If by “structurally sound,” Obama meant $8.6 trillion in the hole, and worsening.
I guess it’s all a matter of perspective: if what you want is the whole system to topple, knowing that the money will run out and the system will then collapse, atop which rubble you plan to build a liberal fascist / socialist Utopia run by a permanent ruling class that isn’t held in check by hoary Enlightenment ideas about something provenance other than man responsible for the creation and securing of so-called “fundamental” rights (which themselves can only lay claim to a man-made linguistic contingency), then yes, Social Security is structurally sound.
It, along with Medicare, are the poison pills that finally do away with any last wellspring of individual freedom. Now we’re just waiting for them to complete their time-release dissolve. Structurally.
Romney never challenged Obama on his characterization of Social Security. But I suspect that’ll be part of Paul Ryan’s job.
I don’t think Obama is bright enough to be the evil schemer we suspect of wanting to topple the whole system so that he can build his perfect empire atop the rubble. I think he just works for one.
The revolution insists on preserving the immediacy of the contact of the physical world with the theoretical world: “Those abstractions you tout as policies, Mr. Obama? They harm us in the physical world. We merely return the favor. You media shills supporting this monster? We pay you scum in spades, lest you any longer seek to forget your welts will remind you.”
Nuance!
– Its a subtle matter of relativity. When you compare the state of the rest of the economy in almost any area you care to examine, then SS can be said to be structually sound.
– Think of a clutch of baby ducks waddling across a busy hughway, following Mamma. One baby duck avoids being crushed, and therefore is structially sound. Until the next trip across the freeway, but thats just nit picking the Utopia.
I think you hit on something that leads me to be far (far) less exultant about the debate last night, “Romney never challenged Obama on his characterization of Social Security.”
This is not a minor point – in fact it is the one traction-able argument in favor of reform. One should certainly put forth a philosophical argument, but … i digress.
Obama made a point of stating that SS was fundamentally sound three times. It was obviously a tactic to either get Romney to concede the point or to force him to debate on grounds (for the cautious Romney) that were unfavorable. By not answering the point expressly, Romney concedes it. Again, Obama did not simply make the statement off-hand. Furthermore, Romney s reluctance sent signal of fear. Would Ryan really volunteer that the system is broken when Romney spent much energy being defensive about how much he too knows that “our promises” are inviolate.
In fact, throughout most of the debate I thought Obama controlled the narrative. I think the focus on demeanor may be a bit of a side show – and besides many “high information” voters are interpreting demeanor based on preconceptions. How many “undecideds” will really conclude that Obama’s demeanor is the result of him being challenged for the first time? We have been paying attention – they just may conclude that he is more serious and not trying so hard to be “political” and score points. Who knows? I still can’t fathom how so many see (saw) him as likeable in the first place.
Think about the points that Obama set out to plant (or reinforce) and those that were left unanswered. Here are a couple more examples:
O: The last 4 years would have been bad no matter what – because of an approach that I am against – and have been better than they would have been had my policies not mitigated the damage to a reasonable extent. (this was the entire takeaway from Clinton’s DNC speech as well).
R: The economy is terrible.
O: I concede that the economy is terrible, but going back to the approach that got us into this mess is not the way to go.
R: I feel whatshername’s pain who I met in Oklahoma the other day. The economy is bad.
O: You are not specific. Your plans are pie-in-the-sky and not serious. (Obama came back to this throughout the night).
R: I have a 5 point plan. We need to lower the deficit and get people jobs and get people higher wages and do energy independence.
O: I want to do all of those things too. You are still not being specific.
O: You want to cut regulations and allow Wall Street to run wild. Wall Street has exploited people and its greed has led us to our ills – perhaps people taking on loans they shouldn’t have may have also been a cause (not sure how that happened, but it’s not like we can do anything about that).
R: Regulations are vital! I am regulation’s best friend. Your regulations are good except for this one thing here and this one thing there. (I concede that Wall Street has been a huge contributor to our ills – and that it is the only thing that must be corrected).
