Oops... 'Obama's Social Security Talk Is Turning Voters Off, Pollsters Say' - Dan Froomkin/HuffPo

[WillyT]

Obama's Social Security Talk Is Turning Voters Off, Pollsters Say
Dan Froomkin - HuffingtonPost
First Posted: 01/19/11 04:50 PM Updated: 01/19/11 04:50 PM

<snip>

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's apparent willingness to consider cuts in Social Security benefits may be winning him points with Washington elites, but it's killing him with voters, who see the program as inviolate and may start to wonder what the Democratic Party stands for, if not for Social Security.

That's the conclusion of three top progressive pollsters who spoke to reporters Wednesday at a briefing sponsored by the Economic Policy Institute, the Century Foundation and Demos. "For the public, cutting benefits is the problem, not the solution," said Guy Molyneux, a partner at Hart Research Associates.

As a result, the pollsters said that any Democrat seeking elected office in 2012 should be begging Obama not to say anything about Social Security cuts in his State of the Union address later this month.

A post-election poll by Celinda Lake's Lake Research Partners found that, by a margin of 3 percentage points, Americans now trust Republicans in Congress more than Democrats when it comes to Social Security -- surely the first time since the program became a signature issue for the Democratic Party in the 1930s.

The poll found confidence in Democrats on the issue dropping 14 points just since January 2007, accompanied by a 13-point increase for Republicans. The public favors congressional Republicans over Obama on Social Security by an even larger 6-point margin. Obama's 26-percent rating is not only less than half Bill Clinton's (53 percent), it's even lower than that of George W. Bush (37 percent), whose proposal to privatize the program went down in flames.

<snip>

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/19/obama-social-security-talk-polling_n_811209.html

:wow:

:banghead:

[Uzybone]

1. what a load of bull

Do these people polled know what the GOP position of SS is?

[DJ13]

2. er, the same as Obama's?

[Uzybone]

4. no, read up on their position

You are way off base

[theophilus]

18. President Obama has barely tried to differentiate the Dem and Rep positions, imo.

He has even misrepresented the history of SS and of FDR's New Deal.

[whathehell]

30. I agree completely. n/t

[emilyg]

62. +++

[WillyT]

23. LOL !!! - You Mean THESE People ???

Poll: Less than half know GOP won the House
By: CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

(CNN) – The Republican Party won decisive control of the House in this year's midterm elections, but it appears less than half the country is aware of it.

According to a new Pew poll, only 46 percent of those surveyed correctly identified that the Republican Party won the House as a result of the November 2 elections. But it's not all bad – 75 percent did know the Republicans performed better than the Democrats, it's just that many aren't aware exactly what the party won.

Link: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/19/poll-less-than-half-know-gop-won-the-house/

:shrug:

And remember... they vote.

:banghead:

[ProSense]

31. "The Republican Party won decisive control of the House in this year's midterm elections"

Yeah, they just voted to repeal the health care law. Isn't it great that Americans trust them on Social Security?

Rejoice!

[WillyT]

37. My Point Was The... 'Less than half know GOP won the House' Part...

You missed that?

:shrug:

[Bobbie Jo]

103. I agree completely. nt

[Smashcut]

106. More like a load of reality

Deal with it.

[ProSense]

3. "Americans now trust Republicans in Congress more than Democrats when it comes to Social Security "

Well, that should save Social Security, right?

"President Barack Obama's apparent willingness to consider cuts in Social Security benefits may be winning him points with Washington elites, but it's killing him with voters, who see the program as inviolate and may start to wonder what the Democratic Party stands for, if not for Social Security."

This should state: Rampant speculation about Social Security cuts driving voters toward GOP.


Too funny!

[DJ13]

5. This should state: Rampant speculation about Social Security cuts

Then President Obama has an obligation to set the record straight, doesnt he?

[ProSense]

8. Why?

He hasn't made any statements that he's cutting Social Security. His actual statements are ignored. If he spent all his time addressing every rumor, he'd be issuing statements on ever issue daily. So speculate, Froomkin will have more to report.

[DJ13]

11. If he has no plans to undercut SS, why not?

Thats your position, isnt it?

[ProSense]

13. What? n/t

[DJ13]

14. Why take the PR hit if he isnt planning on messing with it

He can make it clear he supports SS as it is and end the speculation that undermines the public's confidence in his position.

His silence only lends credence to those who believes he plans on undermining SS.

