Study Results

["J.P." <ccw@igc.org>]

Well,

Thanks to all you pavlovian doggies who participated in my little
stimulus-reaction test. You only confirmed that the only hue-and-cry
out there in society for privatizing Social Security comes from
the social forces that stand to gain most handsomely from it
(e.g.--corporations and high management-level employees), think
they will gain from it (e.g.-- libertarian middle-class types), or
are paid staff members of various corporate front groups aimed at
Social Security's destruction.

A casual review of the 52 people who bothered to post to "Why Reform
Now" revealed no reflection of a genuine cross-section of the
American polity. The majority on this board are gung-ho for
privatization--which certainly doesn't match any available opinion
poll data on public attitudes towards Social Security. A strong
vocal minority are nearly insane with desire to destroy the program.

Childlike, anti-social, libertarian attitudes pervade the "discussion,"
with many posters under the delusional belief that it is possible
to be an economic island unto one's self--in retirement, and also
it seems, in daily life.

The role of the ADSS "moderators" remains Machiavellian at best.
They continually act as if they are somehow "non-partisan" (as if
such a thing were possible or desireable), but clearly and repeatedly
try to keep the "discussion" moving rightwards towards some form
of privatization. To paraphrase The Italian himself, "Always watch
out for those who claim to be 'beyond politics'--because they will
always be the most political of all."

The role of the center-to-right politicians who were "panelists"
in this "discussion" was more or less to say what they were going
to say anyway whether there were other "participants" or not. They,
in essence, just made a few short speeches. [Actually, their staffers
probably made the speeches. . .same difference.] The Archer avatar,
however, had one brief little burst of temper that I found instructive,
at least.

Otherwise, I have a few direct responses to respondents to my
earlier post. . .

To Javier: I find it amusing that a capitalist calls a progressive
like myself a supporter of the "status quo." You would like to take
society back 150 years to a time where there were no economic
protections for working people against the wild roller-coaster that
is the capitalist economy. I want a society where people's basic
economic needs are automatically provided for out of publically-pooled
fruits of their labor. And I want a real democratic society where
corporate dollars don't buy off the political system at the expense
of the needs and desires of the population at large. Protections
like Social Security aren't "failed systems" as you put it, their
only "failure" is that they haven't yet gone far enough. To me
government by, of and for the people really means something. To
"depend" on such a government, as you put it, would mean nothing
more than depending on ourselves as a society--if our government
were made up more of beneficial Social Security-type agencies and
less of corporate slush-fund-ridden sinkholes like the Department
of Defense and the existing Department of Commerce. Finally, don't
even try to speak for working people like myself. . .it's just not
gonna play in Paducah.  [Oh and incidently, I have every document
ADSS has ever put out. You, my friend, might try checking out their
website and reviewing their board of directors, etc.  It's all
easily available. Or have them express mail stuff to you. Lord
knows, they've got plenty of ready cash. . .] *RE: your second
response to me via Charlie Hoyt, see my response to Marwan below.*

To Michael: You'll note that I didn't say all corporate-types in
this debate are from well-off families. Only most. And sure, anyone
can theoretically "be successful" in this society--if by successful
you mean amassing big wads o' cash. But only an infinitesimal
percentage of people who start off poor end up rich these days in
America. The overwhelming majority of people that start off rich,
however, end up rich. That sounds alot more like the U.S. is an
oligarchy to me than the meritocracy you make it sound like. Plus,
it's funny that you say [being successful] "does not have to be
realized on the backs of people who have already made it." As if
the rich are under such a terrible burden from poor,working and
middle-class people in this 20-year-long era of uninterupted tax
breaks for corporations and the wealthy. I'm pleased, though, that
you're not silly enough to suggest that one can get rich without
putting a burden on the backs of the poor. On the other hand, you
are silly enough to suggest that money, savings and investment
happen in some kind of economic vacuum-- where those "market forces"
you free-marketeers like to inveigh don't seem to apply. So, what,
all I have to do is put money I don't have in the bank or a mutual
fund, and in 30 years I'll have enough money to retire on? That
might work if:  a) I and most working Americans made a living wage
to begin with, b) no emergencies ever happened in my life that
might require a quick infusion of much of my savings, and c) we
all lived in a magical fairy land where banks and mutual funds
weren't constantly engaged in speculating with my money and, thus,
there were no major market crashes or bank failures in the next 30
years to wipe out my "savings" to begin with.  I mean, dude, why
do you think State Street Bank and Prudential and Fidelity are so
all fired keen to have everybody "saving" money? They want to play
with it. And the current political deck is absolutely stacked in
their favor. They can speculate to their greedy hearts content,
pay no taxes on their financial transactions (and few real taxes
of any kind), charge fees to little guys like me (and, I suppose,
you) to pull in even more principle for themselves. . .and then if
they blow it and tank out, what? Do they eat their losses? No
freakin' way, my friend. They just bill those "taxpayers" people
like you are always "defending" and get a nice fat bailout package
from that evil bad horrible government of ours.  So, socialism's
apparantly o.k. as long as its for the corporations?

To Charlie: Thank you much, Brother Hoyt.

To Marwan: Ah yes, playing the old "civility" card. As I've already
inferred, I made my first post purposely inflammatory to see: a)
if ADSS would allow it to be posted, and b) how corporate-types
like you would respond to it. But let's say my purposes in the
first post were less than scientific.  For some years now, people
like you and organizations like ADSS have been peddling the most
obscene lies about the most popular and successful public program
in American history--a program that has personally benefitted my
family and the family of every American I know. As if calling Social
Security a "pyramid scheme" (etc.) weren't bad enough you all have
actively worked to destroy the program. This destruction would hurt
this country far worse than the failed privatized programs of the
U.K. and Chile have ever hurt those countries. But still, for all
this, you expect working Americans to be NICE to you people? That's
a bit much, don' t you think?

Anyhow, this has all been ever so much fun, but I think I'll call
it a millennium.

Toodles (see ya on the barricades!),

J.P.