U Sign Up / Sign In

pShould we cut Social Security payments in the fiscal cliff deal?

Results

79 %

No, absolutely not

14 %

Yes, it's necessary

7 %

I have mixed feelings here

@Dec '12 V 201 votes c 119 comments

Detailed Results Next Debate Vote Now

Activity Stmts Popular

201 Votes

Mon
Jen13411 endorsed DAVE77

v No, absolutely not
u

Jun 6
hmariewv voted

v No, absolutely not
u

May 19
DesignerLM voted

v No, absolutely not
u

May '13
Obsidion voted

v No, absolutely not
u

May '13
RAYGC voted

v No, absolutely not
Apr '13

Glich

v No, absolutely not

The President states he offered Social Security cuts as a "Compromise" - He claims he is trying to balance the budget. Heres a fact: Even if you eliminated social security it couldn't help reduce the Federal Budget or deficit. Why: Social security isn't funded by any part of that budget or debt - social security is funded by the taxes taken from our wages. So offering to cut our benefits is President Obama's way of black mailing Republicans. He's saying, "Those Republicans won't compromise." I for one believe offering to cut social security, veterans benefits and benefits to disabled Americans is not in any way a compromise. Its UnAmerican....

Post
u

Apr '13
nagydonnac voted

v Yes, it's necessary
u

Apr '13
Bob_in_Rico voted

v No, absolutely not
u

Mar '13
anc713 voted

v No, absolutely not
Jan '13
reubenratliff voted

v No, absolutely not
u

Jan '13
bell voted

v No, absolutely not
u

Jan '13

cpier14

v I have mixed feelings here

The First thing that should be cut is the salary of President Congressmen and Senators then they should give up the golden parachute pensions and health care they forced on us and made themselves exempt from. Then stop the low life lawyers from getting SSI for the lowlifes that wont work for a living and restrict benefits to those that have an income over 100,000 a year or there about. I bet if we do that the deserving beneficiaries could be given a little more each month

Post
Jan '13
Doctordub endorsed PoliticalSpice

v No, absolutely not
o

Jan '13
LikkerdySplit endorsed Youu

v Yes, it's necessary
Jan '13
Ironicguy endorsed PoliticalSpice

v No, absolutely not
u

Dec '12
68dptak endorsed DAVE77

v No, absolutely not
Dec '12
MobileAppDev endorsed David944

v Yes, it's necessary
Dec '12
greenslime300 endorsed LALibertarian

v Yes, it's necessary
Dec '12

wvddadams

v I have mixed feelings here

We need to cover those who have paid into the system their whole lives. The new generation should be given the same opportunity as government workers to invest their own money privately, with the understanding they are responsible for their own retirement, that there will be NO Social Security for them. Others can be given that opportunity as well with the understanding that their Social Security benefits will be commensurate to their donations to the system when they reach retirement age. That way No One is "cut off" those that are still working age have the opportunity to save outside the system and have their monies they have placed in Social Security available at r...

Post
Dec '12

AlexMIA

v No, absolutely not

No! People paid for that! Cut entitlements! Welfare! Those checks you give immigrants that haven't even worked here yet! Financial aid to countries that aren't really our allies!

r1 reply

Post
u

Dec '12
Jarnold2020 voted

v I have mixed feelings here
u

Dec '12
katilady87 endorsed mimi57

v No, absolutely not
u

Dec '12
Andy2013 voted

v No, absolutely not
u

Dec '12
hairyelephante voted

v No, absolutely not
u

Dec '12

freedom4ever

v No, absolutely not

Absolutely Not!! people Have paid into SS all their lives, why take from them, what is rightfully owed to them, and SS is not to blame for the fiscal cliff deal!! Congress should try cutting back on their big deal Holiday gatherings in DC, my word, the money they could save!! Millions dumped into the White House for Holiday decor and Meals, give me a break!! They spend, spend, but yet they want to take it from the man and woman who have worked every day, busting their butts, for some thing they thought would be there for them. how is any of this fair?!!! Leave SS alone!!!