How hard is that to figure out?

[ProSense]

19. A "PR hit" created by Democrats?

Interesting.

[DJ13]

22. No, a "PR hit" from supporters of Social Security

Which side are you on?

[ProSense]

25. "Which side are you on?"

The side of not engaging in bullshit speculation leading to more trust being placed in the GOP

Which side are you on?

[WillyT]

33. Ya See Pro... THAT Is The Problem...

We don't trust Republicans, and we don't trust many Democrats anymore, we definitely don't trust politicians in general.

And Obama playing it "cute" with SS as a possible "bargaining chip" in some future negotiations with Republicans, is itself, bullshit.

SS has been, and should continue to be, inviolate and non-negotiable, unless you are going to LOWER the retirement age, and/or INCREASE the benefits for all that have earned them.

:shrug:

[whathehell]

34. +100

[ProSense]

39. Well here's a bigger problem

"We don't trust Republicans, and we don't trust many Democrats anymore, we definitely don't trust politicians in general."

It doesn't matter who you trust, you posted a poll that says Americans trust Republicans.

Fear mongering has consequences.

[WillyT]

41. It's Called A "Heads-Up" !!!

Useful for warning friends and allies when trouble is coming your/their way.

You don't want to know about stories like this ???

Interesting.

:shrug:

[ProSense]

45. Head's-up?

Beating the drum that the President plans to cut Social Security even though he hasn't is a heads-up?

It would have been better to to accuse the GOP and call on the President to reject the idea. Instead, the impression is that the President, who has never said anything about cutting Social Security, is perceived as holding that position.

Mission Accomplished.

[WillyT]

60. Tell Ya What...

A lot of politics, and observing politics, is looking at the political "tea leaves". Most politicians keep their actual council pretty close to the vest. A vast number of us left/liberal/progressive, are concerned that this President is about to start chipping away at the social safety net.

And... we like to telegraph our displeasure in the hopes that TPTB see risk in taking such actions. We give them time to reconsider before they do themselves, and us, damage.

So I really hope you are right. I hope with all my soul, that we are worried for nothing, and that this President really has our backs on SS, Medicare, and all the rest. I hope he nails that fact down at the SOTU, and tells the "Deficit" Commission, that NO reductions in benefits will be tolerated as long as he is in office. And I hope he fights like hell, and makes anybody who opposes that position pay a steep political price for doing so.

If he does... I'll post the biggest goddamned "WILLYT WAS WRONG ABOUT OBAMA" post DU has ever seen!

Bookmark this thread, and hold me to it.

My question for you: What will YOU do, if he DOES raise the retirement age/cuts benefits/etc... and starts chipping away at the social safety net?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enthusiast]

96. Yes, make no mistake, no REAL Democrat

would EVER see social security as a bargaining chip.

[Hello_Kitty]

85. Yeah, it's not like Andrew Breitbart blogged about it

That always seems to light a fire under this Admin.

[Enthusiast]

97. LOL! nt

[Caretha]

76. It is his job

as the President of the United States to make clear.....no "Ifs - Ands or Buts" what his position is. That is why he was elected. Make no mistake - he is and will be accountable.

[slipslidingaway]

78. Yeah, SS is such a minor issue ...

:eyes:

[WillyT]

7. Well... Obama Could... You Know... Take A Stand...

Social Security may be on the White House chopping block, a US Senator recently told Raw Story, expressing deep uneasiness about President Barack Obama's noncommittal attitude toward staving off cuts to the cherished program.

"I have to tell you, I have been on the phone to the very, very, very highest levels of the Obama administration, and the responses that I am getting are not assuring," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said in an exclusive interview. "What I’m told is that no definitive decisions have been made on the issue of Social Security – I expect that is probably true."

Progressive activists, fearing that the holy grail of American liberalism could fall prey to a bipartisan deal on Capitol Hill, have launched a campaign to pressure the White House and Congress to oppose cuts. And Sanders has stepped up as their champion in the Senate, confirming their concerns based on knowledge drawn from his relative proximity to the president.

"What I’m hearing does not reassure me – that we have a president who is not prepared to defend the heart and soul of what the Democratic Party has been about since Franklin Delano Roosevelt," said Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist.

Link: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/obama-weak-social-security-bernie-sanders-tells-raw/

:shrug:

[ProSense]

10. Like that

would matter and stop the speculation.

