Home | About | Donate

By Huge Margin, Americans More Likely to Back Candidates Who Want to Expand—Not Cut—Safety Net: Poll


#1

By Huge Margin, Americans More Likely to Back Candidates Who Want to Expand—Not Cut—Safety Net: Poll

Jake Johnson, staff writer

In bad news for Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) who have made gutting the safety net their central ambition for 2018, a poll (pdf) published on Friday found that Americans are overwhelmingly more likely to vote for a candidate who proposes expanding—not slashing—Social Security and Medicare and taking federal action to lo


#2

Protecting medicare is not the same as expanding it.


#3

Let’s not forget that Social Security was a compromise position from the start. Others have pointed out some tweaks, such as removing the cap on earnings subjet to FICA withholding, that would improve it, but best of all would be a Universal Basic Income program.


#4

The schmuck Joe Lieberman’s No Label group, today’s regurgitation of the DLC, will be all over this.

To this schmuck and other Corporate State Democrats such positions are considered those of “extreme leftists”.

Again, I think millions of “extreme leftists” should join No Labels to get their “social media tools” as a Trojan Horse operation to muck up their messaging, which is the core of their power.

Be a badge of honor to get kicked out.

Cluck.


#5

God Bless Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal (and the Great Society). Were it not for accusations of idolatry I would propose a statue of FDR should be placed in front of every single Social Security Administration office in the nation.
PUBLICLY ADMINISTERED SOCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAMS AGAINST OLD AGE DESTITUTION, HEALTHCARE IMPOVERISHMENT, HOMELESSNESS.
God Bless Rexford Tugwell, Francis Perkins and the rest of Roosevelt’s “Kitchen Cabinet”.


#6

But what do Americans think about expanding food stamps? That is an important part of the safety net. I think one out of six Americans use food stamps, and many more are eligible.


#7

Obama signed I believe, a $9 bn cut in food stamps into law. Trump appears to be doubling down on that policy.


#8

Joe “Hold the Bush Admin. Accountable” Lieberman, who, shortly after re-election said when pressed to indict Bush officials “Now’s not the time for a witch hunt”… that Joe Lieberman?
Fuck him. Sorry, gut reaction.


#9

Exactly who are these 11 to 22 percent that do not support programs that benefit the masses?

Can we please identify these people.


#10

I think the better question, is how has income disparity, or inequality become so bad (historic levels) over the last 40 years.

Could it be the rise of corporate governance?

Does that have anything to do with the rise in the need of food stamps?

You suppose?


#11

It seemed to be a compromise to pass a farm bill. The Republicans wanted cuts from $20-$40 billion. Unfortunately that is how Washington works. To get some positive things in the farm bill Obama gave in the cuts to food stamps. Obama said the farm bill addressed inequality and would open up opportunities for people. Republicans have been trying to cut the safety net since the New Deal. They can’t be ignored. They are occupying seats in Congress and vote. Bernie Sanders would be in the same position if he was president. There is a lot of give and take in Washington to get stuff passed. After a compromise to get legislation usually everyone is unhappy about something. It is much better when both sides agree in the first place on something but that is very unusual.


#12

You seem to be missing the point (again). The point is to run these Republican bastards out of town, and their Corporate Democrats with them, and take over the government with progressives who actually pursue real-life solutions to real-life problems, rather than triangulating who needs to compromise with whom to make political deals somewhere in the mythical (but actually far-right) middle.


#13

This is a liberal nation which supports safety nets and other welfare guarantees.

As for Social Security, I don’t see any other way than every Social Security recipient
coming together with other recipients to sue the government for control of the Fund.

The government pays NOTHING into Social Security - in fact, the Social Security Fund
pays the government 3% to administer the Fund.

The government continues to create a SURPLUS in order to borrow it, rather than pay
it out to recipients.

The SURPLUS has been used for tax cuts for the rich and for War.

The SURPLUS exists now only in IOU’s covered by Treasury Notes payable to the Fund.

Social Security was also included in the national budget in order to mask and disguise the
huge MIC and Intelligence Budgets which are now costing citizens close to 70 cents of
every US dollar and likely even more when we realize that so much of NSA and other
budgets are secret.

Social Security is simply one more victim of theft by corrupt government.


#14

Voted up –

but would prefer to see the term “progressives” replaced by LIBERALS.

Progressive is kind of a slippery term which can include notions of a “center” which
as far as I can see doesn’t exist.

Ultimately, you are either moving to the left or the right.

A goal of moving to the “center” still requires moving to the left or the right.


