CNN Poll: 67 percent of conservatives disagree with Perry’s criticism of Social Security

Politico this morning:

Nearly seven in 10 Republicans disagree with Rick Perry’s statement that Social Security is a “monstrous lie” and a failure for Americans, according to new data from this week’s CNN/Opinion Research poll.

Asked whether they think those descriptions of the popular entitlement program are accurate or inaccurate, 72 percent of Americans said they were inaccurate. Among Republicans only, that number was 69 percent. Among self-described conservatives, it was 67 percent.


About Guy N. Texas

Guy N. Texas is the pen name of a lawyer living in Dallas, who is now a liberal. He was once conservative, but this word has so morphed in meaning that he can no longer call himself that in good conscience. Guy has no political aspirations. He speaks only for himself.
This entry was posted in News, Politics, Social Security, Taxes. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to CNN Poll: 67 percent of conservatives disagree with Perry’s criticism of Social Security

  1. thedrpete says:

    A rational and thinking person who understands America’s founding, its Declaration of Independence, its Constitution, and its history must have as first thought vis-a-vis the CNN poll and reported findings that the poll was poorly- constructed — whether intentionally or not — and/or poorly-reported, again whether intentionally or not.

    Social Security is worse than a Ponzi Scheme. Ponzi and Madoff, et al, enticed investors to voluntarily put money in. Social Security REQUIRED BY FORCE that everyone “invest” and continue against all evidence. Please read Article 1 Section 8’s 18 enumerated powers, and tell me without having a Pinocchio moment that its not unconstitutional.

    On this, Perry is entirely correct, and “conservatives” are intelligent and learned enough to know that.

    • Guy N. Texas says:

      Thanks for stopping by, thedrpete. It’s nice to have a conservative reading the blog. Your views are enlightening, but I don’t agree with them, needless to say.

      (1) The “Ponzi scheme” argument is debunked here, mainly from sources conservatives would consider to be credible, including the Economist (London), a right-of-center magazine with one of the highest-income subscriber lists around.

      (2) The Constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled back in 1937 in the Helvering decision. From the tenor of your comments about being “forced” to contribute to Social Security, I’d say your main objection is to democracy itself, including the Congressional power to tax and spend. But those qualities are indispensable to all government. A majority of Congress passed the Social Security Act. The President at the time signed it into law. And it’s been the law of the land for generations. You may not agree that’s it’s wise policy — but your remedy is to vote for Mr. Perry and hope that he will tear it down. Please do vote for Mr. Perry. And tell your friends to do that too. Because, with the economy so far down in the dumps, I’m afraid Obama doesn’t stand much of a chance against Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman.

  2. thedrpete says:

    Thanks for the reasoned reply, Mr. Texas. The Goss actuarial analysis guesses that after the PWBB (Post-War Baby Boomers) die, the Ponzi Scheme on steroids will be able to continue, that because the numbers of new “investors” will be able to sustain the post-2035 retirees. That ignores that we now — virtually before getting slammed by the PWBBers — have about 1.7 active “investors” supporting each beneficiary, down from something like 147:1, and that every nickel into the “trust fund” continues to be sucked out by today’s politicos just to try to hold off the owners of maturing Treasury bondholders, and even that — currently almost $200 bil monthly — isn’t sustainable.

    As to the second point, President FDR and a Democrat congress bullied the Supremes, threatening to stack the Court with as many as an additional dozen Justices to get that decision. FDR’s gross violation of his oath of office doesn’t make Social Security Constitutional, just the existing law of the land.

    continued below . . .

  3. thedrpete says:

    My plan for Social Security is more-specific than any of the current candidates. I would guarantee (No such things exists now or since 1935) that for those already eligible and on SS, current benefits would continue for life. For those age 60-65, ditto when they reach eligibility age. For those 50-<60, ditto less 5% for each year or part-year less than age 60. For those <50 they'd be on their own. (The same formula would be used to sunset Medicare.)

    The repeal of the 16th amendment and passage of HR-25, The FairTax, would provide the funding through the General Fund.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s