"Social Security is not in crisis," Obama said. "We're going to have to make some modest adjustments in order to strengthen it."

link

The President reiterated point in October

<...>

That’s why we’ve got to strengthen it. And I have said that all options are on the table. I think we’ve got to look at how we preserve it for the next generation. I do think that the best way to do it would be to look at the fact that right now you only pay Social Security taxes up to about $106,000, and after that, you don’t pay any Social Security tax. So that means Warren Buffett, who makes more than $100,000 a year, the vast bulk of his income, he doesn’t pay Social Security taxes on it. That could be modified or changed in a way that would help extend the solvency of Social Security.

<...>

Senator Sanders:

<...>

“If we are serious about making Social Security strong and solvent for the next 75 years, President Obama has the right solution. On October 14, 2010, he restated a long-held position that the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, now at $106,800, should be raised. As the president has long stated, it is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the system as someone who earns $106,800.

<...>

[Hannah Bell]

17. "is absurd that billionaires pay the same amount into the system as someone who earns $106,800."

and as is well-known, billionaires don't make most of their income in wages.

this is a bullshit straw man.

if you want to tap those billions, raise their income tax & let them pay back the trust fund for 10 years -- now 12 years -- of bush tax cuts.

[ProSense]

20. Wait

"if you want to tap those billions, raise their income tax"

That's exactly the President's position, as Sanders pointed out.

"On October 14, 2010, he restated a long-held position that the cap on income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, now at $106,800, should be raised."

Twisting the President's words doesn't change his position.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

29. What?

"his position wa to extend income tax cuts for billionaires another two years."

That has nothing to do with Social Security or this discussion.

[Hannah Bell]

32. and the crap in the article about lifting the cap on fica to tax "billionaires" has nothing to do

with SS either.

it's just crap.

if you want to tax billionaires, you do it with income tax, because billionaires don't get most of their money from WAGES.

get it?

[ProSense]

35. What the hell does the income tax have to do with Social Security?

They can raise income taxes on billionaires and spend it on roads, but what does that have to do with Social Security?

[Hannah Bell]

43. the article is the one who introduced the subject of billionaires to the discussion, saying that

lifting the cap on fica is a good thing because it would tax billionaires.

as you well know.

an increase in INCOME TAX on billionaires = money to pay back the trust fund.

as you well know.

don't bring propaganda to the discussion then act all disingenuous.

[ProSense]

46. "lifting the cap on fica is a good thing because it would tax billionaires."

Isn't that what I said?

"an increase in INCOME TAX on billionaires = money to pay back the trust fund."

Yeah, but why try to make it seem like the other idea is a straw man?

If Social Security isn't in crisis, increasing the income cap alone could replenish the trust fund. Some have suggested a FICA tax on capital gains.

Increasing income tax on billionaires is useful for a lot of other purposes.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

56. I got your point, but you have no response.

Typical.

[slipslidingaway]

59. Totally agree! Found that out during the HC discussions :) n/t

[ProSense]

54. What don't you understand?

Maybe you should avoid my comments if you're having trouble understanding them?

[slipslidingaway]

63. I understand that you do not understand when it is convenient for your POV...

so you still do not understand what Hannah Bell said?

[slipslidingaway]

79. kick n/t

[sabrina 1]

73. That was in October. In January he extended the Bush tax cuts.

So, I guess that option is off the table.

[slipslidingaway]

44. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for continuously making this point ...

still some people just do not get it.

[old mark]

95. Take a stand...yes, that would be nice...nt

[sabrina 1]

52. Has Obama come out and corrected that speculation? He's

had months to do it. He was eg, asked to fire Alan Simpson by thousands of SS advocates after Simpson's insulting and lunatic remarks about SS recipients. Did he even respond to those requests, explain why he kept that Republican around?

He was silent about the PO also for quite a while before the final bill was produced. He made a few weak comments, which we were told 'meant nothing' back them.

So, what is his position on SS? Has he made it clear that SS has nothing to do with the deficit recently? Has he taken it off the table as far as discussions about the Deficit?

You surely know that SS has nothing to do with the deficit. So why does he not straighten out that lie being told by his commissioners so people know where he stands?

