas.

The problem is that Washington has many interests and power, and those moneyed interests are conveyed by both most republicans and democrats. Just by railing on Bush, you're playing right into their trap -- thinking he's the only problem, and that the Democratic "opposition" is any less in bed with the police state/militarism/corporations.

[bicentennial_baby]

5. I read Chomsky every day

Slowly plowing my way through 800 pages of "Language and Politics", and I agree with you 100% on this:

"Just by railing on Bush, you're playing right into their trap -- thinking he's the only problem, and that the Democratic "opposition" is any less in bed with the police state/militarism/corporations."

[ElectroPrincess]

16. There is NO true Democratic opposition ...

Because they personally are taken care of MANY of our so call Democratic representatives DO NOT CARE and are either complacent or in on the deal to give our money to Wall Street.

Damn them! We have no real Democratic opposition in D.C.

[bicentennial_baby]

18. That's how I feel

The so-called opposition is so far removed from what the rest of us know as reality. Big money and big business are what's killing the soul of this country, eroding it at an ever increasing rate.

[IChing]

20. thank you, it is the bigger picture he is talking about

Not just the one bush in the forest

[stealthbadger]

7. Or to put it simply:

Don't forget last election, no matter who won, it was going to be a middle-aged white guy who graduated from Yale.

Why do you think the Republican-Lite Democrats appeared? And why do you think they're fighting so hard to keep themselves in an apparently untenable position? Because the people it supports are making sure that someone will benefit greatly from taking those political positions, whatever "side of the aisle" they happen to occupy.

Mind-boggling fact of the day: George W. Bush got his Bachelor's degree in History.

:wtf:

[newyawker99]

23. Hi stealthbadger!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[acmavm]

12. Thanks for the civics lesson. Yes we're all stupid here and we don't

read anything beyond the article titles.

For me, and for many of us, we say"'bush** did this and bush** did that" because he's the figurehead for this bunch of criminals. That's his job. He's the front man. So therefore, we give credit to the BFEE in the name of george w. bush**.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

22. Just watched 'Rebel Without a Pause"

There were maybe 2 statements he made that I didn't quite agree with, the rest was dead on.

[Stirk]

28. I'd bet that most people here read Chomsky.

[BiggJawn]

8. Has Chomsky ever suggested a solution to ANYTHING?

Bush is polling how much on the SS issue? 30%? 27%? Sure sounds like he's "won", doesn't it? If a piss-poor showing like that is "winning", why, then I can see why they tell us we're "winning" in Iraq.

Oh, well, why'd I bother bringing up my second point? I'll get 30 replies to this from psuedo-intellectuals accusing me of being a Mouthbreather, because I didn't fawn over the Great Perfesser.....

[Terran1212]

11. YOUR PROBLEM is that...

You only look at the small picture. You look at the narrow stream of politics of "poll numbers" and "Democrats and Republicans" and what Washington wants you to see. You don't see the much bigger picture of how corporations and government interact, and you don't see the almost invisible conspiracy against the working man.

That's because all of our "democratic" politicians who are supposed to representing our interests aren't genuinely interested in us.

Chomsky looks at things from a global and historical perspective, and if you don't want to be manipulated by the two corporate parties or what Chomsky calls the "business press," I think you should, too.

After all, in all of this rooting for Democrats because they represent the "Left", how much have you accomplished? You've never been able to put someone in office who really is a Leftist, who really could stand up to corporations and stand up against war and the police powers of the State.

Bill Clinton? Give me a break.

It's all because you keep standing up for people who don't care about you, because they are the so-called "other side."

[BiggJawn]

14. One down, twenty-nine to go....

"It's all because you keep standing up for people who don't care about you, because they are the so-called "other side.""

Did I say a damn thing about "standing up" for anyone, least of all Bill Clinton?

Noam Chomsky "stands for me"? I seriously doubt that. Just like I doubt Ralph Nader stood for me. And I bring up Nader only because your inferrence that the 2 major parties are just 2 different flavours of the same beast ("Corporate Parties")reminds me of the Naderite's main talking point for the last 2 election cycles.

"Chomsky looks at things from a global and historical perspective, and if you don't want to be manipulated by the two corporate parties or what Chomsky calls the "business press," I think you should, too."

But I don't like Kool-Aid. what I read there is, as I forsaw somebody responding, "If you don't believe everything that comes from the pen of The Great Noam, why, you're just an easily-manipulated TOOL of the Corporate Machine."

