Skip to comments.Poll: Voters disagree that Social Security is a “monstrous lie”
Posted on 09/13/2011 12:06:00 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Even after an op-ed in USA Today and a strong exposition of his position in last night’s debate, Rick Perry still draws heat for his characterization of Social Security as a “monstrous lie.” A new CNN/ORC poll, for example, reveals that 72 percent of registered voters say Perry’s description of the program is “inaccurate,” while just 27 percent say it is “truthful.” More of the breakdown from WSJ’s Washington Wire:
The survey also shows that 59 percent of tea party supporters disagree with Mr. Perrys characterization.
Still, 55 percent of those polled say theres a serious problem with Social Security that will require major changes.
The R/D/I breakdown and methodology weren’t provided and the poll has a margin of error of three percentage points. A poll conducted by TheStreet.com shows a little more than 76 percent disagree that SS is a Ponzi scheme, while about 24 percent say it is. That poll is skewed by the perspective of the website which draws a certain left-leaning readers, but does on some level corroborate the results of the CNN poll. Still, as the Washington Wire points out, much of the kerfuffle about Social Security has as much to do with the language Perry chooses to use than his actual views on the program.
Its worth noting that his rivals attacks on Mr. Perry are just as much about his word choice as his suggestion in his 2010 book Fed Up that Social Security violates the U.S. Constitution.
The Texas governor has said there should be a national conversation about Social Security, and that he wouldnt alter benefits for those currently receiving the benefit or those who are nearing retirement.
If it’s a national conversation Rick Perry wanted, it’s a national conversation he’s getting. The extensive talk of entitlement reform at last night’s debate was long overdue — but, as positive as that development is, it still doesn’t go far enough. Wolf Blitzer managed to make every candidate say what he or she would do to reform the Medicare prescription drug program — but, by and large, candidates still shy away from discussing Medicare reform. And, unfortunately, that program breaks the bank, as well. Just as cutting waste, fraud and abuse won’t balance the budget, so reforming Social Security alone won’t, either. As Herman Cain said last night, it doesn’t matter what we call these entitlement programs, it just matters that we understand they’re broken — and start talking solutions. This guy tried, remember? It’s time to try again.
It’s like standing next to a car with a hearing roaring powerful engine, then looking under the hood and seeing a tape recorder hooked to some big speakers.
>> The survey also shows that 59 percent of tea party supporters disagree with Mr. Perrys characterization.
I have trouble believing that.
Perry is right, SocSec is a ponzi scheme.
Problem is, many Americans have an entitlement mentality.
Perry needs to do a better job in explaining the dire need for immediate SocSec reform policy.
SS was working for many years when American workers supported those retired. It was a system that provided job opportunities when people retired and relieved those working for providing home and health care for their parents.
SS started to fall apart when the American jobs were exported and neither the foreign workers nor their employers paid into the SS system.
Bring the jobs back, put American workers paying into the SS system again and it will be on its way to recovery.
Dunno about this particular survey, but Perry talking about Social Security this way could destroy his campaign. The public is not ready to hear things like this, calling SS a ponzi scheme and monsterous lie simply scares old people and they will not vote for someone saying such things. Talking dramatically about SS and Medicare or hinting at even changing them very much will send even Tea Party seasoned citizens into a tizzy.
This poll is a monstrous lie.
I know for fact that the Texas Tea Party does not believe Perry’s wrong about Social Security, especially the young ones. They’re no longer willing to send their money to the government and have it flushed down the toilet never to see it again.
Not surprising. If you’re over 40, it’s too late to start over with a new system. Of course people are going to say that, they’re scared of poverty. I’m one of them.
I fear this too, yet, there is also a lot of contradicting evidence:
-Rubio and Johnson ran their Senate campaigns with a similar attitude towards SS and won
-Perry himself leads in the primary polls and is about even w/Obama
What he can do, IMHO, is explain WHY he used the term Ponzi Scheme. Then appeal to their sensible side, say “Look, we all agree it needs reform. Many of you are uncomfortable with the language I used, but, aren’t we past the point in this country where we need to tone down everything we say?”
What bothers me is that it’s not necessarily the idea of SS being broke that people have a problem with, it’s the words he used to say it. Grow a spine, people!
No, people who have paid into Social Security do not have an ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY, they believe they are OWNERS.