O: You want to give the rich tax breaks. I mean profit is okay, I guess, but it is our (govt.) job to be the responsible party and ensure that everything is running the way it is supposed to.
R: I only want to cut taxes for this segment here and that segment there and only because studies show that it will create jobs. Of course if a tax cut can in any way, shape, or form be shown to increase the deficit, I won’t do it. I feel so strongly about this, I’m going to say it on the record five times.
O: I’m all for cutting taxes for the little man and have done it during my administration, but you want to cut taxes on the oligarchs!
R: I concede that you have cut taxes on the little man and I want to do it too. I will not cut taxes on the nasty oligarchs and my tax cuts will not “cost” the government as much as you say it will.
O: Will too cut taxes.
R: Will not cut taxes!
Okay apologies for the long post. I’m just saying that an opportunity was blown, Obama was allowed to skirt a little, Romney and apparently the entire political right may be letting the big picture get lost in translation.
How many “undecideds” will really conclude that Obama’s demeanor is the result of him being challenged for the first time? …they just may conclude that he is more serious and not trying so hard to be “political” and score points.
The undecideds in my office are using words like “small,” “defensive,” and “didn’t want to be there” to describe Obama. For Romney, they’re using words like “positive,” “confident,” “vision,” and “nice.” I don’t think they’re drawing anything like the conclusions you posit.
I suggested that they give Jugears the benefit of the doubt, since he was probably distracted and preoccupied by a report regarding just how horribly pear-shaped his little Middle East project is going. I’m a giver that way.
jrd, I realize you are having fun with hyperbole in your post. I didn’t hear the debate the way you did.
A 90 minute debate covering three or four different topics is not the place to get into the nuts and bolts of a monolith like SSI or business taxes. Besides, that’s Ryan’s job and he’ll bring it to Uncle Joe next week.
Personally, and it may sound wrong, but I could give a shit about Social Security right now. If Romney can restore America to pre-Speaker Pelosi shape again in his first term, I’ll think he’s done a hellava good job.
Romney might as well have been debating Eastwood’s empty chair. No matter how the debate is spun after the fact, during the debate Obama just wasn’t there.
Bits and pieces of Obama’s “I’m running against the last four years even though I AM the last four years” stump speech was there though. Which is what was important.
I’m loving listening to Barry sounding like a petulant twit out on the stump today.
Rush is on the same page as me and my psychic twin, BBH, too. Rush also says that the press is edging toward the exits, mainly because they are pissed off. After five years or so of carrying Barry’s water, he’s making them look like chumps, which they are, but hey.
The next week is going to be telling, my Outlaw friends.
“….if what you want is the whole system to topple, knowing that the money will run out and the system will then collapse, atop which rubble you plan to build a liberal fascist / socialist Utopia run by a permanent ruling class that isn’t held in check by hoary Enlightenment ideas …”
The thing is, what’s their exit strategy? Those people can barely start a fire without a Bic, let alone sweep up any rubble. Do they really think they’re then merely going to step into the vacuum and assume total control, post-havoc, no questions asked? I mean, who’s gonna win that fight?
I’m asking rhetorically, of course.
The exit strategy is the adoration of the masses finally recognizing their super human genius. They don’t think it through much beyond that.
What can I tell you? They believe their own manifesto hype. The Weatherman always thought the people would eventually come around. The people, however, grew bored and eventually started watching Miami Vice while the Weatherman hid out in basements and flop houses.
Even so, they still believe that this next time it’s going to work…
– The Left is in all out vibrate mode, and Obama’s SS comments in last nights debate have them reeling, topping the list of fails.
– After all, scaring the crap out of Grandma is a time honored Democratic campaign slogan/tactic, and even more important pandering for the Old Fart vote.
– Jug ears not only failed to bring up the differences between him and Romney, he basically said the two of them were in agreement. Commieland is totally bat-shit freaked on the whole disaster.