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

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/russ-wellen/33994/whats-the-real-reason-republicans-want-to-do-away-with-social-security

At first glance, Social Security seems innocuous enough. What's not to like? It's as American as, well, the Great American Century. Also, until recent years, it's managed to straddle the political divide from Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, under whose administration it was instituted, to Republican President Dwight Eisenhower.

But today many Americans view it, ironically, as un-American and would like to see Social Security (along with most federal functions) reduced with an eye to abolishing it. Besides opposing large government in principle, they believe that the money withheld from their paychecks for Social Security is just another form of taxation, to which, in itself, they're constitutionally incapable of reconciling themselves. Furthermore, it's money that they feel they could invest more profitably in stocks and bonds, mutual funds, IRAs, 401(k)s, or . . . lifetime savings accounts.

Lost in all the recent talk about cutting back Social Security is an explanation of what would replace it. As opposed to Social Security, with lifetime savings accounts, workers could exert more control over how they'd like to invest their money. On the other hand, participation is voluntary and the accounts would have fewer restrictions on both contributions and withdrawals. As for concerns "that the lifetime savings account 'could be raided at will, leaving without a cushion later,'" reports the National Review in 2002. "It's true. A family would have to decide whether to 'raid' a savings account to pay for the children's college tuition, or to leave it in there for retirement and health-care needs. This is called freedom."

Beyond opposing big government and controlling how one invests one's money, there's a more powerful agenda behind lifetime savings accounts. See, they're likely to be administered -- at some level, anyway -- by Wall Street, which hopes to reap a small fortune in fees (from the government and maybe even account holders) for managing them.

More at the link --

of a third world country, whose oppressed peasants should be rising up against their dictatorial government. Now you tell me the USA has Social Security. Damn, that was a quick revolution.

It's hard to give up being a big shot.

banks and other financial institutions. Privatization of Social Security is SUBSIDIZATION of PRIVATE (read that "secret") financial powers. It's insurance that we won't ever REALLY prosecute them for anything and that, no matter what they do, they will continue business in perpetuity.

life savings.

which they have opposed for almost 80 years.

"Government isn't the solution, it's the problem."

Any successful government program is a blasphemy.

It pisses them off that people love SS, even Republicans. It puts a huge hole in their theory that government= bad.

We can have whatever's left over after they own it.

and there is all that money to be made by their pals in the money businesses.

FWIW, Argentina privatized their similar program years ago, and it worked great...till their stock market crashed a few years later, and the retirement accounts were wiped out...Funny, though-the brokers make money either way...


mark

natural Constituency of the Republican Party.

nt.

We know it is right because with a small adjustment social security shortfalls could be corrected. Indeed there was already a preemptive correction made in the 1980s when baby boomers agreed to pay extra into FICA.

This whole operation to undermine social security is no different than the famous Indian treaties. You know, those ones that are the real useless pieces of paper.

They are DINOs -Democrats in name only. They are beholden to their masters.

and other critical reforms to keep starving masses stable and not revolting, maybe they would think twice about abolishing it. Unfortunately, they are people who never think twice about anything. And they think that's the BEST way to be!

1) There's money there and they want it for their bankster buddies.

2) They don't want citizens to get the idea that the govt. can do anything to benifit them. If the govt. can handle retirment better than the private sector (and a rock could do that), then people might expect other things like health care, roads, schools, and other things, which would diminish the govt's ability to channel wealth to the rich.

interests would manage to steal private retirement accounts just as they have social security. If you believe those accounts won't have to be bailed out by the government at some point you are simply foolish. That's just the way I see it.