[Candykiss]

TPM:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ty.php?ref=fpb

Voters last week sent Washington a strong message about fixing the federal budget, according to exclusive numbers from a new poll obtained by TPM: Raise taxes on the wealthy and cut the military budget before you touch the nation's largest entitlement program, Social Security.

The survey of voters who cast ballots last Tuesday -- conducted by Democratic pollster PPP and commissioned by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee -- found that when respondents were given the choice between cutting the defense budget, raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit, just 12% said they'd like to see the entitlement program cut. Forty-three percent said they'd prefer to see taxes on the wealthy go up, and 22% said cutting the huge defense budget was the best way to go.

The PCCC hailed the result as evidence that voters are not ready to embrace the conservative economic agenda, even after they just voted a huge number of new conservatives into Congress.

"This polling is remarkable," PCCC co-founder Stephanie Taylor said. "If Democrats compromise on tax cuts for the wealthy, or entertain for one minute the idea of cutting Social Security, it would be both a policy disaster and a monumental political blunder -- and they'd risk losing the Senate and maybe even the White House in 2012."

The partisan breakdown of the results shows that Republicans, Democrats and independents agree that cutting Social Security is the least acceptable option of the three presented in the poll. It came in third among all respondents who made a choice. But the plurality of independents and Republicans said they didn't know which option is best -- 36% of Republicans said they were "not sure" which to choose among the three and 35% of independents said the same thing. Among the total sample, 23% said they were unsure.

[FreeOEMcheapestPHOTOSHOP]

Wow, talk about presenting false choices. Really, I didn't know that cutting Social Security was a key part of the Conservative economic Agenda. It is likely that there are more Dems in favor of cutting social Security.

[Michael-jeckson2]

On what information do you base that statement?

[Tauntenue]

Hint: President's (a Democrat) Deficit Reduction Commission (Dominated by Democrat Appointees) recommendations. And that was just yesterday.

Do you even read, watch or listen to the news?

[JoZertekAdv]

Here's the Deficit Commission membership. The recommendations announced today were presented by the co-chairs, Republican Alan Simpson and Democrat Erskine Bowles. Tom Coburn, Republican from OK, helped draft the list of spending cuts.

There are equal numbers of Democratic lawmakers and Republican lawmakers on the commission.

Co-Chairmen:
Sen. Alan Simpson. Former Republican Senator from Wyoming.
Erskine Bowles, Chief of Staff to President Clinton


Executive Director:
Bruce Reed, Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Clinton
Commissioners:
Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.)
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D., Calif.)
Rep. Dave Camp (R., Mich.)
Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.)
David Cote, Chairman and CEO, Honeywell International
Sen. Mike Crapo (R., Idaho)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.)
Ann Fudge, Former CEO, Young & Rubicam Brands
Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.)
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R, Texas)
Alice Rivlin, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institute and former Director, Office of Management & Budget
Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D., Ill.)
Rep. John Spratt (D., S.C.)
Andrew Stern, President, Service Employees International Union

[OixKKcj1]

But of course not everyone on the commission is a lawmaker, now are they Richard? Like I said dominated by Democrat appointees? Right>?

[NikitahDE]

The commission was originally a Republican proposal, if I'm remembering correctly. Then Pres. Obama endorsed it and the Republican support disappeared.

Anyway, from the little I've heard, the report suggests a combination of raising taxes and cutting spending both to equal 21% of GDP, which is where both were during the times the budget was balanced during the Clinton administration. On the social security end, benefits would be means tested, reduced in increments beginning with those who already have incomes above a certain amount ($50,000, I think?) and medicare premiums would be increased similarly on these same people. Defense is also subject to large cuts across the board. That's the big three.

The Republicans have said absolutely no raising taxes and nobody touches defense. The Democrats have said cutting social security or medicare is dead on arrival, so it would seem that at first glance, neither side is willing to tackle the three largest parts of the budget and Republicans won't give in on raising taxes. It's the same old party lines we've been hearing for decades.

[KirillAristov]

On what information do you base that statement?

Your response indicates NOTHING about "more Dems" supporting cuts in SS. It only involves a few members of a commission.

Statistically, on what do you base your claim? Back it up, or shut it up.

[Anykeylo]

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer explicitly put the idea on the table as well in a speech last month. "We should consider a higher retirement age or one pegged to lifespan," Hoyer said.

He echoed House Majority Whip James Clyburn, who put it this way: "With minor changes to the program such as raising the salary cap and raising the retirement age by one month every year, the program could become solvent for the next 75 years." One month a year may not sound like much, but if you're 30 years away from retirement, that adds up to almost three years.

In the House, though, Nancy Pelosi is the linchpin, and she's not nearly as enthusiastic as her colleagues. But, notwithstanding the enthusiasm gap, she also left the possibility of raising the retirement age on the table. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...l-security.php

So we have the White House through a Dem dominated committee endorsing cuts in Social Security in addition to the top House Dems either endorsing or not rejecting cuts in Social Security. But yet the moonbat left wants to say only Conservatives propose Social Security Cuts. Please.

[uranbigis]

The age change proposal is in line with a position that presumptive GOP House Majority leader John Boehner has been forcefully pushing much of this year. That Dems are beginning to show support means it's slowly becoming a bipartisan proposal. Thankfully it doesn't go all the way down the path to handing the fate of most recipients' balances over to the whims of the stock market, as the Bush administration tried and failed to do.

