Why are Republicans so against Social Security retirement

Why are Republicans so against Social Security retirement, I have wondered at times. Including at present. Although I have heard intent to dispose of the Social Security retirement system, the "safety net" for so many workers, seems like for many decades, from the Republicans. A consistent pattern.

So, why?

I have not heard any rationale on the subject. Occasional emotionally-laden reasons that do not stand up to scrutiny, but most people only hear the claim if powerful enough, and don't follow up to see if it is credible. It is like, doing one's own evaluation is like disloyalty to the leadership, so don't dare do it, or you may get kicked off the bandwagon.

It is said that the trillion-plus dollars in the Social Security retirement account, is mysteriously wiped out. Like so many corporate retirees retirements vanished some years back, at the start of the crisis. Where did a trillion dollars go? It went to pay for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. How could that be? The money was not there available to pay for being "thrown down ratholes" like that. Seems somebody did not want the money around.

And before the wars, the Republicans were trying to give the trillion dollars to faceless big investors to gamble with. Maybe it is just that a big pile of money is too tempting to leave alone?

Much pondering over this kind of stuff has shifted a bit away from that. I have to gingerly wear my paranoid-cap for awhile, to explore this path, which seems to lead to ... the big game players ... who see a two class system, the owner-managers vs the sheeple ... I mean the workers, the employees. Managers need leverage to force workers to do the dirty work, in this mindset. And retirement preparation funds is a powerful way to coerce a worker to keep on slaving away at a rotten job. If the Social Security safety net is removed from the scene, the workers can easily be terrorized into doing almost anything. Especially at low pay where one cannot save for retirement; or if some money is attempted to be saved up, one's wife may spend every dime one makes, in some cases... and a man desperately needs a wife and she needs to be a happy mate.

I recall several companies I worked for, which had a "retirement" incentive. The total was nowhere enough to be useful to retire with, but it was some hundreds of dollars, enough to attract the worker. And the incentive was that each worker got a hundred dollars a year, say, but was not vested in it immediately. In some cases one needed to work for a couple of years to get 30% vested in that money. If people left before, say, five or ten years full vesting in the retirement money, they forfeited the money that they were not vested in, and the money went to pad the remaining employee's "retirement" accounts. Thus, a significant leverage to keep employees there and working at whatever they were told to do.

If such a system were the only means of retirement savings for a person, it could become a tyrannical means of coercing employees to work ever harder at dirty jobs, effectively no option to go look for a better job. Thus the owner-management could get more work out of the "lazy" workers at low pay, thus reap even more plush lifestyle for themselves; a sweet setup. Worthy of lots of conniving to make happen, by those who are of bully nature and consider themselves superior smart, clever, winners.