At the same time i don't believe the poll results are legitimate. Most of us know very well how Social Security works ~ and it works just like any Ponzi scheme except on the payout side. If it were a real Ponzi scheme the first folks paid off would have gotten back much more than they'd paid in ON THE VERY FIRST PAYBACK.
Remember the deal with a successful Ponzi scheme is that you get the first dozen or so participants to get back truly incredibly large paybacks very early in the game. They do your advertising for you.
Now I don't know if you'd noticed but with Social Security if you don't pay they send guys after you with guns. Ponzi didn't do that. Makes a huge whopping difference in the way the game is run too.
Come on! Some of the public may not be ready to hear such rhetoric. Some of the public appreciates a straight shooter. Perry needs to drill home the fact that seniors 55 and above will not see ANY changes in their SocSec. Most younger Americans understand SocSec will not be there for them unless changes take place asap. Of course the liberal media will not go along with any substantive discussion on entitlement reform and the left will continue to demagogue the issue as they have been doing for the last 50 years!
Don’t forget, in addition, when SS began, the average white American Woman (ages are lower for other populations) could only expect a lifespan of about 67 years. Today that has jumped to a little over 80 years. No one wants to talk about the fact that this was designed for most people never to reach the age in which they would actually retire and get benefits.
What you are imagining is we can bring broom making back to America and put millions to work. It doesn't work that way.
They better get ready quick because the whole house of cards is close to just falling.It begins to pay out more than it takes in in 2020 IIRC and that is only a few short years away.
Every half well informed individual knows that SS needs some reforms. And every individual with half a quotient of common sense knows it’s a dumb ass move to discuss SS as a “Ponzi scheme” and a “monstrous lie”.
If Perry should be the nominee the Dims will run ads with those terms until election day. It’s dumb to give the Dims such easy fodder to use during the general election campaign, and it would cost some votes and might even cost a state or two. Not smart to keep this up.
It’s really simple. We threw away our future in the abortion mills. Did you all not think that we won’t reap what we’ve sewn? Is God a liar?
And that is the key to explaning it to the public.
"See, back in the 30s, and even for many decades after, the government told us that we were paying into a fund that would benefit us, something that was our money we could access later. But as most of us know, they lied to us, all we were doing was paying for people already getting benefits. Which is fine, you may say, except, that over time, fewer and fewer workers are paying in for more and more recipients, it's simple math, but, it's not our fault, we were sold a bill of goods. None of us were alive when all this happened.
So now, we have to figure out what to do to ensure that the payments that our young people are paying into now, don't turn into a whole lot of nothing when THEY reach retirement. That's what I'm talking about, not taking anything away from anyone currently recieving SS or about to do so."
Perry is absolutely right.
Their belief is not supported in US law. It needs to be. That's where reform starts. And the system does need reform, or it will collapse!
Social Security has been a fraud since day 1. Consider, for example, the
employer contribution. That label is an attempt by Congress to deceive the public into believing they are not paying half the tab. But any idiot knows that the employer contribution is simply a hidden part of employee compensation that is being taxed away.
Perry really needs to put together a sit-down explanation video of what Social Security is, and is not. The spending of the Social Security funds BEFORE they even are arriving is what causes it to fit “Ponzi Scheme”, and there’s NO WAY this can lead to anything buy the payers having NO FUNDS when they reach Claim age.
Life expectant now in the USA is 78.7 with that in mind the way social security was originally needed, no one under the age of 79 at this moment should be getting social security.
Public opinion is what it is. SS and Medicare are 3rd rail issues and they need to be addressed extremely carefully. Old people do not want to hear the program that sustains (many of) them, that they've paid into and generally like, is a "monsterous lie" or a "ponzi scheme". Both things are basically true, neither should be said. Perry should have simply stated from the first debate on that he probably shouldn't have characterized SS as a "ponzi scheme" and that he has a plan to save the program. Instead he doubled down on disasterous rhetoric. If he keeps this up, Perry will blow up his campaign.
I know many, many older conservatives who identify or actively support the Tea Party, the minute you start talking Medicare and Social Security changes they begin to shrink and recoil in terror. You can even see it right here on FR. There are countless comments from some of our seasoned citizens arguing the same old "I paid into it and want all my benefits" stuff. Even if you assure old people they will get their stipends and coverage, they still get frightened at any future change as they see it as the proverbial camel's nose under the tent.
Congress is in a real bind with Social Security.
It's pretty obvious the "investment" should have been made in goods ~ rather than interest free loans to the US government because all that did was allow Congress to spend the money.
