The Republican Presodential Candidates & Their Views

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, before announcing his intnetion to seek the White House, earlier in the week held a meeting what he refferd to as a "Day Of Prayer"
My Cocern/Question is, do you beieve that Perry, Bachman and other Republican Candidates for President are or will come DANGEROUS Close, based on thier OWN PERSONAL beliefs, cross the line of Seperation of Church and State as they seek the Nomenation for President and possibly win in Nov 2012?
Does anyone find them to Conservtive to "Connected" and maybe to "Catering" to The Whims of the "Religious Right" of the Republican Party and if so, would this Influence what PARTY you voted for in Nov. of 2012?

I agree. They are all too concerned about the fringe right and demolishing the fringe left than about helping the centrist majority. I can only hope that his "Day Of Prayer" is as effective as his call for prayer to end the drought in Texas. We are already seeing the havoc the right can cause just from the victories they had last year. If they manage to gain too much more power I'm afraid the US might start the long, agonizing fall towards a Christian Taliban state.

As for me, I don't vote for party. I vote for individuals. So far I don't see anyone, in either party, who makes me feel confident that they are more concerned about the nation than the Party.

Anyone who has had even one class in political science or American history and retained anything from said class should be aware that:

Regardless of which party; winning presidential candidates allmost always pander to their base during primaries (which consists of several different special interest factions within their party) and then switch to a more moderate stance during the general election and change their mode of operation (sometimes drastically as evidenced by Obama's 180 on the middle east wars etc) once assuming office and receiving their security briefing. Once elected they allmost always get picked on by those who supported them from those special interest groups for not doing what they promised their base they would do as they take on the responsiblity for running the country.

In the case of the republican party in recent decades an evangelical special interest group has risen to more prominence than it previously held, partly due to America straying away from its original moral standards over time due to a variety of factors and partly as a counter swing against several decades of whats perceived as liberal and atheist pressure against religion in schools, the media, and government.

Bush Jr was the first and only President to gain office who pandered support from the evangelicals of his party as any kind of recognized group and he didn't do diddly to make American into anything even close to what some anti-religious special interest groups or atheists feared of him in any way shape or form. He did; as described above, just what every single of President has done once in charge.

One can logically expect that if another president is elected in similar fashion (even a Muslim one) it will most certifiably not result in even the remotest move to change the USA's Constitution, its laws in general or its government in any way shape or form away from the guarantee of religious freedoms expressed by our founding father's for we their prosperity to keep and maintain.

I agrree with you, I do not vote by Party but by Individual and I can honestly say as of today NOBODY in either party wil get my vote Certainly nobody bound the the Religious Right, my fear is "Seperation of Churchand State" wil be a HUGE issue in Nov 2012
I also think most in Wahington are more concenred about there Political Futures then the in the Welfare of us Americans

I think we will find that Perry will be just as much a paper tiger as any other presidential candidate when it comes to any topic including religion.

Any of them will say what they need to to get elected, but the Church & State issue isstil a huge concern for me

I watched Bachmann on Face The Nation, Same old,,Same Old,,
If I am elected I will create jobs, I will balance the Budget, I will make the United States Great again.
My Question is HOW??
To much Retoric and not enough facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

My Question is HOW??

---

That's part of the problem. If they actually say HOW, two things can happen. First, the "other side" might actually steal their idea and improve things; Second, and more likely, once they get into office and DON'T do what they planned, they can be held accountable for their promises. Being held accountable is the worst thing that can happen to a politician.

I saw her interview, and I must say, in all my year of votingI do not rmember ever hearingany Politician as EVASIVe on sanwering questionsas she was, she kept saying "I will listen t Godand follow his direction" if that is true that alongis very scary, that is where the issue I posted here comes up, she will let the Religious Right dictate what she doesinthe white house
1 comment I hear Snday was made my Mike Murphy, a very well know Conservative REpublican Stradagist, who was on meet the Press roundtable at the end of the show he said "Michelle Bachman has a better chance on making itt o Jupiter without a SpaceCraft, then she does in winning the GOP Nomination, and remember this remark was made a REPUBLICAN STRADuGIST not a DEMOCRATIC ONE
The Religiuous Rightis to me is gaiinig to much powe andcontrolr over the Republican Candidates, 1st you have Gov Perry's "Day of Prayer" a few days before he announced his intentions to run, the Bachman says "I'll let God guide in me office" is it too scary to think about

I agree 100$ everyone eunnig has their own PLan, thequestion is WHATISTHERE PLAN, if you haveone letsh ear specificly what it is, don't just say i jave one let us hear the details of it so we know exactlywha you wil do, not just that you wil do "Sonmething" soneting does not pay rent, mortages etc

The so called religious right is not exactly what a lot of people think it is.