[oranowdenda]

Your response indicates NOTHING about "more Dems" supporting cuts in SS. It only involves a few members of a commission.

Statistically, on what do you base your claim? Back it up, or shut it up.

In a PCCC poll, voters were given a choice between cutting defense, raising taxes on the wealthy or cutting social security.

Democrats, on the other hand, have their mind made up. Sixty-six percent said they'd prefer to see taxes on the wealthy go up to shrink the deficit, 28% said they'd prefer the military cuts and just 3% said cut Social Security. Only 3% said they were unsure. Link

Paul, does that give you an idea about how strongly Democrats oppose cutting Social Security? I think you may be mistaken in your beliefs.

[Wsjltrhe]

Paul, does that give you an idea about how strongly Democrats oppose cutting Social Security? I think you may be mistaken in your beliefs.

I think he may be mistaken in his unsupported beliefs.

[CarmenSanches]

Your response indicates NOTHING about "more Dems" supporting cuts in SS. It only involves a few members of a commission.

Statistically, on what do you base your claim? Back it up, or shut it up.

Pinky, you don't actually think he based his claim on actual data, do you?

[maxuilg]

Paul, does that give you an idea about how strongly Democrats oppose cutting Social Security? I think you may be mistaken in your beliefs.

Not at all. All the question proves is Dems prefer raising taxes on the wealthy to cutting social security as the preferred method for reducing the deficit. It does not mean the Dems are opposed to cutting social security only that they like the taxing the wealthy more. The poll does not rule out Dem support for doing all three, only that if you had to limit yourself to one choice, then they would pick raising taxes on the wealthy.

I think this can be clearly shown by the nearly orgasmic enthusiasm Dem leaders exhibit for raising taxes on the wealthy, while these same Dem leaders are somewhat less enthusiatic in endorsing social security cuts.

I like Strawberry, Peach and Banana Ice Cream. But if forced to choose one I would choose Peach, that doesn't mean I'm opposed to Strawberry. Right?

[olivelappers]

The age change proposal is in line with a position that presumptive GOP House Majority leader John Boehner has been forcefully pushing much of this year. That Dems are beginning to show support means it's slowly becoming a bipartisan proposal. Thankfully it doesn't go all the way down the path to handing the fate of most recipients' balances over to the whims of the stock market, as the Bush administration tried and failed to do.

Biden in 2007 To protect Social Security, Biden said he would bring both parties to the table to keep the plan paying out. That would include discussing options such as upping the retirement age and raising the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax past the $97,500 it was in 2007. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21012138/ns/politics/

Seems like Dems have been talking about social security cuts for a long time. Right?

[tyclislavaify]

Biden in 2007 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21012138/ns/politics/

Seems like Dems have been talking about social security cuts for a long time. Right?

No, it seems like Joe Biden talked about the issue once in 2007, before he was in the White House.
As these issues ramp up, there will be more polls to show exactly how Democrats and Republicans feel about cuts in Social Security. We'll see how those fall out.

[brilkyPlayday]

Not at all. All the question proves is Dems prefer raising taxes on the wealthy to cutting social security as the preferred method for reducing the deficit. It does not mean the Dems are opposed to cutting social security only that they like the taxing the wealthy more. The poll does not rule out Dem support for doing all three, only that if you had to limit yourself to one choice, then they would pick raising taxes on the wealthy.

I think this can be clearly shown by the nearly orgasmic enthusiasm Dem leaders exhibit for raising taxes on the wealthy, while these same Dem leaders are somewhat less enthusiatic in endorsing social security cuts.

I like Strawberry, Peach and Banana Ice Cream. But if forced to choose one I would choose Peach, that doesn't mean I'm opposed to Strawberry. Right?

Your argument is weak. Just 3% of all Democrats polled chose cuts in Social Security which shows an extremely strong rejection of those cuts given all the choices. What that means in your analogy is that you really, really, really hate Strawberry.

[TineSeign]

Your argument is weak. Just 3% of all Democrats polled chose cuts in Social Security which shows an extremely strong rejection of those cuts given all the choices. What that means in your analogy is that you really, really, really hate Strawberry.

No my argument is logical, yours not so much. If I asked Dems if they prefer a gift of a new Volvo, a trip to Hawaii or $90. I reckon the $90 choice would be down around the 3% +or- margin of error. But would that mean they would reject the idea of the $90 gift? Hardly, but that is where your illogic leads you.

[cwgwowcom]

This thread is about a poll involving a comparison between increasing taxes on the wealthy and cutting Social Security as a deficit-reducing tactic, Paul. And BOTH polls cited indicate a very strong preference for increasing taxes among voters. Not members of Congress, not members of commissions, but VOTERS.

Argue all you want about what you think Democrats want, but your statements are in direct contradiction to the results of these polls.

[mygalinasoo]

This thread is about a poll involving a comparison between increasing taxes on the wealthy and cutting Social Security as a deficit-reducing tactic, Paul. And BOTH polls cited indicate a very strong preference for increasing taxes among voters. Not members of Congress, not members of commissions, but VOTERS.

Argue all you want about what you think Democrats want, but your statements are in direct contradiction to the results of these polls.

Agreed. You've lost this agrument, Paul.