Bipartisan Poll Shows All Voters Strongly Oppose Social Security and Medicare Cuts

[jtown1123]

Some Highlights from the Poll:

A recent National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare poll shows that voters across all party lines share unprecedented unity in their views on deficit reduction. By a margin of 50%, Americans across all ages do not support cutting Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit.
Key findings of the bi-partisan poll include:

• Voters oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare in any Super committee proposal by a 50-point margin.

• 82% of Democrats, 73% of Independents and 58% Republicans, a majority, oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

• 72% of self-described fiscally conservative voters oppose cuts to Social Security benefits.

• 68% of self-described fiscally conservative voters oppose cuts to Medicare benefits.

• 54% of all voters, including 42% of Republicans, would punish their Member of Congress for voting for cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

• 40% of all voters, including 48% of Independent voters, would punish President Obama for supporting cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

• The majority of voters (71%) favor gradually raising the cap on wages.

• Younger voters are more likely to oppose raising the retirement age than seniors are.

• The majority of all voters favor raising taxes on the wealthy over making cuts to Social Security and Medicare, including:
o 94% of Democrats
o 82% of Independents
o 64% of Republicans

Link to the PDF of the Poll: http://www.ncpssm.org/pdf/poll.pdf

and http://www.ncpssm.org/pdf/poll_executive_summary.pdf

[dkf]

1. Then they support raising payroll taxes?

You know maybe we should raise payroll taxes and invest it in something with intrinsic value, ie not treasuries.

I could go for that.

How's about oil? Or gold?

[jtown1123]

2. Treasuries are the safest investment. I think the system works as it is. Just needs more revenue in

the future. It sounds like most are willing to pay a little more. I know Economist Bruce Webb has a plan called the Northwest plan which gradually raises payroll taxes by small increments over a 10 year period:

In the spirit of Labor Day, though, it is worth considering a plan that takes a more orthodox, payroll tax centered-approach. In their “Northwest Plan,” Bruce Webb and Dale Coberly, Social Security experts and bloggers, propose implementing a trigger that would immediately increase payroll taxes if the program were unable to pay full benefits within ten years time. The provision, adopted in increments needed to make the program solvent over a ten-year period, would result in a payroll tax increase of about $2 a week for a median household. The trigger has the added advantage of linking revenue increases to the program’s financial projections, which vary greatly based on the state of the economy.

But, one might ask, wouldn’t scrapping the cap be best for workers, by making the rich pick up the tab? Not according to Webb and Coberly. The Northwest Plan is meant to preserve Social Security’s character as a worker-financed, worker-owned program. The payroll tax increase can be seen as an increase in workers’ insurance premiums, as opposed to a “tax increase” in the traditional sense. It enhances workers’ legally-sanctioned stake in the program, instead of shifting that stake on to the wealthy. Their plan follows FDR’s rationale that payroll taxes grant workers a “legal, moral and political right” to collect their Social Security benefits.

The tactic also gives workers more of a stake in forcing employers to share economic gains. If workers do not like paying a modestly larger amount into the program, then Webb advises them to “Demand better Real Wages.” Easier said than done, of course. But Webb’s advice is consistent with his philosophy of empowering workers to shape their own destinies, rather than relying on elites to change things for them.

http://dissentingdemocrat.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/saving-social-security/

Here is the more nitty gritty version: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2009/05/northwest-plan-for-social-security.html

[dkf]

4. Investing the social security fund in treasuries is like investing your 401k in company stock.

Ask Enron employees how well that went.

I guess my problem is that the government looks overobligated to me. I'd rather not give it incentive to inflate all the value out of our system.

[jtown1123]

10. I strongly disagree. Treasuries are not the same as the stock market. Not even close n/t

[dkf]

17. It's putting your eggs in one basket that is the problem.

Non-diversified.

For those who believe the government is in trouble (me!), they probably believe that gold or oil has value so they can still believe in the fund. That is the main problem with social security, it has no real assets of it's own.

I honestly don't understand why we are so much more reassured in a pay as you go system with non-negotiable ious above hard assets or other financial assets. Back up promises with something of acknowledged value and it instantly has more credibility.

[WinkyDink]

6. How about peace?

[sabrina 1]

14. Why break a system that is working so well?

The only thing I would change about the SS system is to forbid the Fed Government to keep dipping into the fund for wars and to give tax breaks to the wealthy. If we can't afford to go to war on the Fed. Govt's own budget, then we should not do so.

Wrt to raising the payroll tax, there was no need to do so. There should not have had a 'payroll tax holiday' as that will eventually change the way the SS is funded, which is probably what they want. Just leave it as it was.

[eridani]

15. Raise the cap, and you can lower the rate n/t

[sabrina 1]

16. True, I think the cap should be eliminated.

But they haven't done that, just lowered the payroll tax. I do agree that if they raise the cap, then they can lower the tax rate.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. If only our elected representatives cared!

[jtown1123]

5. They should care. If they cut these programs, people will vote them out.

[Fumesucker]

7. Voters oppose?

:rofl:


This attack has been gamed for decades, you really think the Very Serious People are going to allow some little thing like what the voters want or don't want get in the way of the grand plan?

[jtown1123]

9. Well then we have every right to vote them all out. n/t

[indepat]

8. Seems most curious indeed that politicians have chosen a course of action, to

cut social security and Medicare, as the panacea for fiscal soundness when a majority of voters would punish Members of Congress for doing so and 40% would punish the President for doing so. Why, indeed, are so many committing political suicide rather than implementing fairness and reasonableness to the tax code? Most curious indeed. :patriot:

[jtown1123]

11. Sometimes, I think they have zero idea what the voters think. They are wrapped up in DC groupthink

and have little to zero idea what their constituents want...pretty frustrating.

[Scuba]

12. Yeah, but polls are based on math, and math is a science, so it's not valid anyway....

....only a liberal whackjob would argue differently.













Sarcasm thingy.

[closeupready]

13. Congress doesn't care what voters want.

We ought to know that by now, in light of how many pieces of shit legislation they've passed over the last 30 years favoring their "campaign finance donors" at the expense of the middle-class and lower income American taxpayer.

[Blasphemer]

18. The problem is that those who oppose raising taxes on the wealthy....

control too much of the political machinery in this country. If we assume a 33%/33%/33% split, then there is roughly 20% of the country who oppose raising taxes. These 20% own about 84% of the wealth and wealth = power. We desperately need to change this equation.