First off the only really active portion of it is the evangelicals and they don't have any real large numbers compared to other special interest groups at least when looking at the overall party membership.

Secondly...just like in any party....it doesn't and cannot exert the same kind of control that far more numerous and larger contributors do (corporations and extremely wealthy individuals with corporate interests) so much as it appeals to the spurious perception that if you don't wave your religious flag (at least during the primary) the republican voters wont elect you, which is a blatant attempt to tie their special interest (the promotion that religion, and in particular WASP..white Anglo-Saxon protestant religion) is somehow synominis with being a conservative. Which is basically false advertising on its part and a poor use of sophistry especially since it couldn't be farther from the true demographics of the party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

The so called religious right is not exactly what a lot of people think it is.

First off the only really active portion of it is the evangelicals and they don't have any real large numbers compared to other special interest groups at least when looking at the overall party membership.

Secondly...just like in any party....it doesn't and cannot exert the same kind of control that far more numerous and larger contributors do (corporations and extremely wealthy individuals with corporate interests) so much as it appeals to the spurious perception that if you don't wave your religious flag (at least during the primary) the republican voters wont elect you, which is a blatant attempt to tie their special interest (the promotion that religion, and in particular WASP..white Anglo-Saxon protestant religion) is somehow synominis with being a conservative. Which is basically false advertising on its part and a poor use of sophistry especially since it couldn't be farther from the true demographics of the party.

---

Ok, but if by some STRANGE chace, Bachman wins, Perry wins ect, neither may bow to the Tea Party, but they wil support ALL TEA PARTY Agensa's, Bachman herself hassaid she supports the Goals of the TEA Party, Perry needs to keep his Religious believes to himself and not interjectthem into him Campaign some have even said his "Day Of Prayer" was as cose to Churchand State as spossible andhe wasstronlgy adised byhis own people duringthatday of prayer to say NOTHING about his announcing his Presidientail Bid but he can Dangerously close to doing so
As bada Obama has been, if who everwins the GOP Nod to Run in 2012 depends on it core of support of The Religious Right, The TEA PARTY or orther simialt groups, i firmly believe we wil have a President who is more intrested in mpoving forward of Evengelical Beliefs and following, then a No Conservative GOP Nominee, yes there are some Republicans I may beable to support, but to me Perry and Bachman are to damgeuos closely allighn with Social Conseratives who agency wil be carried out in the White House by these 2 Particular Candidates
When a Politcian of EITHER Party says "I wil let GOD" guide me thorugh my years in the White House, this scares me to no end, that is why we have Seperarion Of Church and State and at leastright noe with Perry and Bacjman that line is becoimng very blurry to me right now
Bachman has publilcy said if electedshe will only choose those for her Cabinetwho follows ll her veliefs, thus NO Democrats, No Gays, Lesbians etc etc, and only select those for Court Appinmenet who 100% agree with Socialy Conservative Agenda, which she talk about all thetime the more I hear Bahman talk, the more shecomes across to me as being slightly to the Right of Atilla The Hun, sorry I do not want a person in the White House who depends on teir Socialy Concervative Core Base to reach The White House, who says I wil follows Gods advice while i Serve as President
Again thisi s just me but we also stil have 16 monthseofe things real startto come tohead, letssee whathappens

Also do not forget in the Iowa Straw pole, YES Bachman did win there, but she wasalso born andraisedi n IOWS which I am sure helped her win that Straw Poll
I might ass, in his 2 TErms as President, Bill Clinton NEVER won his home state in either of the 2 elections he won

