New Al Franken Ad: “Important”

by Aaron Landry | 27 Comments

Franken’s new ad is strong:

I think this is a major, clear difference between Franken and Coleman. Coleman’s in the bag with suits who would prefer Social Security gambled. Franken is in the bag for Minnesotans and the ad shows his deep, personal connection to the issue. Another solid TV spot by the Franken campaign.

September 12, 2008, 9:40 am | Category: MN 2008: Senate | Tags: , .

27 Responses to “New Al Franken Ad: “Important””

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  • EPDem
    September 12, 2008 at 10:37 am

    I agree - I think his ad campaign is great. I especially like the fact that if Norm Coleman is mentioned, he is linked to Bush. I wish the Obama campaign would include a McCain/Palin link to Bush/Cheney in all their ads.

  • DantheMan
    September 12, 2008 at 11:40 am

    “Coleman’s in the bag with suits who would prefer Social Security gambled. Franken is in the bag for Minnesotans”

    Who is in the bag for my kids’ generation, who will be choked by the costs of Social Security and Medicare? Their generation will pay 10% more of their GDP for these programs. Where will it come from? Education? Security? Housing?

    This isn’t an issue that can be fixed with a tax increase. We’re talking about GDP — it all comes from the same pie. Just to maintain these programs at their current rate, my 2-year-old’s tax rate when she is 45 will be at least 50% more than it is today. If I pay 36% of my income in tax today, she will need to pay 56%. And that is just to keep the programs as-is.

    Nice personal touch to Franken’s ad, but would someone please talk about the real issue here??? That goes for Coleman, too. He isn’t touching it.

  • Richard
    September 12, 2008 at 11:59 am

    Why is it GOP’ers are only worried about the debt we’re saddling the next generation with in relation to Social Security and Medicare? When it comes to illegal wars that cost trillions they gleefully pound the war drums and vote for the Dear Leader.

  • attilla
    September 12, 2008 at 12:07 pm

    Thank You Richard, Well said!

  • Grace Kelly
    September 12, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    If everyone paid the same social tax percentage at every level instead the rich getting a tax break then we would have no funding problems for social security.

    Shhhh, it’s a secret that the rich don’t pay the even the same share of taxes, much less a fair share.

    Republicans, the party of the rich and privileged, by the rich and privileged,and for the rich and privileged.

    Democrats, the party of the people, by the people,and for the people.

  • DantheMan
    September 12, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Grace -

    The IRS would beg to differ. More and more of these programs are paid for by general fund revenues, i.e. the progressive income tax system where the top 5% earn 37% of the income and pay 60% of the taxes.

    And Richard — are you implying that if we stop the war today… bring all the troops home this month… we’d correct our problems?

    - We spend about $100 billion per year on Iraq. That figure has topped out and will decrease with the troop reductions.
    - We spend $1.2 trillion per year on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. That figure is increasing at a rate of about 7% annually. The projected increase time period? Indefinate.

  • Dan
    September 12, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    The 100 million figure does not include things like the lifetime care needed for people wounded in the Iraq war. Just because the Bush administration doesn’t care about those people and would rather fight their claims than treat them, doesn’t mean those costs aren’t there. The real costs of the war are much going to be much higher when all is said and done.

    And no Republican can complain about out of control medicare costs after Bush’s ridiculous expansion of the program. Not letting the government negotiate? Getting rid of Bush’s stupid ideas would fix this and a lot of other things as well. If we elect a Democratic president, maybe we’ll even balance the budget and create more jobs just like the last time we had a Democratic president.

  • Dan
    September 12, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    Oh, and pretty good ad for Franken. It sets out a clear distinction from Coleman, on an issue that is strongly in Franken’s favor.

  • DantheMan
    September 12, 2008 at 2:03 pm

    “And no Republican can complain about out of control medicare costs after Bush’s ridiculous expansion of the program.”

    ???? What if I disagreed with the program and the fact that it is paid for by the general fund each year. Can I not disagree with the President even though I am a Republican? Do you agree with every position of Nancy Pelosi? If I do disagree with a Bush policy, does that make me a Democrat? But what about the dozens of issues I disagree with Democrats on?

    Crap! I’m a man with no party!

  • Just Chet
    September 12, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    DantheMan — 

    Social Security is paid for by Social Security (FICA) deductions from payroll (or incomes in the case of the self-employed) — to be specific, a 6.2% deduction from of wages up to $102,000. Not general fund revenues.

    Social Security deductions stop at $102,000. If you earn $102,000, you pay $6324 to Social Security. If you earn $500,000 a year, you pay $6324 to social security. If you earn $25,000,000 a year, you pay $6324 to social security.

    Medicare is paid for by a 1.45% deduction from wages, without limit. Given that many people in this country — not a majority, but many, make more than $102,000 a year, I think we can safely provide for future generations if we remove the income limit to Social Security as was done for Medicare.

  • DantheMan
    September 12, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    You are correct on social security.

    Medicare, the larger expense, is paid for by both payroll taxes and the general fund revenues. Specifically, Part A is paid for by the payroll tax. This fund will begin depleting in 2010, and will be insolvent in 2019 according to the Central Budget Office. Medicare Part B and the ugly Part D are paid through general revenues each year.

    Instead of taxing the first $102,000 per year at 6%, how about taxing every dollar made, from $1 to $100,000,000 at 3%? I wonder if that would do it. We also need to ration the payout. We should raise the social security age to 70, commensurate with the life expectancy change since in the program was implemented. I’ll be the first to say that you can raise my benefits age, and I ask for no SS tax reduction in return.

    Again, the tax issue is small. The % of GDP issue is big. NO matter how we shift who pays what, the % that we’ll soon pay out of our GDP for entitlements will bring our growth to a halt. Our nation essentially has the same pension problem that GM and Ford have.

