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'
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'