[slipslidingaway]

68. My bet, the response will be crickets :( n/t

[sabrina 1]

72. That is too bad. I really would like an answer, from someone,

as to why the President has not made it crystal clear that SS and the deficit have nothing to do with each other.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

82. Sadly, it appears you are correct. However, I have done a little

search myself to see if I could find any statements from the president correcting the lie told by his Commissioners that SS has something to do with the deficit, and I could not find any. It was a quick search so I might have missed them, but I have to conclude that the president, despite having had months to take a stand against the lies being told by the commissioners, lies repeatedly corrected by some of the country's top economists, (eg, I had no problem finding corrections made by Paul Krugman, James Galbraith among others) I could not find such a correction coming from this WH.

That, imho, is a very, very bad sign.

[slipslidingaway]

84. Unfortunately words and subsequent actions are not always the same...

and we should be mindful and skeptical of the commission appointed by Obama ... we certainly learned that from the HC debate, better to be proactive then to be sidelined by impressive talk.

:(

[ProSense]

83. Having fun?

The President's position

And the bogus nearly three-month old poll that the OP is based on.

[slipslidingaway]

89. You can believe in talk if you want, I'll believe the talk when followed by actions...

the speech about politicians who cave on their HC plans that he made in late 2008 not being "who we are" was pretty compelling and subsequently very telling.

How did that negotiating for bulk Medicare drug prices work out in his plan when Pharma agreed to run ads in support of his HC plan ... that did not include Medicare negotiating drug prices. Remember the Ad "Billy" that he ran during the campaign? Guess it was different later on when he met with Billy after the inauguration.

Obama: Billy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCRO0g9CfAw

Nice speeches, poor compromise for seniors.

Have fun with the empty words and blue links. A couple months later he was making a deal with Billy Tauzin in the WH.

The Legacy of Billy Tauzin: The White House-PhRMA Deal
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/340


Obama, Newport News, October 2008 ... google for the link if interested. Enough is enough indeed!

"And we are tired of watching as year after year, candidates offer up detailed health care plans with great fanfare and promise only to see them crushed under the weight of Washington politics and drug and insurance lobbying once the campaign is over.

That is not who we are, that is not who we have to be, enough is enough, it time for us to change."


http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

"Allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices.

The 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act bans the government from negotiating down the prices of prescription drugs, even though the Department of Veterans Affairs’ negotiation of prescription drug prices with drug companies has garnered significant savings for taxpayers.32 Barack Obama and Joe Biden will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings, which could be as high as $30 billion (per year),33 to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality."

[ProSense]

92. Well, that settles it

Why exactly do you want the President to say anything if you're not going to believe him and reject his stated position?

[slipslidingaway]

93. Well then why post blue links to his stated positions when he has backed away from them...

:shrug:

If he comes out forcefully against or for something then it is easier for voters to judge his truthfulness, maybe that still counts in the next election. But talk needs to followed by a similar action - people still understand that.
The fact that up until now he has signaled an intent to compromise on "entitlement" spending does not sit well with some people, he established this commission by EO and appointed the chairs, did he not know their prior positions on entitlement spending? People have a right to be skeptical with his decisions on this matter and other matters as well and they will only allow so many mistakes before they feel they made a mistake in supporting him.

[sabrina 1]

94. Excellent post, sometimes I think I was dreaming when I

remember some of the promised made in the campaign. I wonder whatever happened to the guy who ran for the presidency?

[Enthusiast]

98. Perfect argument. nt

[tularetom]

6. Is he prepared to tell us that his predecessors have lied about SS for years?

If not, he is going to take the hit for however he proposes to fuck with it.

I think he really believes the program could be in trouble and he needs to take drastic action to rescue it. He probably also believes the American public is mature enough to accept the truth when he presents it to them so eloquently. (He's wrong about this of course - we're nothing if not immature)

But if he does this he is in effect, telling us that we've been fed a line of bullshit about SS for many years. There's no two ways about it - either SS is healthy and he doesn't need to mess with it OR it's in trouble and a long line of presidents, both Democratic and republican, have lied to us.

If he doesn't point fingers he'll get portrayed by the republicans and their media stooges as the guy who fucked up Social Security. And that is probably the one thing that can guarantee that he won't serve a second term.

[WillyT]

9. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

:applause::applause::applause:

:kick:

:hi:

[ProSense]

12. Interesting

If he doesn't point fingers he'll get portrayed by the republicans and their media stooges as the guy who fucked up Social Security. And that is probably the one thing that can guarantee that he won't serve a second term.

You think that's his goal?