Post
o

Dec '12

PattyD

v No, absolutely not

Who comes up with these ridiculous ideas??? Hell cut Obamas personal.expenses and 4 million dollar vacations!!

Post
Dec '12

mrbean17

v No, absolutely not

Absolutley not, social security was implemented, along with the Glass-Steagall Act which created the FDIC, as part of the New Deal during the Great Depression to gurantee savings and deposits that were eithier lost during the stock market crash of 1929 or during the banking panic when the Federal Reserve contracted the monetary base. Social Security is a vital part of the economoy, as it keeps investments safe from the volatile nature of Wall St bankers and thus stimulates increases in consumer demand from older age groups who can no longer work, thus preventing a recession. You do not have to cut social security; U.S demographic data shows that the population has stop...

Post
Dec '12
sedriskell voted

v I have mixed feelings here
Dec '12
Jan_Matt voted

v I have mixed feelings here
u

Dec '12
Kristy24 endorsed DAVE77

v No, absolutely not
Dec '12
mudpike voted

v No, absolutely not
Dec '12
Zach endorsed LALibertarian

v Yes, it's necessary
u

Dec '12
Letranger voted

v No, absolutely not
Dec '12
Ryuo voted

v Yes, it's necessary
u

Dec '12
MellowGuy endorsed PoliticalSpice

v No, absolutely not
Dec '12

jojo196323

v No, absolutely not

them people work there asses off to have ther ss and that not much to live on so no way would i ever vcut them people ss

Post
Dec '12

Girzz1984

v Yes, it's necessary

Needs to be private for younger citizens, I should not have to pay for something I will not get in the future.

r1 reply

Post
u

Dec '12

Randolph61

v No, absolutely not

Absolutely not! Social Security is not an entitlement, it has been paid into by all those who have worked and when their retirement time comes it should be there for them in full! That said, Social Security should be reformed and the people who have never contributed should not have benefits cut but should have them eliminated.

Post
u

Dec '12
Rogue endorsed NormalFlora

v No, absolutely not
Dec '12
D_T_Woodworth voted

v Yes, it's necessary
Dec '12
rgreen11651 voted

v No, absolutely not
Dec '12
AMORGAN7305 endorsed DAVE77

v No, absolutely not
u

Dec '12

biggin

v No, absolutely not

Christ, most people on Social Security can't get by on what it is right now, let alone endure a cut in the benefits

Post
u

Dec '12
yisagirl1 voted

v No, absolutely not
Dec '12
USTaxpayer voted

v No, absolutely not
Dec '12
Njorl voted

v Yes, it's necessary
Dec '12
tomtheterrible endorsed DAVE77

v No, absolutely not
u

Dec '12
fraps endorsed LALibertarian

v Yes, it's necessary
u

Dec '12
LargoMae endorsed PoliticalSpice

v No, absolutely not
Dec '12
Kamakazikid62 voted

v No, absolutely not

Apr '13

Glich

v No, absolutely not

The President states he offered Social Security cuts as a "Compromise" - He claims he is trying to balance the budget. Heres a fact: Even if you eliminated social security it couldn't help reduce the Federal Budget or deficit. Why: Social security isn't funded by any part of that budget or debt - social security is funded by the taxes taken from our wages. So offering to cut our benefits is President Obama's way of black mailing Republicans. He's saying, "Those Republicans won't compromise." I for one believe offering to cut social security, veterans benefits and benefits to disabled Americans is not in any way a compromise. Its UnAmerican....

Post
u

Jan '13

cpier14

v I have mixed feelings here

The First thing that should be cut is the salary of President Congressmen and Senators then they should give up the golden parachute pensions and health care they forced on us and made themselves exempt from. Then stop the low life lawyers from getting SSI for the lowlifes that wont work for a living and restrict benefits to those that have an income over 100,000 a year or there about. I bet if we do that the deserving beneficiaries could be given a little more each month

Post
Dec '12

wvddadams

v I have mixed feelings here

We need to cover those who have paid into the system their whole lives. The new generation should be given the same opportunity as government workers to invest their own money privately, with the understanding they are responsible for their own retirement, that there will be NO Social Security for them. Others can be given that opportunity as well with the understanding that their Social Security benefits will be commensurate to their donations to the system when they reach retirement age. That way No One is "cut off" those that are still working age have the opportunity to save outside the system and have their monies they have placed in Social Security available at r...