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

19. HaHa...

... :rofl:

[burythehatchet]

26. Suggesting a solution may not be very relevant

There is no solution per se, but there can be a coordinated set of policies. If you want to understand what Chomsky would do, you need look no further than the first paragraph if the original post. The foundation of any reform in our society has to be health care. The crisis in health care that is coming upon us in the next few years is going to be frightening. Tragically, health care is a no-brainer, single payer, but that would equalize the classes. This is class warfare at its finest/worst. In social security, the benefit is defined and distributed equally: That's what conservatives hate, fairness and equality. Health care, on the other hand is vastly unequal. The rich get GREAT care, you and me get bullshit. That's why healthcare doesn't need to be reformed, according to the fascists. Class warfare.

on edit: its not very "progressive" or "liberal" to try and shame a group of people by denigrating their level of intellectualism. In fact, that's a very right wing type of behaviour. I'm just sayin'

[BiggJawn]

30. (sigh)...

You did the same thing.

" If you want to understand what Chomsky would do, you need look no further than the first paragraph if the original post. The foundation of any reform in our society has to be health care. The crisis in health care that is coming upon us in the next few years is going to be frightening. Tragically, health care is a no-brainer, single payer, but that would equalize the classes. This is class warfare at its finest/worst. In social security, the benefit is defined and distributed equally: That's what conservatives hate, fairness and equality. Health care, on the other hand is vastly unequal. The rich get GREAT care, you and me get bullshit. That's why healthcare doesn't need to be reformed, according to the fascists. Class warfare."

OK, Health Care is thr answer. Is that your FINAL answer?
I read your paragraph several times, and I'm really sorry, but it STILL seems to be strong on criticism and short on solution.


" its not very "progressive" or "liberal" to try and shame a group of people by denigrating their level of intellectualism."

Like chuckling between the lines at someone who seems to be too dense to grasp The Great Man's insight? I'm not saying YOU, now, I'm just saying.....

[burythehatchet]

31. sigh is right...sorry to disappoint...rage on

[burythehatchet]

32. what the hell is so hard to understand about single payer health care?

You make it very tempting for people to take exactly the attitude that you seem to be abhor. Disscuss the damn issue not how you want it discussed.

[Stirk]

29. I agree with you completely.

You can't look at this issue in a vaccuum. There's been a push to convince people that SS is broken for *decades*. Many people were already convinced of this. Sure, Bush convinced the people who'd already swallowed the propaganda, but so what?

The Bush Administration damaged *itself* greatly, and didn't really advance the SS Bankruptcy myth much at all. People didn't buy his sales pitch. In other words, they knew he was lying just to steal more money. Not a win.

Even in the larger sense, they lost. Yes, they forced the subject into the public dialogue. But the public soundly rejected it. There was a reason that previous efforts were so subtle. Why would these corporatists ask a question ("can we destroy your SS, please?") when they already knew the answer?

[davekriss]

34. "Has Chomsky ever suggested a solution to ANYTHING?"

If you assume that there's no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, there are opportunities to change things, there's a chance you may contribute to making a better world. That's your choice.
-- Noam Chomsky

For these words alone, the "great Perfesser" deserves to be included amongst the heros of our time. He discerns. He speaks truth to power. Unswervingly.

We all need to refresh ourselves with his example.

[WePurrsevere]

9. I disagree , Why give in to defeatist mentality now

Most of the American people don't want SS to go away. Many are better educated about this issue then others because it could cost them a lot of funding they need.

There are other ways to get SS funded better... removing the cap for one would be a huge help. Why should lower income people required to pay a higher percentage of their income into this fund then those who make so much more?

What also would help is if the government would KEEP their hands OUT of the SS fund.

Ever since FDR came up with the concept it's been a Republica agenda to destroy it. BushCo and the current neo-cons in office have been doing everything they can to fulfill that long term goal. Why should they care.. they have plenty of money and investments to live well after retirement and illness/injury. He also has changed his wording from he's not going to touch SSD for the disabled to "they'll still get a check". Pfft! I want to see him and all the others who are trying to destroy SS live well on what SSR and SSD pay now no less if they cut it back. :grr:

[julianer]

15. IMO

Chomsky has a very good, clear understanding of what is happening in society.

His critics should realise that their criticism is partly conditioned by the same propaganda that Chomsky meant when he said Bush was 'winning' on SS.

People see a 'problem' with Chomsky though they may not be able to say what it is. Maybe this is because he's a minor hate figure for the right and has been widely 'discredited'(read ignored and/or villified) by the corporate media.

It's insidious, and it has its effect on all of us as well.

[WePurrsevere]

21. Actually I didn't disagree

based on who Chomsky is, but on SOME of what he said.

I tend to agree that much of the SS "crisis" is indeed over blown but I don't agree when it looks like he's saying that there's actually no real problem at all really, it will take care of itself down the road so don't worry about it.

