I appreciate your post. In its way it is a magnificent mountain, but I still think it is unequal to the molehill which inspired it, i.e., calling someone crazy.
Without diminishing it, I also think you are talking about a social problem, not a political one, or if it's political it is so only in a way that makes it too subtle for political use. In other words, I do not believe we lack for a vigorous labor movement (broadly defined) because of attitudes towards gays, the disabled, etc. Such attitudes might be an artifact of such a lack, but that's a different story and implies a different sequence of response.
A secondary point: you seem to see the attack on Social Security as a replay of welfare reform. Never is the criticism of Social Security motivated as a way to discipline or punish beneficiaries, as was the case with welfare. The attack is more fundamental in an economic sense--it invites people to reject collective provision of our most basic economic benefit as a matter of practicality and ideology. Winning this argument -- not one about marginal people -- is fundamental to the future course of public policy. (Hence my emphasis in another post on foregoing what in this context are diversions, like sticking it to the rich.
> I asked Max if I could debate him.
>
>Max replies:
>"No, because I don't think it's worth debating"
In this case you have obviously changed my mind.
Regards,
Max