More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Republicans
Last answered 2 minutes ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Republicans.
No, this will disadvantage low income seniors whose life expectancy is lower than wealthier seniors
Data includes total votes submitted by visitors since Jun 2, 2015. For users that answer more than once (yes we know), only their most recent answer is counted in the total results. Total percentages may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Choose a demographic filter
* Data estimated by matching users to U.S. Census data block groups via the American Community Survey (2007-2011)
1 year ago by thinkprogress.org
2 years ago by bloomberg.com
2 years ago by firstlook.org
2 years ago by foxnews.com
2 years ago by foxnews.com
2 years ago by go.com
Data based on unique submissions (duplicates or multiple submissions are eliminated) per user using a 30-day moving average to reduce daily variance from traffic sources. Totals may not add up to exactly 100% as we allow users to submit "grey area" stances that may not be categorized into yes/no stances.
Learn more about Social Security
Former Florida Governor Bush recently told CBS News that the current basic retirement age of 65 needs to go to 68 or 70 as a way to sustain Social Security for those now under 40. The Social Security retirement age is based on a sliding scale which takes into account when the recipient was born and whether they want to retire early in return for a reduction in monthly benefits. The current age to begin receiving benefits is set at 65 for those born prior to 1938. Under current law, it rises gradually to age 67 for those born in 1960 or later. Proponents argue that Americans are living longer and healthier lives than they did when Social Security was founded and the program will run $7.7 trillion in the red during the next 75 years. Opponents argue that Social Security provides at least half of total retirement income for more than two-thirds of all retirees and raising the age will rob lower income seniors of necessary benefits. See recent Social Security news
More stances on this issue
Social security funds should be distributed at an age based on a formula that accounts for increased age of life expectancy. Future Options should exist not to pay social security and rather invest that money into a personal retirement fund or pay a tax... 1 year ago from a Republican in Ocala, FL
Stop allowing people to collect at age 62. They have stopped paying in at a younger age and this further depletes money from social security. There are too many young retirees. 5 months ago from a Republican in Geneva, WA
Follow Milton Freedman's advice on phasing out SS. 5 months ago from a Republican in Aquia Harbour, VA
Yes, but only for those currently under age 55. The retirement age for anyone 55 or older should NOT be raised. 8 months ago from a Republican in New Orleans, LA
No, but SS should not be provided if annual income exceeds $75000.00 per year. 8 months ago from a Republican in Morristown, NJ
Yes, only if their health is taken into consideration. For those who are not as healthy leave it. For those who are healthy raise it. 8 months ago from a Republican in Los Angeles, CA
No, changing the rules under which workers forcibly paid into Social Security is like changing the rules of football during the game. If they want to change the rules, do it for people just entering the workforce. Better yet, let workers opt in to... 1 year ago from a Republican in Houston, TX