What's the Real Reason Republicans Want to Do Away With Social Security?

[midcan5]

I agree partly with the OP's premise, but I think the roots of 'hatred' (allow me a conservative device) for Social Security are much deeper than just giving wall street more money. Ever since SS was started by FDR it has been a target of the conservative right wing. Why? I think there are many reasons and I will outline a few of the obvious ones.

Paying into SS takes money from my pocket to help another. I use 'my' figuratively as I have never complained about paying SS. SS is a great equalizer, it represents social democracy at its best, and many find this idea repulsive. Hierarchical thought is fundamental to conservatism.

SS was started by a democrat and it demonstrated a good thing government can do, its cost for administration are better than most programs, public or private. It also cost corporations money as they have to pay into it at the rate and salary of their employees. Corporations today run America, and it is probably their money and power that keeps the issue in heated debate.

SS may be the nicest, most Christian, most democratic, most helpful social justice action of America's history and if it wasn't corporate money, it would receive minor notice and improved funding. Even Reagan helped.

PS SS is also solvent and it is war and medical expense that are creating the largest deficits.


"To serve contentment, there were and are three basic requirements. One is the need to defend the general limitation on government as regards the economy; there must be a doctrine that offers a feasible presumption against government intervention...The second, more specific need is to find social justification for the untrammeled, uninhibited pursuit and possession of wealth....There is need for demonstration that the pursuit of wealth or even less spectacular well-being serves a serious, even grave social purpose....The third need is to justify a reduced sense of public responsibility for the poor. Those so situated, the members of the functional and socially immobilised underclass, must, in some very real way, be seen as the architects of their own fate. If not, they could be, however marginally, on the conscience of the comfortable." John Kenneth Galbraith, 'The Culture of Contentment'

 

[Barb]

Wall Street wants its hands on the $2.6 Trillion that's in Social Security.

That would be up to the individual, not Wall Street. You idiots really think the government is honest and Wall Street are crooks, so naive.........

NOPE. Government is accountable, though, and Wall St crooks have the leisure to go bankrupt.
Government cooks the books. BOTH sides do it. THEY get in trouble for it though, and everyone is pissed at them, calling for heads to roll. When private interests do bad? Not so much. THEY are too big to fail, blah, de blah blah blah, and the US citizen is expected to bail their asses out. They contribute NOTHING. NOTHING. They are EXPECTED to contribute nothing, and OUR grandchildren are supposed to mortgage their futures before they can sign their names for the "health" of private industry, without so much as a check or a balance on if they reciprocate in kind, or if they are good corporate "citizens."
Government makes it possible for them to succeed. Government, GOOD government should make sure their success leads to successful outcomes for the citizens who UNDERWRITE the means to that success. The roads they drive on. The schools that educate their workers. The laws that prevent theft and fraud (even from themselves). The health care system (such as it is) that enabled THEM to live long enough to reach their goals, and prevents communicable diseases from infecting them at Starbucks or any other restaurant where low wages and benefits would prevent the detection of Hep C if not for free clinics and government sponsored health check ups for those whose low wage labor keeps their stocks profitable.
OMG YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK.

 

[Big Black Dog]

If I could have back every penny I have paid into Social Security, I wouldn't care if it disappeared.

 

[kaz]

There are certain things the "private sector" isn't good at, especially where it comes to the safeguarding of other peoples money. That takes government regulation, or else the private sector considers it their fiduciary responsibility to the major shareholders of THEIR stock to maximize their profits (and their CUT) whatever the cost is to the lowly peon citizen.
Left alone, SS would have been fine. It had ONE function, ONE purpose, and that was not to fund foreign adventures or pretend the budget balanced (or waved) when nothing could have been further from the truth.

There is...wait for it....no money in social security. The money spent. Sure, there are "t-bills," but what are t-bills? No assets, they are just promise of future taxpayers to pay them. So, future taxpayers get bills for social security and t-bills, which the future taxpayers pay for.

And you think the "private sector" isn't isn't good at safeguarding other people's money so you want politicians to do it? Please.

 

[editec]

If the T-Bills are worthless, then guess what?