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrictMasterD

Ok, but if by some STRANGE chance, Bachman wins, Perry wins ect, neither may bow to the Tea Party, but they wil support ALL TEA PARTY Agenda's, Bachman herself has said she supports the Goals of the TEA Party, Saying something and actually delivering on it are two different universes (see post about how all previous presidents have failed in that regard) Perry needs to keep his Religious believes to himself and not interject them into his Campaign some have even said his "Day Of Prayer" was as close to Church and State as possible and he was stronlgy advised by his own people during that day of prayer to say NOTHING about his announcing his Presidential Bid but he can Dangerously close to doing so

So what...every single Presidential Candidate has professed a believe in god and that they would seek his help during their tenure in office from ole G. Washington himself right on up to Obama.

As bad as Obama has been, if who ever wins the GOP Nod to Run in 2012 depends on it core of support of The Religious Right, The TEA PARTY or other similar groups, i firmly believe we wil have a President who is more intrested in mpoving forward of Evengelical Beliefs and following, then a No Conservative GOP Nominee, yes there are some Republicans I may beable to support, but to me Perry and Bachman are to damgeuos closely allighn with Social Conseratives who agency wil be carried out in the White House by these 2 Particular Candidates

Every single candidate who has ever run for the office of president regardless of party affiliation has only made it through their primary by gaining the support of not one, not two, but the majority of their parties special interest groups.

When a Politcian of EITHER Party says "I wil let GOD" guide me thorugh my years in the White House, this scares me to no end, that is why we have Seperarion Of Church and State and at leastright noe with Perry and Bacjman that line is becoimng very blurry to me right now

Every single President has said practically the same exact thing (usually during and election but sometimes also during holding the office and once vacating it.

Bachman has publilcy said if electedshe will only choose those for her Cabinetwho follows ll her veliefs, thus NO Democrats, No Gays, Lesbians etc etc,

She obvious is apealing to a portion of her base that she will I can assure you discard in whole or in part if elected though more likely after her primary if she wins it so she can apeal to the moderates who make up the majority of both parties and independents who are in nieather who's votes will actually put her in.

and only select those for Court Appinmenet who 100% agree with Socialy Conservative Agenda, which she talk about all thetime the more I hear Bahman talk, the more shecomes across to me as being slightly to the Right of Atilla The Hun, sorry I do not want a person in the White House who depends on teir Socialy Concervative Core Base to reach The White House, who says I wil follows Gods advice while i Serve as President

The more I hear her talk the more I realize she is pandering with slogans that may appeal to her base but are meaningless as to taking any real measure of where she actually stands on anything and not speaking of anything with substance as to how she would do things if elected.

Again thisi s just me but we also stil have 16 monthseofe things real startto come tohead, letssee whathappens

Also do not forget in the Iowa Straw pole, YES Bachman did win there, but she wasalso born andraisedi n IOWS which I am sure helped her win that Straw Poll
I might ass, in his 2 TErms as President, Bill Clinton NEVER won his home state in either of the 2 elections he won

---

That's because overall with all the scandals and corruption during his time as governor he really pissed off too many people.

I wasn't following any of that too closely but heard a feature on the Swiss radio about Mrs. Bachman the other day. Judging from what she said in that feature I think that a country in which someone as Mrs. Bachmann is seriously considered to run for election has a huge problem.
Not saying we don't have the same kind of idiots over here, but at least we don't have a presidential system, thus the damage one idiot can do is somewhat more limited.

Cheers, and all the best luck with electing a good person. I got a feeling you guys can use it.

Well our President is also limited in what he or she is allowed to get away with too, its not like we are electing a monarch.

Deleted because I should have checked Wikipedia before I posted.

I don't think Rick Perry has much chance of getting elected. I could be wrong, cause I didn't really think Obama would win either. But I know several Republicans from Texas and they all hate him. They hate Obama too, so they might just stay home if it came to that. And Bachman is a complete nut, hopefully people will realize it soon.

Um, Clinton totally won in his home state for both of his presidential terms. Google is your friend. As far as I know, no president has ever been elected without winning in his home state.

I think you may be correct about Clinton winning his home and resident status states delish...I should have done some more digging myself before agreeing with StrictMD on Clinton's statistics.