#15

I get your sentiment, but my intention was take the discussion off of the left-right, liberal-conservative spectrum, which I view as a logical trap. Perhaps I should have used the term “problem solvers” instead of progressives.

When the discussion devolves into the spectrum debate (“too far left, too far right, etc”) then it’s been derailed into the triangulation world of traditional politics. I don’t give a rat’s ass what you call it, but if single payer is the best solution to our health care crisis, then that’s what we should do. If energy efficiency, renewable energy and support for energy storage technologies are our best solution to deal with climate change, then that’s what we should do. If taking care of seniors with strong social security is the best solution to dealing with old age calamities and quality of life issues, then that’s what we should do.

What we face, instead, is a political apparatchik that want to keep labeling people and their positions as left/right, liberal/conservative, free market/social (as if these are on the same spectrum) in order to keep us away from discussing problem solving as a first order of business.


#16

Can you explain this “logical trap”?

And, again – I don’t think it’s “liberal-conservative” …it’s “liberal versus right wing/fascists”
that is threatening us.

If you look at Bernie Sanders campaign in Spring/Summer 2016 and his bringing liberal issues
once again to the American public where they haven’t heard them discussed for decades now …
where might you have seen those liberal issues labeled as “too far to the left”?

I don’t watch MSM, so I can’t comment on that.

The problem is that both of our national parties are owned by Elites/wealthy-corporations and
they have been conducting a hidden campaign against all liberal issues for forever …
against labor, against wages, against national health care, against safety in the workplace –
in toto against New Deal protections which basically protected citizens/consumers against the
evils of Capitalism.

Neither are these corrupted/criminal forces looking to replace fossil fuels – the nation’s natural
resources which they control for their own profit. They are working against any renewable
energy they can’t control and seeking their highest profits.

These are all people lying to the public about Global Warming because 50 years ago they would
have found their control over our natural resources ended by being naturalized – and their profits ended.

Social Security is also a barrier to their profit-making dreams by privatizing retirement systems
and moving the money to Wall Street. They are NOT interested in the welfare of any citizen –
child or senior.

What we face, instead, is a political apparatchik that want to keep labeling people and their positions as left/right, liberal/conservative, free market/social (as if these are on the same spectrum) in order to keep us away from discussing

I can’t address that comment because I don’t know who you’re listening to here. But our CIA/corporate media will do all they can to confuse the public as they have long been doing.

And just as Global Warming denial seeks to do.

But, if you have any thoughts of Elites/wealthy in any way seeking improvement of life for citizens –
or supporting common sense programs which cost them control and money – I think it’s time to drop those thoughts.

Somewhere here I have a list of the “Business Round Table” as it existed probably 25 years ago…
This is 250 or more corporations at that time who worked secretly against all liberal concepts/programs and certainly against the New Deal and any expansion of the New Deal. This begins with the highest privileges in any society – the right to human and civil rights. I should find it and post some of the names – but HALLMARK who sells most of its overpriced cards to women (imo) is anti-ERA and other programs to protect females. AT&T who historically had females working as operators throughout the company … same thing. Corporations are most of all instruments, invented to provide profits for Elites and are free of any human emotions or conscience. Sad to say!

:slight_smile:


#17

My point is that we should focus on real-life solutions to real-life problems, not on “labels” like liberal-conservative or liberal-right wing/fascists". The “trap” is to get caught into that debate, rather than discussing the pragmatic way to solve problems.

In don’t see them as too far left. Instead, I view them as generally spot-on correct solutions to the problems we face.

Me either.

Generally agree, except I’d avoid labeling these faux pas as being associated with, as you put it, "the evils of capitalism. Instead, I’d say, let’s talk about what the basic problem is and what is the best solution to solve that problem.

Yes, these points arguably (and I generally agree) characterize the motivations of the the people that stand in the way of implementing real-life solutions to those problems. However, calling out these motivations is not the same as articulating the solutions that we need.

Well, I guess this is my point.

OK, so you’ve identified some of the people that stand in the way of, dare I use the term, progress. That’s different than articulating solutions.


#18

Rocky –

And, again – I don’t think it’s “liberal-conservative” …it’s “liberal versus right wing/fascists”
that is threatening us.

Bernie Sanders “focused” for us all on real life problems and their solutions. The programs
are the response to the solutions – and ALL of those programs and ALL of those solutions
have shown their effectiveness over the 60-70 years of the New Deal. And they are models
for future programs. The New Deal is a past which should inform the future.