America is RLREADY bankrupt.

But still the big money keeps buying the damned things so I guess, as long as T-Bills serve their interests, they'll also serve the interests of the PEOPLE OF THE USA (in the form of the SSA) who also own them

 

[Barb]

If I could have back every penny I have paid into Social Security, I wouldn't care if it disappeared.

Sweetie, if it disappeared, you couldn't have it back. I want mine back with compound interest. I'll never see a dime of it. Any of it. I'll live. Just for spite.

 

[Barb]

There are certain things the "private sector" isn't good at, especially where it comes to the safeguarding of other peoples money. That takes government regulation, or else the private sector considers it their fiduciary responsibility to the major shareholders of THEIR stock to maximize their profits (and their CUT) whatever the cost is to the lowly peon citizen.
Left alone, SS would have been fine. It had ONE function, ONE purpose, and that was not to fund foreign adventures or pretend the budget balanced (or waved) when nothing could have been further from the truth.

There is...wait for it....no money in social security. The money spent. Sure, there are "t-bills," but what are t-bills? No assets, they are just promise of future taxpayers to pay them. So, future taxpayers get bills for social security and t-bills, which the future taxpayers pay for.

And you think the "private sector" isn't isn't good at safeguarding other people's money so you want politicians to do it? Please.

For Christ sake. That was the whole premise. Are you slow? This generation pays for the generation that preceded us, and the next generation pays for us. That was the deal. If it was left alone, the interest on the boomers would cover the shortfall on the Xers, shit would work out.
And you know? Pointing out the fucked uptedness of your side to make our side look AS fucked up works for most of the population, but that success rate doesn't make you honest, and it does not fix the system.

 

[boedicca]

I agree partly with the OP's premise, but I think the roots of 'hatred' (allow me a conservative device) for Social Security are much deeper than just giving wall street more money. Ever since SS was started by FDR it has been a target of the conservative right wing. Why? I think there are many reasons and I will outline a few of the obvious ones.

Paying into SS takes money from my pocket to help another. I use 'my' figuratively as I have never complained about paying SS. SS is a great equalizer, it represents social democracy at its best, and many find this idea repulsive. Hierarchical thought is fundamental to conservatism.

SS was started by a democrat and it demonstrated a good thing government can do, its cost for administration are better than most programs, public or private. It also cost corporations money as they have to pay into it at the rate and salary of their employees. Corporations today run America, and it is probably their money and power that keeps the issue in heated debate.

SS may be the nicest, most Christian, most democratic, most helpful social justice action of America's history and if it wasn't corporate money, it would receive minor notice and improved funding. Even Reagan helped.

PS SS is also solvent and it is war and medical expense that are creating the largest deficits.


"To serve contentment, there were and are three basic requirements. One is the need to defend the general limitation on government as regards the economy; there must be a doctrine that offers a feasible presumption against government intervention...The second, more specific need is to find social justification for the untrammeled, uninhibited pursuit and possession of wealth....There is need for demonstration that the pursuit of wealth or even less spectacular well-being serves a serious, even grave social purpose....The third need is to justify a reduced sense of public responsibility for the poor. Those so situated, the members of the functional and socially immobilised underclass, must, in some very real way, be seen as the architects of their own fate. If not, they could be, however marginally, on the conscience of the comfortable." John Kenneth Galbraith, 'The Culture of Contentment'

One of the worst aspects of SS is that the "surplus" has been systematically raided by career politicians of both parties to fuel massive growth in government. If the accounts had been private, they wouldn't have had that ability. That's the real reason why the Big Government Types are so determined to separate individuals from their retirement assets.

And now, they are even trying to seize IRAs and 401ks on the pretext of converting them into "guaranteed retirement accounts".

Guaranteed Retirement Accounts: Toward retirement income security | Agenda for Shared Prosperity

 

[Vanquish]

The dirty, little secret of Social Security is that Americans lack the will-power to save. That's it!

I think SS should be done away with altogether because I have the ability to save my own money. But if we let everyone do that, a bunch of fools would blow through their salaries and never save anything.