I did however find out that several candidates have indeed won the presidency without winning their birth IE home state, but only Polk, Wilson and Nixon have won election despite losing their current state of residence and Polk is the only man to win the presidency despite losing both in the states of his birth and the state of his current residence.

Debate update:

From Maggie Haberman of Politico:

For the 2012 Republican hopefuls, Wednesday night is the first Fall Classic.
Eight candidates are slated to take the stage at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., for the POLITICO/NBC News debate — the first face-off as the campaign kicks into high gear.
It’s also the first debate that will include Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the new front-runner who has shaken up the slow-forming presidential contest and shifted the landscape for Mitt Romney, who’d been sitting atop the field for months.
Five things to watch for as the candidates take the stage:
1) Does Perry stumble or survive?
Assuming the Texas wildfires don’t keep Perry at home, he will be the most-scrutinized candidate at the debate. The state’s longest-serving chief executive has had all the momentum heading into tonight’s event, his first televised national vetting.
“All eyes will be on Rick Perry, as he has become ‘Mr. August,’” said veteran GOP strategist Scott Reed, who was on Haley Barbour’s team earlier this year before the Mississippi governor opted against running.
Perry has debated before, albeit not frequently and, according to Texas-based politicos, with mixed levels of success. But an enduring question for Republican elites who are looking for a winner and are disenchanted with Romney has remained: “Can Rick Perry take a punch in a boxing ring he’s unaccustomed to?”
The potential for a gaffe is ripe. Perry could get a range of questions, from his whiff-of-violence comment about Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to his “Ponzi scheme” rhetoric about Social Security, to his states-rights manifesto “Fed Up!” which was published just last year.
Working in Perry’s favor? It’s a multicandidate debate, and the bar for Perry has been set pretty low, given the conventional wisdom that he’s not the Great Debator and questions about his basic smarts. He may be able to stick to his playbook from past debates — memorize a message and repeat it, repeat it, repeat it.
Working against him? The rest of the candidates have met onstage at least once before to learn each other’s rhythms.
Some Republicans argue privately that Perry should ignore his rivals and focus his attention on President Barack Obama. But given his aggressiveness on the stump against Romney and his record, it could be risky to hold back — even in the House of Reagan, whose famous 11th Commandment prohibited attacking fellow Republicans.
2) Will Romney go after Perry by name?
In the two debates he’s done so far, Romney has almost disappeared — happily — while the other candidates duked it out. Much of the summer was a Michele Bachmann-Tim Pawlenty grudge match, and that consumed the Ames debate last month.
The only time a candidate ever came close to directly taking on Romney was in New Hampshire in June, when Pawlenty declined to repeat a swing about “Obamneycare” he’d telegraphed days earlier. Romney escaped unscathed — and with the bar raised for other attacks on him.
But those were gentler times for Romney, who has been struggling to be seen as able to join the fight with both fists.
Even with Perry eclipsing him since getting into the race, Romney’s been making only veiled, passive-aggressive hits that could apply to a range of different candidates.
Romney will have to get a bit more aggressive than his “I’m a conservative businessman, not a politician” pitch, without seeming forced — or flailing. Romney has experience pushing back at opponents in debates — he got used to candidates ganging up on him in the 2007 debates — but he often came off as angry, not forceful.
“Both Romney and Perry have to strike a balance,” said Dan Schnur, director of the University of Southern California’s Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics. “Romney has to take on Perry without seeming desperate. Perry has to be in control without seeming anesthetized. Of the two, Perry’s got the easier job.”
3) Can Bachmann break through?
There is no denying that Michele Bachmann’s been struggling.
Thwarted by Perry’s entrance on the same day she was hoping for a momentum surge with her Ames Straw Poll win just three weeks ago, Bachmann’s been searching for her footing — and enough altitude to keep the race from becoming a fixed, two-man contest. Though she’s disposed of Pawlenty, Bachmann heads into the debate with questions lingering about shifts in her top campaign structure this week.
She needs a breakout moment, but sources in her campaign insist she will not be swinging at Perry.
“The plan is and always will be to tout her message and not attack the others,” said one source. “That being said — just like with Pawlenty — if someone is going to tell lies about her record, she will tell the truth about theirs.”
4) Will Jon Huntsman bring his “truth telling” from the Sunday talk shows to his opponents?
Huntsman survived his first debate at Ames despite visible discomfort and no breakthrough line or moment of engagement with another candidate. He needs to do more than that here.
Since Ames — and since a POLITICO report about a campaign rife with infighting, second-guessing, profligate spending and minimal fundraising — Huntsman has refashioned himself as an open critic of his party, taking the shots himself that his campaign strategist John Weaver had until recently been taking on his behalf.
If he doesn’t bring the same criticisms of the party — and of specific candidates, like Romney — while he’s there with his rivals, he risks a Pawlenty-type whiff. If he doesn’t engage, he will look wimpy. If he does, the whole “civility” approach he talked about at his kickoff will be firmly put to rest — along with, potentially, his ability to galvanize support in a future race.
5) Can Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain prove that they’re relevant?
Gingrich was the critics’ pick thanks to his anti-media rant at the previous debate, but the praise did him little good in actual poll movement. Santorum also had a good moment in the Ames face-off, when he criticized Ron Paul as, essentially, too extreme. And Cain’s benefited from his own rhetorical success on stage, particularly at the campaign’s first debate.
But all three remain mired in the third tier. Can any of them do anything onstage to persuade an early-state voter to give them a shot over Perry, Romney or Bachmann?
Other than using Paul — who is likely, as he has been doing with gusto, to complain about the lack of mainstream media coverage he receives — as a foil, each one needs to show a flash of something presidential, or at least serious on policy, to get consideration from voters going forward.