[Bluenorthwest]

38. The man does not even know the history of the program

and clearly does not care enough to learn it. When I heard a US President claim Social Security started out as a program for widows and orphans only, I thought good gravy, how can a man this uninformed presume to make policy? Chilling, the level of his ignorant statements on the subject. He is unaware of basic facts, and states falsehoods in their place, from the podium of final authority. But sure, I'm sure that aside from total misunderstanding of the program, his insights will be brilliant.
Why he'd pontificate about things he does not know, hard to say. Hubris, I'd guess. Those who think they are part of God's hand chosen extra specials tend to get a touch of that.

[emulatorloo]

15. I find it hard to reconcile Obama's "Social Security is not in crisis" with your

"I think he really believes the program could be in trouble and he needs to take drastic action to rescue it."

I do know that anything he says in the SOTU regarding tweaking Social Security is going to be parsed by DU to fit the "Obama Is Evil" narrative.

That will happen even if obama comes out strong as a defender of Social Security against those who want to cut it for deficit reduction. (which I believe he will)

[RufusTFirefly]

24. The President has been warning about Social Security ever since he was a candidate

This is Paul Krugman (who knows a thing or two about economics) from Nov. 2007

Lately, Barack Obama has been saying that major action is needed to avert what he keeps calling a "crisis" in Social Security — most recently in an interview with The National Journal. Progressives who fought hard and successfully against the Bush administration’s attempt to panic America into privatizing the New Deal’s crown jewel are outraged, and rightly so.

But Mr. Obama’s Social Security mistake was, in fact, exactly what you’d expect from a candidate who promises to transcend partisanship in an age when that’s neither possible nor desirable.

To understand the nature of Mr. Obama’s mistake, you need to know something about the special role of Social Security in American political discourse.

Inside the Beltway, doomsaying about Social Security — declaring that the program as we know it can’t survive the onslaught of retiring baby boomers — is regarded as a sort of badge of seriousness, a way of showing how statesmanlike and tough-minded you are.

More

[ProSense]

28. Funny:

Video: Social Security: Keep The Promise

[whathehell]

40. Not really, he's been breaking promises since he took office...actually, even before

He "promised" to fulfill his senate term, for instance...He didn't. He ran for president.

The rest is "history" as they say.:eyes:

[sabrina 1]

71. If he makes it clear that SS had nothing to do with the Deficit

he will be fine. If he uses the words 'deficit' and 'SS' in the same sentence, that will be a clue as to what his intentions are.

He DOES know that that SS has nothing to do with the deficit. So why has he not told his Commissioners to focus on the deficit and to leave SS out of that conversation? It IS a separate issue.

[kelly1mm]

75. Since the payroll tax holiday (I know it has only been 3 weeks but still)

that is no longer a sound argument. The 2% that employee's are no longer paying into the SS fund are being replaced with funds from the general fund. Thus, it is no longer true that SS has nothing to do with the deficit. Some here, including me, were warning about this when the deal was disclosed. It closes off one of the best arguments SS defenders had. Sad actually.

[sabrina 1]

80. I don't buy that. If THEY consciously pulled a con on the American

people, they must not be allowed to get away with it. SS did not cause the deficit. That is a fact.

There is a deficit. THEY caused it. Now, the question is how to get THEM to pay for their corruption, because what is clear is they are trying to make the American people pay for their gambling debts and that is simply not acceptable. They borrowed money from the American people and they must pay it back.

It is ridiculous to make the argument that now SS and deficit are tied together. No matter what con they try to pull to make that a fact, it is not. The Bush tax cuts, the collapse of the economy due to massive corruption, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bail-outs, sending jobs overseas with no consequences, in fact with rewards, for doing so, these are the things that caused the deficit.

I'm sorry, but what you just said makes no sense. It is illegal for the SS fund to be used for anything but paying back the benefits to the people who paid into it. That fund does not belong to the Federal Govt. It belongs to the American people.

I hope no one is going to buy into this con, if that is what they are hoping for.

[Enthusiast]

99. He needs to say; "Social security

has never added a dime to the deficit."

If he says that I will believe his heart is in the right place. But he has NEVER said anything like that.

[sabrina 1]

107. I have never heard him say it either. He often uses that old

Rovian trick of using 'deficit' and 'SS' in the same sentence or phrase. He doesn't say that SS caused the Deficit, but he subtly connects the two so that people listening would probably swear he did, but he can always point to the video later and deny it.

[emulatorloo]

16. Would love to see the questions. It is "Obama's Social Security Talk" or "Speculative Op-Eds Talk"

that is involved here, as Obama has made no statement in support of cutting social security.