I need to disagree with Mr. Chomsky that even short term BushCo has "won" partly because I don't want to give BushCo that much credit and partly because I know that fear can cause a "why bother" attitude (which won't help stop BushCo's agenda of destruction) or it can be a powerful motivator. Personally I'm rather hoping that the fear of eating out of cat food cans and not having enough money to even live off of (if BushCo get their cuts) will prove a powerful motivator to fight and therefore galvanize the voters to make a very strong anti-Republican statement come Elections '06 and '08. :D

As far as the "cap" I mentioned from what I've found it appears that those with lower incomes carry the largest per capita burden of SS funding. IMO that isn't right either. IMO this needs to be changed whether one says it's to "fix" SS funds or not.

Although I'm far from the "expert" this is an issue my husband and I have been following more so then usual because it's something that may very well deeply effect our very lives (especially if BushCo and his Neo-Cons get their way) since we're both now physically disabled and Bush has changed his tune to now only saying that "the disabled will still get a check".

Oh and btw you are of course entitled to your opinion :) but please do not assume that I can't use my own mind and filter out what is said by others and develop my own thoughts and opinions based on research and facts gleaned from various sources. Courtesy of growing up in the 60's and 70's I also have developed a fairly healthy political BS meter. ;)

[julianer]

35. I'm very sorry

if I've offended by assumption.

But I get the same all the time with Galloway. People still say 'well I like what you say but I'm not sure about Galloway' - and this is solely on the basis of the lies that have been spread about him. When you delve deeper into their problems with him you find that there is no criticism that isn't manufactured by our enemies.

Also I'm quite a big Chomsky fan: I have my doubts about his vague anarchism but his analysis is generally spot on.

[AzDar]

13. He's won NOTHING.....he's a congenital liar, loser, and thief.

People are beginning to catch on.

[applegrove]

17. I agree. Bush did a good job of normalizing the issue while not

allowing discussion on specifics. Just part A of the plan.

[Disturbed]

25. Oligarchy/Plutocracy

Do they mean the same thing?

I believe that Amerika is now dominated by Corporate Power and the politicians are mostly servants of Corp. Amerika.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Chomsky, as usual, cuts through the bullshit.

The fertilizer spread by the politicians that refuse to risk their precious seats by addressing the real issues.

[Stirk]

27. No. Bush's hard-sell forced Dems to publicly say that there is no crisis.

Just a few years ago, "everyone" agreed that we needed some sort of SS reform. Remember that? Some said we needed to cut benefits, others that we needed to privatize it, but *nobody* with access to the cameras was saying we should just leave it alone.

Bush forced the issues, and even moderate Dems had to come out and say SS is solvent.

Alot of are convinced that SS needs to be "reformed", sure. But it's nothing new. What's *new* is that the reality of the situation is no longer taboo. People *do* say that SS is fine on TV now. That was unacceptable before.

I'm sorry- Bush lost on that issue in every way.

[donco6]

33. What's he smoking?

Bush hasn't even won the "it must be fixed issue." What's he talking about?

[Eyeball Kid]

36. The fact that anyone thinks SS has big problems is worrying.

We all know that the repigs hate government programs that help the non-rich. And we all know that their accustomed MO is to "reform" these programs out of existence. Look at PBS. Look at Head Start. Amtrak. And the better the programs worked originally, the more the repigs hated them.

What we need to do is somehow re-electrify the "third rail" that once protected SS from these animals.

To this day I still don't understand why someone hasn't Photoshopped (or GIMPed, no OS flames, please) an ad campaign for NEW. GOP. BRAND. DOG FOOD!

With a picture of a sweet old lady looking at a spoon of chum with anxious displeasure on the label, and instead of ALPO... GOP.

Buy full color ads in every periodical. Every newspaper. Run it during Survivor.

That'll drive a stake through their cold repig hearts.

[bread_and_roses]

37. Time, energy, and resources have had to be diverted to this fight

All over the country, people/organizations are engaged in a concerted effort to keep the public informed and the opposition active. The opposition to Little Boot (stole that gem from another poster) and his handlers on this one has not occurred in a vacuum. All around the country Reps - especially Republican but also Dems - are hearing from their Senior constituents (and others, but Seniors are a reliable voting block and are critical to this effort), keeping the pressure on.

That time and energy could be well-spent on other issues, particularly health care.

This, too, is how they win. The assault is so continuous on every front that we are fractured and splintered, some battling environment, some trade and labor, some safety net, etc.

As for the issue being "dead" I still hear comments about raising the retirement age, as "opposed" to lowering benefits - as if raising the retirement age was not lowering benefits by another name! In fact, I seem to remember Dean supporting that approach.

Our Corporate Masters are good at biding their time. I would not be confident yet that we have won.