I did not see the Debate, buy based on what I heard there was NO winner in the Debate

Um! I have a question for you before I can begin to answer yours. How do you DEFINE the so-called separation of church and state.

Understand that the phrasing of the question does presuppose a certain answer. Be assured I fully intend to deal with the answer presented.

Havoc!?!?

Really?

Thank you Denuseri!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Anyone who has had even one class in political science or American history and retained anything from said class should be aware that:

Regardless of which party; winning presidential candidates allmost always pander to their base during primaries (which consists of several different special interest factions within their party) and then switch to a more moderate stance during the general election and change their mode of operation (sometimes drastically as evidenced by Obama's 180 on the middle east wars etc) once assuming office and receiving their security briefing. Once elected they allmost always get picked on by those who supported them from those special interest groups for not doing what they promised their base they would do as they take on the responsiblity for running the country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Thank you Denuseri!

---

2012 could be very odd year, between the Lack of Perforrrmance by Obama and wha tthe Replcan Candidates stand for, there could Literaly be no real choice

So far,the Republican Party Candidates have shown themselves to be expert in denial and babbleing when they get caught in a faux pas.
Every Candidate has opened thier mouth and inserted both feet.
Perry Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme.
Romney and Bachmann getting caught making statements that are totally opposite of statements they made before they were Candidates.
The Infighting that was shown on Monday's debate.
Its going to be a replay of the 2008 election, not so much people voting FOR Obama, rather people voting AGAINST whoever is nominated as the Republican Candiate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

So far,the Republican Party Candidates have shown themselves to be expert in denial and babbleing when they get caught in a faux pas.
Every Candidate has opened thier mouth and inserted both feet.
Perry Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme.
Romney and Bachmann getting caught making statements that are totally opposite of statements they made before they were Candidates.
The Infighting that was shown on Monday's debate.
Its going to be a replay of the 2008 election, not so much people voting FOR Obama, rather people voting AGAINST whoever is nominated as the Republican Candiate.