Tough shit for them, says the conservative. Well hold yer horses. They'll end up swelling the ranks of the impoverished and cost us money anyway.

As far as privatization goes...I don't mind it...but I think we ought to be given a choice. Either keep it in the government system (yeah most people wouldnt but some might) or make a separate account that gets invested like another IRA.

Right, because every American lives off of SS when they retire, no investments of their own, no 401 k's or anything like that, negro pleeez.......

Negro pleeze yo' own damn self.

If you think middle america and poor america is living off of 401ks in retirement you're naive at best.

The percentage of American workers with virtually no retirement savings grew for the third straight year, according to a survey released Tuesday.

The percentage of workers who said they have less than $10,000 in savings grew to 43% in 2010, from 39% in 2009, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute's annual
Retirement Confidence Survey.

Most Americans still unprepared for retirement - survey - Mar. 9, 2010

Time and time again it's been proven that Americans don't like to save or just don't have the willpower to do it.

 

[Barb]

I agree partly with the OP's premise, but I think the roots of 'hatred' (allow me a conservative device) for Social Security are much deeper than just giving wall street more money. Ever since SS was started by FDR it has been a target of the conservative right wing. Why? I think there are many reasons and I will outline a few of the obvious ones.

Paying into SS takes money from my pocket to help another. I use 'my' figuratively as I have never complained about paying SS. SS is a great equalizer, it represents social democracy at its best, and many find this idea repulsive. Hierarchical thought is fundamental to conservatism.

SS was started by a democrat and it demonstrated a good thing government can do, its cost for administration are better than most programs, public or private. It also cost corporations money as they have to pay into it at the rate and salary of their employees. Corporations today run America, and it is probably their money and power that keeps the issue in heated debate.

SS may be the nicest, most Christian, most democratic, most helpful social justice action of America's history and if it wasn't corporate money, it would receive minor notice and improved funding. Even Reagan helped.

PS SS is also solvent and it is war and medical expense that are creating the largest deficits.


"To serve contentment, there were and are three basic requirements. One is the need to defend the general limitation on government as regards the economy; there must be a doctrine that offers a feasible presumption against government intervention...The second, more specific need is to find social justification for the untrammeled, uninhibited pursuit and possession of wealth....There is need for demonstration that the pursuit of wealth or even less spectacular well-being serves a serious, even grave social purpose....The third need is to justify a reduced sense of public responsibility for the poor. Those so situated, the members of the functional and socially immobilised underclass, must, in some very real way, be seen as the architects of their own fate. If not, they could be, however marginally, on the conscience of the comfortable." John Kenneth Galbraith, 'The Culture of Contentment'

One of the worst aspects of SS is that the "surplus" has been systematically raided by career politicians of both parties to fuel massive growth in government. If the accounts had been private, they wouldn't have had that ability. That's the real reason why the Big Government Types are so determined to separate individuals from their retirement assets.

And now, they are even trying to seize IRAs and 401ks on the pretext of converting them into "guaranteed retirement accounts".

Guaranteed Retirement Accounts: Toward retirement income security | Agenda for Shared Prosperity

Your idea that private industry would be any more honest is just as ludicrous.
PEOPLE can demand more honesty from government,
PEOPLE cannot demand SHIT from private industry, because they OWN our government.
We're pretty much fucked either way.

 

[driveby]

The dirty, little secret of Social Security is that Americans lack the will-power to save. That's it!

I think SS should be done away with altogether because I have the ability to save my own money. But if we let everyone do that, a bunch of fools would blow through their salaries and never save anything.

Tough shit for them, says the conservative. Well hold yer horses. They'll end up swelling the ranks of the impoverished and cost us money anyway.

As far as privatization goes...I don't mind it...but I think we ought to be given a choice. Either keep it in the government system (yeah most people wouldnt but some might) or make a separate account that gets invested like another IRA.

Right, because every American lives off of SS when they retire, no investments of their own, no 401 k's or anything like that, negro pleeez.......

Negro pleeze yo' own damn self.

If you think middle america and poor america is living off of 401ks in retirement you're naive at best.

