Here, if Diebold again shall work its wonders, perched about American flags he soon hopes to swear before, we have John McCain both proposing privatization of Social Security and later telling us he has never advocated privatization of Social Security.
To the degree that vast unfunded liabilities engender either direct or indirect accumulation of federal debt (regardless of the program to which the debt is “officially” attributed), Social Security may already be considered a “privatized” social program, under the umbrella of which, at prospectively no profit or undue cost, federal offices perform the whole of mundane duties, while the so called financial system collects vast unearned profit by its usurpation of the monetary system.
What then, in any prospective political manifestation, does “privatization” mean? In the present case of “privatization” so far, “privatization” means enforced, obligatory expenses financed at vast redundant costs simply given to private corporations (the private, so called “Federal” Reserve System), for no benefit or service whatever. Thus under the quest to “privatize” so far, these usurers and the many who are tied to their purse strings are looting our country to the last days of the republic.
Thus to preserve the degree of privatization imposed in the monetary system, or to extend privatization to any other further area of administration (imposing further profit, as imposed upon the present war), both are to stand for privatization at incredible expense to the people — and, even under the present extent of privatization so far, to the already demonstrated fault of destroying the very sustainability of the program.
The term “privatization” therefore is designed to appeal to the simpleton who associates “private” with representation of the individual/freedom. Of course, like practically all political terms these days, it effectively means the opposite of what it’s intended to appear to mean (to the simpleton): it is a veil over acts which prey upon the individual and destroy freedom.
Because politicians of McCain’s line of pretension therefore can never engage in transparent, comprehensive discussion of the implications of privatization, they simply tell their constituents that privatization is more effective. But the truth always is, that the most efficient thing to do is to cut the fat out of the program, because given that we can do that, the *profit* which is the object of privatization can only increase cost above that. The first and most destructive fat to cut then would be the privatized monetary system which is destroying the whole country and very prospect of free enterprise. McCain of course won’t even consider doing that, because he represents all these thieves — and by extension, their multiplying destruction.
If McCain were to argue the opposite, that a government social program cannot be administered by the likes of Congress, of course he has no business even being either a Senator or advocate of privatization, because then his actions admit he cannot even touch upon the program which will minimize costs.
But to argue that a mandatory social program be amputated to privatization on the other hand certifies he’s a whore to the plutocracy, which itself is moving its headquarters to places such as Dubai, where they can hide from U.S. law for their crimes, and where they can better avoid the cries of the American people, in the death throes the plutocracy leaves us.