[WCGreen]

21. How was the question worded....

It really is pointless to discuss the poll without knowing how the question was put to those being polled.

I went to the story and when I clicked on the link to the poll, I was directed to a black page...

[WillyT]

27. Link Works For Me, But It's A .pdf File...

Link: http://socialsecurity-works.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/SSSCHighlightsofElectionPollonSocialSecurity.pdf

:shrug:

[emulatorloo]

36. Here's the content of the PDF - nothing about questions.

Nothing about the questions. Interesting stuff here, I have bolded the KEY ONE for me. I do not see how ANY POLITICIAN can propose cuts to Social Security, it is political suicide.


EDIT for FORMATTING

Highlights of 2010 Election Voters’ Opinions About Social Security 
Based on Lake Research Partners Survey, 10/31‐11/2, 2010 
 
 
Opposition to cutting Social Security benefits in order to reduce the deficit 

•Overall: 82% oppose cuts, 15% support cuts 
•By Party: Democrats (83% to 15%), Independents (78% to 17%), Republicans (82% to 15%), Tea Party Supporters (74% to 13%)
 
 
Opposition to cutting Social Security to make program solvent in the long term 

•Overall: 67% oppose cuts, 24% favor cuts 
•By Party: Democrats (78% to 16%), Independents (66% to 20%), Republicans (58% to 35%), Tea Party Supporters (51% to 38%)
 
 
Opposition to reducing Social Security Benefits for people earning above $60,000 today when they retire 

•Overall: 63% oppose cuts, 32% favor cuts 
•By Party: Democrats (58% to 34%), Independents (61% to 34%), Republicans (68% to 29%), Tea Party Supporters (71% to 25%)
 
 
Opposition to raising the Social Security retirement age to 69 years old 

•Overall: 69% oppose, 28% favor 
•By Party: Democrats (76% oppose), Independents (77% oppose), Republicans (57% oppose), Tea Party Supporters (62% oppose)
 
 
Support for enacting Social Security taxes on wages above $106,800 (the Payroll Tax Cap) to make program more solvent 

•Overall: 66% favor, 27% oppose 
•By Party: Democrats (73% support), Independents (66% support), Republicans (59% support), Tea Party Supporters (60% support)
 
 
Who will better handle Social Security 

•Republicans vs. Democrats in Congress: 31% (R) to 28% (D); 34% both the same 
•Republicans in Congress vs. Obama: 33% (R) to 26% (Obama); 31% both the same  
 
Source: Lake Research Partners, Social Security Works, "Findings from an Election Eve/Night Survey of 1,200 Likely Voters Nationwide, Oct. 31‐ Nov. 2, 2010. Accessed at http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/lakepolling  

[ProSense]

61. "Findings from an Election Eve/Night Survey of 1,200 Likely Voters Nationwide, Oct. 31-Nov. 2, 2010"

Why is Froomkin pushing this poll as if it's recent and representative of all Americans?

[Hello_Kitty]

86. Voters oppose free trade deals by similar margins yet we keep getting them.

We are told that free trade is where the "center" is and the same will be said about any cuts to SS benefits that are proposed.

[slipslidingaway]

48. Not happy with either party on this issue and would want to know more about Lake's ...

poll considering her polls on health care.

Americans Support Single payer. Why Doesn't Celinda Lake?
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/december/americans_support_si.php

"...Similar strong support for Medicare for All was found the last time health reform was on the top of the nation’s agenda, during the Clinton administration. In 1993, a citizen jury sat for 8 hours a day for five days in Washington, DC before making their choice among the then-leading options for health reform: managed competition (supported by Clinton), medical savings accounts, and single payer. Single payer received 17 out of 24 votes (70 percent). There were 5 votes for Clinton’s plan, and none for medical savings accounts. Focus groups conducted that year by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake reported the same strong support for single payer. “After conducting extensive focus groups on health care, pollster Celinda Lake discovered that the more people are told about the Canadian system, “the higher the support goes.” In contrast, according to Lake, working Americans found the managed competition idea “laughable.” (“It’s Time for a Real Debate on National Health Insurance”)..."

So, how come Democratic pollster Celinda Lake now claims Americans won’t support single payer, and instead favor a plan that is a variant of managed competition? Because her latest research was brazenly biased. Kip Sullivan explains how and why.