It's not too late to dig up their bones and commit sacrilegious ceremonies with them ~ and maybe publicly waterboard and torture Congressmen still around who voted for it all ~ but that might serve to distract the owners for a few moments while someone FIXES the problem.
I'm thinking we can trade shares in the public lands for Social Security equity.
except it doesn’t hurt him because the older voters and tea party voters are supporting him overwhelmingly.
That still hasn’t sunk into people’s heads...NO ONE was supposed to collect...Always was, still is...just a “kitty”....
“Dont forget, in addition, when SS began, the average white American Woman (ages are lower for other populations) could only expect a lifespan of about 67 years. Today that has jumped to a little over 80 years.”
Also not mentioned is inflation. If you save in current dollars so can’t save enough to be self sufficient in future dollars. When you pay in you should receive the same purchasing power when you retire. If there is something that screws people and dwarfs any ‘Ponzi’ words, it is inflation.
“( - - - just 27 percent say it is truthful. - - - )”
Let’s see now, FDR foisted the Socialist Security System on us in the 1930’s, SSS went bankrupt in 2010, and still only 27 % DARE to think that FDR did something unconstitutional? What a joke!
My, oh my. We are indeed a gullible bunch to tax-burdened ninnies!
The SSS is an annuity that each of us is forced, at the point of a gun, to buy. Where is the competition in that?
From the SSS to obamatrauma”care” all of these gunpoint legislations violate the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law: decreases competition; illegally fixes non-competitive prices, unfairly deals across State lines, etc.
Oh BTW, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and obamatrauma”care” are all un-Constitutional also because they do not give the recipients their Constitutional right to a free and fair choice.
What is also stunning is that the Tabloid-MSM did not know the FDR did some un-Constitutional.
Oops, sorry! I forgot. Those facts are never taught in Journalism School. My bad.
Seems to me it's long overdue to make such contributions not subject to income tax.
My first job at 13 was working in the neighborhood grocery/deli, delivering, stocking shelves and using the cash register. The owner would have fired me in a NY minute if I screwed up. So, you're wrong. Not the first time and won't be the last.
The basic premise is correct. SocSec is a ponzi scheme. Next time, try thinking like a conservative and leave the comic books closed.
Btw, I said "many Americans have an entitlement mentality" and don't want to see any reform. Not all, however. Not certain what you mean by "OWNERS". Maybe you meant, ownership. Either way, the gov't owes people who paid into SocSec the money they had confiscated from them by the Feds.
I agree with Perry. I don't believe in the entire Social Security system personally, but if I wanted to be elected to office I'd never say it. Sorry, the vast majority of old folks will not agree with Perry's characterization of Social Security. And for many/most, it is their single biggest concern. You threaten social security at all, and old folks will crawl out of the woodwork to vote against you. I don't like it, but it is what it is. We're just not even close to ready for that "adult conversation" people keep claiming we're nearly ready to have - on ANY entitlement really.
We are still completely addicted to the social welfare state and my hunch is it will have to pretty much collapse before it can ever be dealt with.
That's the "way of the world" ~ one of those "or to the people" 9th amendment rights.
Exactly it was designed and intended to only be for those lucky enough to exceed life expectancy and back then few lived to be 90 100 years old like they do now.It was in essence a colossal fantasy of being cared for in old age even though it didn’t seem to sink in that most paying in would never see a dollar of it.
I like and agree with Perry on this issue. If he keeps up the rhetoric of "ponzi scheme" and "monsterous lie" his campaign will go down in flames. Period. I both agree with him and know he is doomed if he keeps talking about Social Security this way. I wish it was not so, but attitudes towards these programs are fixed and words used to describe the problem and plan put forth to deal with it must be very artfully done.
Older people have been told all their lives these programs are "entitlements", they've paid into them, most seasoned citizens believe they are good programs, and talking about them with reckless rhetoric will utterly destroy Perry. He can easily survive nothingburgers like the Gardasil spat, he can overcome the TTC, he will have to really finesse it but he can probably deal with his relatively weak stance on immigration, but the way Perry is talking about Social Security will destroy his campaign if he isn't very careful.
Okay, if it's so dang-fire popular and wonderful, let's give people the option of participating or not. You can either keep the status quo, or your and your employer's 'contributions' go straight to you. All you have to do is agree that you are no longer eligible to participate in Social Security benefits. Then, let's see how many people agree with Perry, in principal, if not in semantics.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
Reagan preached privatization and personal accounts for two decades. He settled for the Greenspan Commission.