Unfortunately, you can’t do away with labels because someone will try to exploit them by
adding a “too far” to them. They’re as important as STOP signs and traffic lights.
And it’s too late to be able to ignore the reality of FASCISM here.

And, right, so you had no problem in understanding problems outlined by Bernie Sanders
and the appropriateness of the solutions which Bernie Sanders articulated.
The Americans public also supported his campaign and vision and had he been nominated
he would have been elected by an overwhelming vote. This is a liberal nation which
supports liberal ideals and goals.

So if you don’t watch MSM, either, where are you hearing these “too far” discussions?

As for Capitalism it is an evil which is why it cannot be regulated.
Capitalism is a system intended to move the wealth and natural resources of nations from
the many to the few – and it has done that successfully all over the world.
Capitalism is suicidal as we can see from Global Warming and judging everything by the
yardstick of a dollar bill which leads to false conclusions, false remedies.
Capitalism is not about competition; it’s about killing the competition.
Capitalism is not a system of merit by any means; it is a system of Elitism where we have
welfare for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.

Again – Elites/Wealthy are NOT people who simply don’t understand … they are people acting
only in their own interests and couldn’t care less about the American public or humanity.
We are in the same gene pool which stole this land from the native people by GENOCIDE
and who for hundreds of years held AA’s here in SLAVERY. All done by extreme violence.

As made clear by 60/70 years of the New Deal … the solutions to most of these problems
have been worked out and serve as models.

The Elite/wealthy also understand that we KNOW the solutions to these major problems…
and they most of all understand that those solutions stand in the way of their profit-making
and control. Understand that these are people who will use VIOLENCE to get their way…
as we have seen in the past both domestically and internationally in coups and assassinations.

The motivations of Elites/wealthy are not healthy for Nature, Humanity or our survival.
But, again, we know what the solutions to our problems are – but likely Global Warming has
been allowed to progress so far that it has past numerous tipping points.
Read something about the New Deal programs and you will find all of the solutions articulated.
And they subsequently PROVED themselves in their use over 60/70 years.

Elites/wealthy and those who serve them – like our owned and paid for representatives – are
guilty of crimes against Nature and humanity – knowingly committed.

Again – the solutions are articulated – not only recently by Bernie Sanders but by all of the
New Deal programs and the Four Freedoms. Keep researching – better answers do exist.
You’ll find them on the left.

What you will find on the right is violence – over and over again.


#19

And republicans have been fighting to undo all of FDR’s New Deal programs since the 1930’s!


#20

Lamb didn’t seem strong enough to me, as a voter (though I’m not in his area). He doesn’t support Medicare For All, and this was clear with his endorsement by Joe Biden, corporate wing of the DP.

This is how the corporate wing gets by. They have their big boogeyman GOP - and all they offer are the same weak platitudes about “protecting” Medicare and social security - while actually opposing the direly needed aggressive expansion for both programs; i.e. real single payer Medicare for ALL, and a liveable minimum for ALL seniors – with further expansion to provide a universal basic income to all adult U.S. citizens - and a liveable one, on that, too.

Where have these promises of the corporate wing to “protect” social security and Medicare gotten us? They’ve gotten us to Donald Trump and the worst shape the programs have ever been in.

Connor Lamb is another corporate Dem. Is he going to sign HR 676? No, he’s going to join the conservative minority
among House Democrats opposing and blocking this landmark legislation.

The corporate wing is currently supporting candidates who also take money from the NRA and oppose a woman’s right to choose - Nancy Pelosi, for example. While Feinstein has nothing but fine words for a woman appointee to the head of the CIA who oversaw torture.

Lamb is with them. He wouldn’t have gotten my vote. Minimum requirement, at this point, for my vote, is outright support and commitment to Medicare For All - and fighting to make it happen. He may even do more to block Medicare for All in the House than a Republican would in his seat.

Look how everyone was singing and celebrating Doug Jones. Such a progressive, huh! He’s been voting with Trump and he just joined the corporate wing in further deregulating the banks. What do these weak candidates need to get elected? They need child molesters or - as in Clinton’s case, a professed serial sex assailant - and sometimes they STILL can’t get elected - and … it’s everyone else’s fault except their own! RIGHT.

Well - hear this, if you’re listening for the corporate wing. If you want to blame real progressives for your losses - or very close races, as in this case - please DO! Because we are NOT voting for your candidates anymore - including the Lambs, the Doug Joneses, and the Beto O’Rourkes (another House Dem who hasn’t signed HR 676 for his entire time in the House).

Our fault? You bet! And don’t you forget it!