---

I agree 100%

also Perry was taken to task by Backman over the Mandate he signed, the Executive or he signed for kids taking the Vacinne shot, what was NOT mention in the debate at all and why Perry did not say anyting is beyond me, is that yes he did made the vaccine taking yes he did write and Executive order for it but what WAS NOT MENTIONM was he order had an opt out clause, all the Parents in Texas had tro do was simply say no they were not going to have their kids get it, but that was never mentioned
But Backamn also a feweeeks agom wished Elvis a happy birthday, to bad that date was the anniversay of when he died, she seems to speak 1st, then think but never apologies for her mistakes or says they were taken out of contenxt, how do youtake happy birthday elvis out of context on the day he died
It is nice to see them all figihting within the Party
And Yes, Obama wil win by default, no he is not doing a good job, yes he is a dissapointment, but also look at what he inhereted, he come into ffice with a HUGE deficet, he came int 2 wars that were ill concieived and had no plan as to how we would leave office, BUsh got us into those messes Bush had an 800 Billion Dollar surplus when he came into office and in month, literaly months turned it into a Billion or shouldI say Trillion Dollar deficet, so as bad a Obama has been so far, most of what he is dealing with no he inherited from 8 years of Republican Rule
Nancy Polisi said it best whe nthe 1st Stimuls package was passedand Republican moanedand groane over the ammount, when this was pointed out Pelosi said "They drove the truck into the ditch themselves and now they are complainig about the size of the Toe Truck need to pull it out"
I might add the fact never raised in the debate about the opt out clause on the Vaccine order what brough to everyones attention by a News Analyst for Fox News Channel, so much for blaming the Liberal Media for this one and she did make it a point to say it was never mentioned during the debate, why Perry did not say anyting about it is anyones guess

Tell me stealth, do you really play TORG??

By the way SS really is a Ponzi. The promised benefits can only be paid by more income from "new investors".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

So far,the Republican Party Candidates have shown themselves to be expert in denial and babbleing when they get caught in a faux pas.
Every Candidate has opened thier mouth and inserted both feet.
Perry Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme.
Romney and Bachmann getting caught making statements that are totally opposite of statements they made before they were Candidates.
The Infighting that was shown on Monday's debate.
Its going to be a replay of the 2008 election, not so much people voting FOR Obama, rather people voting AGAINST whoever is nominated as the Republican Candiate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Tell me stealth, do you really play TORG??

By the way SS really is a Ponzi. The promised benefits can only be paid by more income from "new investors".

---

If this is true EVERY CORPORATION in the world is a Ponzi, they depend "New Investors" to increase their cash flow for exspansion, hiring and buying products to make and sell

I agree that SS has become a Ponzi scheme, but only because congress could not keep its hand off the fund.
There are over 1.5 TRILLION dollars loaned to the US govt from SS, probably without the intention or repaying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrictMasterD

2012 could be very odd year, between the Lack of Perforrrmance by Obama and wha tthe Replcan Candidates stand for, there could Literaly be no real choice

---

Think is there is always a choice! You might not like the choice, but it is a choice! And the old saw that the devil you know is better than the one you don't does not always apply.

"Perry Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme."
..But it does have all the earmarks of a Ponzi. The only thing people seem to be able to come up with is the "full faith & credit of the US Government". But the program, and its benefits exist at the whim of that very same Government.

"Romney and Bachmann getting caught making statements that are totally opposite of statements they made before they were Candidates."
..Is this really anything new? Candidates are always doing this. Some may be the old attempt to say the necessary to get the job, some may be an actual change of heat due to new informantion.

"The Infighting that was shown on Monday's debate."
Since this is the contest to secure a party nomination, infighting is kind of required. The real sad thing about primary selection is the need to speak to the hard line party faithful.

"Its going to be a replay of the 2008 election, not so much people voting FOR Obama, rather people voting AGAINST whoever is nominated as the Republican Candiate."
It will remain to be seen just who the choices are and what is presented when they are actually speaking to the entire population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StrictMasterD

If this is true EVERY CORPORATION in the world is a Ponzi, they depend "New Investors" to increase their cash flow for exspansion, hiring and buying products to make and sell

---

Only thing is that with SS there is no product. Even if you consider the checks the product that merely moves SS from Ponzi to Pyramid! See for a business there is no REQUIREMENT to buy their product, like there is with SS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth694

I agree that SS has become a Ponzi scheme, but only because congress could not keep its hand off the fund.
There are over 1.5 TRILLION dollars loaned to the US govt from SS, probably without the intention or repaying it.

---

"The Social Security trust funds, managed by the Department of the Treasury, are the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds. Since the beginning of the Social Security program, all securities held by the trust funds have been issued by the Federal Government.

There are two general types of such securities:

special issues—securities available only to the trust funds; and
public issues—securities available to the public (marketable securities).
The trust funds now hold only special issues, but they have held public issues in the past."
(http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/investheld.html)