Two-thirds of Americans support Medicare-for-all (#1 of 6)
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/06/two-thirds-support-1/

"...In Parts IV and V, I’ll discuss the evidence that “option” advocates cite for their claim that single-payer is opposed by most Americans. Part IV will examine polling data that Jacob Hacker uses to justify his refusal to support single-payer and his decision to promote the notion of “public-private-plan choice.” Part V will examine the survey and focus group “research” done by Celinda Lake for the Herndon Alliance and subsequently cited by leaders of HCAN, the two groups most responsible for bringing the “public option” into the current health care reform debate..."

[Imagevision]

42. Obama's plan to raise retirement age up to 70...(?)

[emulatorloo]

69. Do you have any Obama quotes? n/t

[w4rma]

102. Do Obama appointees count? Or is he not allowed to delegate? (nt)

[madrchsod]

50. i really do`t trust either party

[spanone]

53. i haven't heard 'Obama's social security talk'

[Arkana]

55. Gee, so something we haven't heard of except out of the mouths

of secondary sources doesn't poll well.

'Obama's Talk of Making Everyone Wear Chimp Suits And Walk Backwards is Turning Voters Off, Pollsters Say'

[emulatorloo]

70. LOL n/t

[sabrina 1]

74. Do you have quotes from Obama making it clear that SS

has nothing to do with the deficit and instructing his Deficit Commission to stop lying to the American people about that?

Many other people have made that point very clear. But I can't find a statement from this president correcting the lies being told by his deficit commissioners regarding SS and the Deficit.

[Poboy]

57. Recommend

[whosinpower]

58. Trust

The backroom deal with the GOP on the tax cut extension, complete with a proudly introduced payroll tax holiday as a DEM principle - erodes trust. Especially when it was finally reported and confirmed that it was the GOP who brought it to the table. Misleading statements from the White house who sold this piece of CRAP as a democrat gain REPEATEDLY when we all know the GOP were whoring for it all along......yeah...that ERODES TRUST.

It is no wonder many people are now wary of what Obama will propose regarding social security.

He did it to himself. It does not matter what he SAYS nearly as much as it does matter what he DOES. So yeah....many of us are wary of what he will give up even if in the past he has voiced support for social security.

But, just because a voter may trust Obama less, does not necessarily mean they trust the GOP more.

The silent elephant in the room is not social security. It is the cost of two wars and the cost of defense.

[senseandsensibility]

64. k and r but no one's listening.

Least of all this administration.

[grahamhgreen]

65. If you want to cut SS, you're in the wrong party. Period.

[Raine]

108. EXACTLY correct, no REAL Democrat will ever suport

cutting SS, if they do they don't belong in this party! :mad:

[Little Star]

66. K&R

[L0oniX]

67. DDDDDDDDUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHH !

[SidDithers]

81. Obama's social security talk? WTF?...

the only ones talking about social security are the ones putting words in Obama's mouth.

Sid

[slipslidingaway]

91. Do not forget those who appointed the heads of the deficit reduction commission...

by executive order including SS.

[snooper2]

90. bold means

read me first!

[Kweli4Real]

100. I am a fairly informed person ...

I read, probably 10 different news-sources and another 5-10 political blogs per day. Each of these sites/sources cover the range of the political spectrum. So I consider myself a fairly well informed person.

However, I am somewhat puzzled by the sudden appearance of all these " Obama's gonna cut Social Security" articles, threads and pundit comments.

It seems that the only places I'm seeing these type of comments are left-wing pundits saying "I think he's gonna do it" and right-wing pundits saying that that is what he should do. In each case, they are citing to what amounts to their own mental gymnastics as evidence that he said what he hasn't said.

Would someone please cite to where President Obama said, or even implied, that cutting SS was on his policy agenda plate?

(and please, for obvious reasons, don't cite to PRESIDENT Obama's general statements of 'we're going to look at our deficit-reduction options', or the creation of the "Catfood Commission")

Until someone can put up something definitive, I'm just gonna have to assume that this is just another attempt by certain "pundits" to throw more sh!t on the wall so that they can say, "See ... I told you (first)", without having to mention that they've been throwing sh!t for 2+ years and been wrong every damned time.

[w4rma]

101. Then he had better come out and state, unequivically, that he won't do what he sounds like he is

going to do. He needs to QUIT playing games and talk straight. This is his own fault for trying to appear to be on all sides of this issue.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Imagevision]

105. Pay attention to Obama's state of the union schpiel...