Bush43 preached privatization and personal accounts for several years, only to see his reform plan get brutalized from those on the left and the right.
While it won't be easy, its time to address the issue of entitlement reform. Reagan didn't threaten seniors and neither did Bush43. No threats have been made against seniors by Perry.
Its time to touch the third rail of politics. Lets stop being afraid to do what is necessary. First to have serious discussions about reform and then to actually reform all entitlements. Preferably, before they go bankrupt and along with them, the country soon thereafter.
One of the problems Social Security had from the beginning was that it was actuarially unsound. In 1940, if you were 65, you had an over 50% chance of living to see 1950; Most of the deaths that contributed to the low average life expectancy were of those under 5 years old (mostly to childhood diseases or bacterial infections).
Social security currently brings in nearly as much as it pays out this year. The system needs reform or within ten years it will start to eat the rest of the federal budget. I am not sure we even have the ability to wait ten years any more before the changes proposed take effect.
Medicare requires immediate systemic reform, or it will collapse in less than ten years, I guesstimate 5.
The problem is that any attempt to make even the most modest change to these programs that does not have the support of AARP and other leftish to communist groups will result in horrific demagoguery of whoever proposes and supports those changes.
Unfortunately it’s not sold to the people that way.
When my husband and I were young whippersnappers he saw the writing on the wall and knew SS would not be there for us (or expected it wouldn’t be). He has spent a lifetime making sure we would have a retirement (not an early one but enough). We put our kids through college, saved, didn’t take fancy vacations, didn’t live in houses we could not afford etc.
He turned 55 this year and I will turn 55 next year. Of course, now it looks like we are going to get to bail out all those folks who didn’t see the writing on the wall. Oh well, I guess it’s a good thing our real reward is in Heaven. *sigh*
The shortfalls for 2010 ($50 billion) and this fiscal year were relatively small. $2.6 trillion of the $14.6 trillion national debt is the SS surplus paid in over the years that was spent by successive Congresses and presidents. If we assume the US government will be a going concern and pay back its debts, then SS is solvent until 2036.
Medicaid and Medicare are much larger unfunded future liabilities than SS. It's sort of bizarre to see so many all in a tizzy about the third biggest claim and hardly mentioning the much larger ones.
There is time to reform SS and it could probably be made partially voluntary over several decades, but all this over heated rhetoric accomplishes nothing and will certainly backfire to some extent in the general election if Perry is the nominee.
The error is in thinking people are motivated by "entitlement".
People are entitled to proceeds from insurance policies, from inheritance, and so forth.
When it comes to being "motivated" they aren't about to quit their day jobs waiting around on insurance payments to kick in or Aunt Lucy to pass on to her final reward. If they do we consider them exceedingly unusual.
We might note that people feel ownership about the money in their pocket or savings accounts. They are motivated to do harm to those who take it away from them.
But "entitled"? To what? To money?
The result of that and some other rules is that AARP ends up being RULED by a handful of lawyers.
A number of years back I had to work on a revenue deficiency involving them ~ they owed millions (for not paying the correct rates of postage on their advertisements). They also owed millions to IRS.
The US attorney handling the case wanted us to settle for 10% of the amount owed.
They'd gotten to him. Our guys held fast so we got most everything they owed LESS a couple of million for their lawyers!
Within months we had to deal with them on some other matter and they sent in a new legal team. Turns out the old legal team got fired, but the organization hadn't managed to get out of that trick bag, so the new lawyers took over the whole shebang. I am sure they are running AARP the same way today that it was being run decades back.
The secret to beating up on AARP is simple ~ go after their lawyers.
Contrary to what you believe, many Americans have an entitlement mentality. You can find these folks mainly on the left and in the Dem Party. They dwell in a world with a belief system that sees privileges as rights.
Some people believe the feds owe them a return on the FICA money they sent to DC during their working carreers. But they know, its not a right and can not be found in the Constitution.
It's the thinking of a THIEF ~
Listen to their discussions about robbery ~ when their in the planning stages ~ they call it PAY DAY!
I don't agree...at least not entirely. If that is all he does, he would lose and would deserve to lose. He has to provide a solution to the problem. Throughout history, including a number of candidates in 2010, we have had candidates speak boldly on Social Security and won.
He's on the record with these statements, so it will come up again and again. It is what he is going to do as a response that will impact his campaign success.