Post
Dec '12

AlexMIA

v No, absolutely not

No! People paid for that! Cut entitlements! Welfare! Those checks you give immigrants that haven't even worked here yet! Financial aid to countries that aren't really our allies!

r1 reply

Post
Jan '13

AlexMIA

Correcting myself on terminology. Entitlements are not welfare and should not be cut.

@AlexMIA Post
u

Dec '12

freedom4ever

v No, absolutely not

Absolutely Not!! people Have paid into SS all their lives, why take from them, what is rightfully owed to them, and SS is not to blame for the fiscal cliff deal!! Congress should try cutting back on their big deal Holiday gatherings in DC, my word, the money they could save!! Millions dumped into the White House for Holiday decor and Meals, give me a break!! They spend, spend, but yet they want to take it from the man and woman who have worked every day, busting their butts, for some thing they thought would be there for them. how is any of this fair?!!! Leave SS alone!!!

Post
o

Dec '12

PattyD

v No, absolutely not

Who comes up with these ridiculous ideas??? Hell cut Obamas personal.expenses and 4 million dollar vacations!!

Post
Dec '12

mrbean17

v No, absolutely not

Absolutley not, social security was implemented, along with the Glass-Steagall Act which created the FDIC, as part of the New Deal during the Great Depression to gurantee savings and deposits that were eithier lost during the stock market crash of 1929 or during the banking panic when the Federal Reserve contracted the monetary base. Social Security is a vital part of the economoy, as it keeps investments safe from the volatile nature of Wall St bankers and thus stimulates increases in consumer demand from older age groups who can no longer work, thus preventing a recession. You do not have to cut social security; U.S demographic data shows that the population has stop...

Post
Dec '12

jojo196323

v No, absolutely not

them people work there asses off to have ther ss and that not much to live on so no way would i ever vcut them people ss

Post
Dec '12

Girzz1984

v Yes, it's necessary

Needs to be private for younger citizens, I should not have to pay for something I will not get in the future.

r1 reply

Post
u

Dec '12

questioner

Should you private insurance cut your benefits because It is necessary to keep the company profitable?

@questioner Post
u

Dec '12

Randolph61

v No, absolutely not

Absolutely not! Social Security is not an entitlement, it has been paid into by all those who have worked and when their retirement time comes it should be there for them in full! That said, Social Security should be reformed and the people who have never contributed should not have benefits cut but should have them eliminated.

Post
u

Dec '12

biggin

v No, absolutely not

Christ, most people on Social Security can't get by on what it is right now, let alone endure a cut in the benefits

Post
u

Dec '12

Boomer

v No, absolutely not

Those people who paid into Social Security deserve what they paid throughout the years that they worked. Maybe look into the Administrative costs that the government siphons off of the top to line their beauracratic pockets.

Post
u

Dec '12

Lynn83

v I have mixed feelings here

I don't think it should be lessened for seniors using it now. However, I do feel people around the age of 55 or below need to plan on savings of some kind because it won't be there in the future. The government needs to make this clear so people can stop running up debt and face the fact that they'll be responsible for taking care of themselves financially.

Post
u

Dec '12

seedtick

v No, absolutely not

What kind of question is this? No, you cannot "cut Social Security payments." You can, however, decide what is the best direction to go for those under 50 years of age.

B1

Post
Dec '12

gammler

v I have mixed feelings here

I don't believe that the amount of the benefit should be cut, however, a cut in the way the COLA is computed might be beneficial. This boils down to the argument of should a safety net exist in the first place? The bulk of the people in the US have nothing to sell but their labor. What do we do with people, the value of whose labor has become marginal due to age or disability? Do we let them starve? No matter how you slice it, inflation is going to continue. Do we demand that people on Social Security eat dog food?