The percentage of American workers with virtually no retirement savings grew for the third straight year, according to a survey released Tuesday.

The percentage of workers who said they have less than $10,000 in savings grew to 43% in 2010, from 39% in 2009, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute's annual
Retirement Confidence Survey.

Most Americans still unprepared for retirement - survey - Mar. 9, 2010

Time and time again it's been proven that Americans don't like to save or just don't have the willpower to do it.

Maybe if they had that SS money they wouldn't be so poor......

 

[Barb]

Right, because every American lives off of SS when they retire, no investments of their own, no 401 k's or anything like that, negro pleeez.......

Negro pleeze yo' own damn self.

If you think middle america and poor america is living off of 401ks in retirement you're naive at best.

The percentage of American workers with virtually no retirement savings grew for the third straight year, according to a survey released Tuesday.

The percentage of workers who said they have less than $10,000 in savings grew to 43% in 2010, from 39% in 2009, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute's annual
Retirement Confidence Survey.

Most Americans still unprepared for retirement - survey - Mar. 9, 2010

Time and time again it's been proven that Americans don't like to save or just don't have the willpower to do it.

Maybe if they had that SS money they wouldn't be so poor......

Yeah, cause most of us wouldn't "squander" it on the rent or the electric bill.

 

[Vanquish]

Ok. Drop SS. See what happens. You'll have old people who have nothing to retire on at all and become a severe drain on society...because they can't be bothered to save during their lifetimes.

That's one "I told you so" I really don't want to play out.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

American wages have been stagnant and in decline for 30 years. There is no job security anymore. How do you expect people to save for their retirement when every year, it gets harder and harder to make ends meet? I just don't understand the GOP perspective at all. Wouldn't you rather everyone pay in a little to make sure that the most vulnerable among us (the elderly) had some semblance of dignity after working for 40 years and contributing to society and, most often times, an employer's profits? It's not like we have pensions anymore. Just what do you expect people to do? Most cannot save up enough on what they make to ensure an even spartan retirement... most people just don't make enough money. When will you jokers realize that?

 

[Jarhead]

American wages have been stagnant and in decline for 30 years. There is no job security anymore. How do you expect people to save for their retirement when every year, it gets harder and harder to make ends meet? I just don't understand the GOP perspective at all. Wouldn't you rather everyone pay in a little to make sure that the most vulnerable among us (the elderly) had some semblance of dignity after working for 40 years and contributing to society and, most often times, an employer's profits? It's not like we have pensions anymore. Just what do you expect people to do? Most cannot save up enough on what they make to ensure an even spartan retirement... most people just don't make enough money. When will you jokers realize that?

Peepers...

IT IS COMING OUT OF THEIR OWN PAYCHECK!

what is it thast you dont get.

Jeez.

 

[boedicca]

I agree partly with the OP's premise, but I think the roots of 'hatred' (allow me a conservative device) for Social Security are much deeper than just giving wall street more money. Ever since SS was started by FDR it has been a target of the conservative right wing. Why? I think there are many reasons and I will outline a few of the obvious ones.

Paying into SS takes money from my pocket to help another. I use 'my' figuratively as I have never complained about paying SS. SS is a great equalizer, it represents social democracy at its best, and many find this idea repulsive. Hierarchical thought is fundamental to conservatism.

SS was started by a democrat and it demonstrated a good thing government can do, its cost for administration are better than most programs, public or private. It also cost corporations money as they have to pay into it at the rate and salary of their employees. Corporations today run America, and it is probably their money and power that keeps the issue in heated debate.

SS may be the nicest, most Christian, most democratic, most helpful social justice action of America's history and if it wasn't corporate money, it would receive minor notice and improved funding. Even Reagan helped.

PS SS is also solvent and it is war and medical expense that are creating the largest deficits.


