Reply #37: A Larger, General Reason for Their Attack--Their Whole Mindset

[Hidden Stillness]

I think there is a larger, general reason why the Bushs/Republicans want to get rid of Social Security and all other programs like it, that goes way beyond grabbing the money in the Trust Fund, and hatred of the Roosevelts and all other saintly "traitors to their class"--although that is all part of it, too. Now that the middle class populist Democrats are taking over the Party again, and throwing the corporate "D"LC out, it allows you to hear Republicans for what they are again, from the correct perspective and with the needed contrast. They are the Party of bankers and rich people, who would let you starve if it were left up to them, who fear that their servants are "cheating" them, by getting paid and having days off, and who actually believe that they are rich and we are not, because they are superior to us. It is a totally different mind-set.

This is the type that believes that there are "the right sort of people" and "the wrong sort of people," snobs right down to the core, and that if they steal taxpayers' money for their corporate friends, well, 1) we are the inferior losers, and 2) it is there for the taking, and only the go-getters and self-starters can prosper at these, the most dizzying heights of the game. It is "theirs for the taking," and if we had had any real talent, we would have stolen it first. They get drunk, shoot people in the face for disagreeing with them, refuse to cooperate with police, order the victims to crawl out of bed and publicly apologize--and there are no consequences for them! You think they aren't laughing every day of their lives? This ilk gets illegally obtained prescriptions, hires a team of lawyers, and makes all the charges go away. They dodge the draft, dodge the National Guard, and no one ever refers to it; it is only a crime, if the "little people" do it.

The thing to remember about Social Security is that it was not a savings account (for an individual), but an insurance program, that all of us together can rely on, and that a Government owed to its citizens. If you only had a job for a short time, became disabled, and could no longer work, you got a safe and reliable payment beyond what would have been possible if it had been based on your history alone. All contribute, and the total earns further interest from having been invested. Also, people who cannot have had work histories, such as the children of deceased workers, or the disabled, will have an income from Social Security. It is the obligation and promise of all of our society together, as one. The previously progressive tax structure guaranteed that all would pay into the total system as they could afford it, and carry their weight, as their price for belonging to, and benefitting from the American way of life. This was not "charity" that rich people choose to give, and that the recipient should feel "grateful" (and obligated) for; it was their right, and there was no further comment upon it at all.

There was a statement during the OP, the section "George Bush's Social Security privatization scam in perspective," that Roosevelt "advocated the need for government to level the playing field in our country and thereby lend a helping hand to the least fortunate among us." With all due respect, I don't think Roosevelt ever would have put it that way. Roosevelt would not have called them fortunate or unfortunate, but poor, exploited, abused, and about to be free again. More to the point, FDR would have called the capitalists something--criminals, "economic royalists," as during the 2nd Inaugural. This would have been treated as a moral outrage that rich capitalists further enrich themselves, by abusing the rest of the citizens of our country. It was not a "level playing field" that was called for, but justice, and laws.

This New Deal attitude was part of a larger attitude that believed that if you wanted to help people, and end poverty, you made direct cash payments to the poor people themselves. This way, you have instant economic relief: they pay bills, buy food, get repairs made on things they own, go to other stores in the neighborhood, and the whole area starts lifting itself out of Depression. They were not treated as slackers, "chiselers and cheats," according to the Roosevelt quote at the end; but as our neighbors, who will not regain their dignity until they have their lives back. The Republican attitude is the opposite--funnel all the money to corporate management, whether it makes any sense or helps anything, or not. Give nothing to the "lower classes." Nothing hurts a Republican more to think about, than the prospect that "the little people" are getting something, and worst of all, did not beg, crawl, or work for it. The idea that the rich have a moral obligation to help all of our citizens, is considered an effront to their social standing.

I wish I could convey how much I hate these people, and how I love saintly "traitors to their class," like Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, the Kennedys, and etc. I hope this does it, a little.