Post
Dec '12

wtf2012

v No, absolutely not

I vote politicians surrender a percentage of their six figure income. We payed into social security all of our working lives that is not the government's money to cut!!!!

Post
u

Dec '12

MissMary

v No, absolutely not

No. social security is not the problem with the fiscal cliff.

Post
Dec '12

Politicskid

v Yes, it's necessary

Stop stealing from the workers of tommorow!

r2 replies

Post
Dec '12

mudpike

Exactly, but also stop feeding & supporting illegal aliens , career welfare breeders , special comp & retirement packages for ALL members of the Federal & State Gov't.s. The American taxpayers needn't foot the bill thru taxation for the wanna be elitists. Make them all live off of Social Security & obummacare. No exceptions for any politco . What's good for the goose is good for the gander .

B1

@mudpike Post
Dec '12

Politicskid

@mudpike Totally agree.

@Politicskid Post
Dec '12

1adam2

v No, absolutely not

there are some promises, you dare not even break. i say they keep their promise, to reduce spending, and the deficit first. and quit their tapping off, out of social security. which was meant to be, a seperate escrow fund for the aged. they put other organized criminals, in prison for doing that to retirement funds. so what's happened to, equal protection under the law? why should they be treated, any different than the average criminal for that. and why should they have better personal perks, than the average citizen?

B1

Post
Dec '12

Mr_GO_HERD

v No, absolutely not

12 years ago Al Gore wanted to use the budget surplus gained during the Clinton administration to shore up social security which at the time they estimated would of added another 75 years on top of the lifetime endpoint which would of covered 3 generations if not more. He lost. Bush wonand used that money for a tax cut that primarily benefitted the rich and became a massive hole in the budget up to the present day. It should be of no surprise that Republicans would want tax cut for rich to continue at the expense of social security.

B1

Post
R Load more comments...

Dec '12

PoliticalSpice

v No, absolutely not

Absolutelly not. Social security is not driving the deficit, it has it's oen fund which is presently sustainable. It may need to be adjusted, but that should not have anything to do with this negotiation, and what is being offered here is nothing more then a raid on the social security fund.

B1

e21 endorsed

Post
u

Dec '12

DAVE77

v No, absolutely not

Social Security is not an "Entitlement". People like me paid into that fund all of their lives and that money was reinvested and used for things other than it was intended for by people who don't contribute to it. It should be left alone.

B4

e14 endorsed

Post
Dec '12

mimi57

v No, absolutely not

No, the cost of living is going to continue to rise. Elderly people have it hard enough trying to make ends meet.

B2

r5 replies

e8 endorsed

Post
Dec '12

LALibertarian

v Yes, it's necessary

Everything on the budget needs a 20%+ cut. EVERYTHING! We're spending too much!

r1 reply

e5 endorsed

Post
Dec '12

1real-old-dude

v No, absolutely not

The republicans have opposed Social Security from the very beginning in 1935. Why? They have simply never liked paying any taxes of any kind. Before amending the constitution in 1913, they owned businesses, which very often worked people twelve to fourteen hours a day, paying them ten to twenty cents an hour, which allowed them to build huge masions by the seashore. The vest majority of them have never cared about the poor, or even the middle class, for that matter. The members of Congress are not about to cut anything for themselves and replacing them by the vote has always made the person voted into office just the same in a few years. I suppose it's just human natur...

B2

e2 endorsed

Post
o

Dec '12

Flutterby610

v No, absolutely not

No, if anything should be cut it's aid to all of these countries that hate us.

e4 endorsed

Post
u

Dec '12

Youu

v Yes, it's necessary

people need to learn they need to save for retirement... they can't rely on other people for their lives! it's called responsibility!

B1

r5 replies

e2 endorsed

Post
Dec '12

NormalFlora

v No, absolutely not

This is not an entitlement, it is AN EARNED BENEFIT!!!!

e3 endorsed

Post
Dec '12

martydotcom

v No, absolutely not

Romney would have won if we wanted SS Cut

B1

e2 endorsed

Post
Dec '12

Heavy-Fed

v No, absolutely not

CUT THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!!!!!

B2

e1 endorsed

Post