More Popular Issues
See how voters are siding on other popular political issues...
Results from Constitution Party
Last answered 12 hours ago
Distribution of answers submitted by Constitution Party.
No, this will disadvantage low income seniors whose life expectancy is lower than wealthier seniors
No, eliminate the income cap on taxable earnings and stop spending current funds on other programs instead
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)
2 years 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
No, Social security benefits need to be strictly monitored for individuals receiving non retirement age disabilty. 2 years ago from a Constitution in Towson, MD
Give us back our money and defund it. 2 years ago from a Constitution in Port St. John, FL
NO, and we should transition Social Security funds into privately managed retirement accounts and away from congressional access and IOU's. Social Security withdrawal should be optional so that those who don't need it are not forced to take it,... 2 years ago from a Constitution in Laytonsville, MD
No. Not all occupations are conducive to older workers. The more physical the job , the harder it is to continue as you age. This would result in lower income (physical labor) workers having to find new jobs as they age. 2 years ago from a Constitution in Lincoln, NE
Yes because people are living longer, but it also needs to made public how many people die before reaching that age and never collect a penny from the fund. Transparency and public notice are a must to insure that politicians are not criminally... 2 years ago from a Constitution in Crystal City, MO
Social security is a clear and perfect example of a ponzi scheme. This program should be phased out as quickly as possible and retirement planning should be up to the individual. This will increase financial literacy and further promote a strong... 2 years ago from a Constitution in Charlotte, NC