"To serve contentment, there were and are three basic requirements. One is the need to defend the general limitation on government as regards the economy; there must be a doctrine that offers a feasible presumption against government intervention...The second, more specific need is to find social justification for the untrammeled, uninhibited pursuit and possession of wealth....There is need for demonstration that the pursuit of wealth or even less spectacular well-being serves a serious, even grave social purpose....The third need is to justify a reduced sense of public responsibility for the poor. Those so situated, the members of the functional and socially immobilised underclass, must, in some very real way, be seen as the architects of their own fate. If not, they could be, however marginally, on the conscience of the comfortable." John Kenneth Galbraith, 'The Culture of Contentment'

One of the worst aspects of SS is that the "surplus" has been systematically raided by career politicians of both parties to fuel massive growth in government. If the accounts had been private, they wouldn't have had that ability. That's the real reason why the Big Government Types are so determined to separate individuals from their retirement assets.

And now, they are even trying to seize IRAs and 401ks on the pretext of converting them into "guaranteed retirement accounts".

Guaranteed Retirement Accounts: Toward retirement income security | Agenda for Shared Prosperity

Your idea that private industry would be any more honest is just as ludicrous.
PEOPLE can demand more honesty from government,
PEOPLE cannot demand SHIT from private industry, because they OWN our government.
We're pretty much fucked either way.

My idea is that I can do better making my own decisions on how to save, invest, or spend my own money.

But if you prefer to be a victim, knock yourself out.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Peepers...

IT IS COMING OUT OF THEIR OWN PAYCHECK!

what is it thast you dont get.

Jeez.

Oh, I get it quite well. You guys want to hand people's hard-earned money over to a deregulated Wall St. to play with like they just did our 401K's and then charge exhorbitant fees to "manage" the accounts. Am I right? If government would keep their sticky hands out of the fund, there would be no problems. So how about we keep things the way they are and pass legislation that the government can't touch retirement money other than to put funds in and pay funds out?

 

[Vanquish]

One of the worst aspects of SS is that the "surplus" has been systematically raided by career politicians of both parties to fuel massive growth in government. If the accounts had been private, they wouldn't have had that ability. That's the real reason why the Big Government Types are so determined to separate individuals from their retirement assets.

And now, they are even trying to seize IRAs and 401ks on the pretext of converting them into "guaranteed retirement accounts".

Guaranteed Retirement Accounts: Toward retirement income security | Agenda for Shared Prosperity

Your idea that private industry would be any more honest is just as ludicrous.
PEOPLE can demand more honesty from government,
PEOPLE cannot demand SHIT from private industry, because they OWN our government.
We're pretty much fucked either way.

My idea is that I can do better making my own decisions on how to save, invest, or spend my own money.

But if you prefer to be a victim, knock yourself out.

See...that SOUNDS reasonable. But the point you seem to be missing is that the majority of Americans can't do what you do.

That's why I say have 2 systems...1 for those who can and another for those who can't.

 

[Barb]

One of the worst aspects of SS is that the "surplus" has been systematically raided by career politicians of both parties to fuel massive growth in government. If the accounts had been private, they wouldn't have had that ability. That's the real reason why the Big Government Types are so determined to separate individuals from their retirement assets.

And now, they are even trying to seize IRAs and 401ks on the pretext of converting them into "guaranteed retirement accounts".

Guaranteed Retirement Accounts: Toward retirement income security | Agenda for Shared Prosperity

Your idea that private industry would be any more honest is just as ludicrous.
PEOPLE can demand more honesty from government,
PEOPLE cannot demand SHIT from private industry, because they OWN our government.
We're pretty much fucked either way.

My idea is that I can do better making my own decisions on how to save, invest, or spend my own money.

But if you prefer to be a victim, knock yourself out.

Not everyone is that savvy. Should those hard workers be ass out and at the mercy of slick operators?

 

[Two Thumbs]

I tried.

I tried to read all that whiney bullshit and just couldn't do it.

I am so sick and fucking tired of punk ass liberals telling me I can't do this or that so the government has to do it for me, "for my own good".

You people are fucked in the head to keep this insanity up. Where's your goddamn pride? Are you so beaten down by life that you fear another person will turn a profit that you willingly forfiet your independence?

It's time to grow the fuck up and put on the big boy pants. If your to fucking stoopud to save money then you should learn that you will have to turn to your family. If you don't have a family? Better start fucking saving b/c SS isn't going to keep you alive.