  • TwoPuttTommy
    September 12, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    You may consider the cap “small”, but I don’t. The fact is clear: those under $102,000 pay 6.2%; those over don’t.

    How do you justify that tax break, when the system is going broke?

  • Dan
    September 12, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Without taking a position on it, the justification for the cap at $102,000 is that there is also a benefit cap. If you eliminated the $102,000 cap, would you also eliminate the benefit limit?

    I actually like this solution:

    “Instead of taxing the first $102,000 per year at 6%, how about taxing every dollar made, from $1 to $100,000,000 at 3%?”

    I don’t know about goign to 70 for benefits. Maybe you could use means-testing between 65 and 70, and continue benefits for those who needed them.

  • DantheMan
    September 12, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    Again, the tax policy question is all semantics. Shift it around however makes you happy.

    The bigger, looming question is the one on how much of their total production and lifetime work output the next generation will have to pay to just keep these programs going. That figure is daunting.

  • Zach (the other one)
    September 12, 2008 at 3:54 pm

    Great Franken Ad. Norm is terrible, almost as bad as McCain/Palin. Well maybe just as bad. I wish we could pass a war tax on every dollar we spend to pay for our Republican Administration’s illegal war, instead of passing it on to our grandchildren down the road. Then we could really see where these anti-taxers stand! I really wish we hadn’t put that one on credit. The cost is gonna be unbelievable. And if Jon McCain wins and we keep fighting for however many years it takes to pretend it is possible that we may have won something? (100 years!) or at least declared victory to cap off the huge lie that is the Iraq Invasion/Occupation, I just wonder how much more money we will throw into that hole. Truthfully, no one can tell just how much this war will cost us in the end, but I am sure it is more than anyone has predicted up to now. That would be the only safe and wise prediction. I feel terrible that my niece and her children will pay the price for this failed experiment in Conservative ideology, cause our government passed the buck, and we let them. And she will point the finger at her grandparents and my generation, how terrible that we allowed this illegal war to happen.

  • Kerosene Hat
    September 12, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    Zach,

    As I recall there were plenty of Democrats, Clinton and Franken included, that supported the war. And “believing Colin Powell” is not a valid reason for supporting a preemptive war. While I like your idea of taxing only the people that support a given policy. I assume you would allow me to opt out of paying for and using Social Security and light rail then. As I recall the “greater good” was the base reasoning for those programs as well as the war.

  • Zach (the other one)
    September 12, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    I say tax us all.

  • DantheMan
    September 12, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    Yes, tax us all. Let’s pay for the war.

    The cost in dollars of the war pales in comparison to the entitlement promises we’ve made but can’t keep. You know, the ones that nobody, not the Democrats or the Republicans, is talking about.

    I’ll gladly pay for the war. Let’s not put it on credit. The future financial state of our country is scary regardless.

  • Richard
    September 13, 2008 at 8:31 am

    DtM, you fail to understand we can pay for Social Security and Medicare we just have to re prioritize our economy just a bit. Instead of guns and bombs, we need to invest in innovation and invention. Instead of empire, we need to reach out to countries and demonstrate the mutual benefit of doing business. Peace is good for business. Green technology is good for business. Sustainable agriculture is good for business. To that end, McCain just plain old, doesn’t get it. His plan is more of the same failed policy of empire and debt that the US has been suffering under since Reagan.

  • DantheMan
    September 13, 2008 at 8:48 am

    The Democrat philosophy to fixing the looming entitlement crisis reminds me of:

    Step 1: Steal the Underpants
    Step 2: ???
    Step 3: Profit!

    soure: Southpark

  • TwoPuttTommy
    September 13, 2008 at 8:49 am

    And “believing Colin Powell” is not a valid reason for supporting a preemptive war.

    Yes, it is.

    I watched Powell’s testimony at the UN; Powell telling the world: “Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.”

    Which, of course, was bullshit.

    You can call it what you want. The facts are this misAdministration LIED us into The War Of Choice - and I, too, fell for the bullshit Colin Powell spewed.

    History will not be kind to Powell.

  • TwoPuttTommy
    September 13, 2008 at 9:34 am

    Oh, and DtM?

    There is no doubt, your party’s plan to “solve the problem” is:

    1 - privatize
    2 - loot
    3 - get gov’t (i.e., “taxpayers”) to cover bailout

    Your party believes in free market risk, and socialized response to loss.

    Tell me, DtM - why is it that scandals that taxpayers end up paying for, always occur under GOP Presidencies?

  • Dan
    September 13, 2008 at 10:32 am

    TPT, you need to shut up about about Powell and Franken. There was plenty of evidence availble at the time of Powell’s speech that showed that Powell was full of shit, and Franken ignored it. The excuse that he relied on Powell just demonstrates that Franken has horrible judgment and is really, really, really freaking dumb. Dumber than a box of rocks. Dumber than Sarah Palin even.

    Its a real weak spot for Franken. You don’t want to go there. The correct answer is “Franken was wrong.”

  • Walter hanson
    September 13, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Chet:

    Do your math. If you earn $25,000 you’re paying just $1,550.

    The problem with Social Security is that it’s a pryamid scheme.
    Those people who got it early get their money back. Those on the
    middle and lower ends won’t get their money back.

    And for those people who think privitazing Social Security is such
    a great idea I’ll like to tell you about a mother of three
    children who was good wife. When she was in her 50’s and 60’s she
    was the primary breadwinner of her family.

    Happily she was able to retire at 65 and was looking forward to
    retiring. She went to visit her sister and unexpectedly passed
    away before she collected a cent from Social Security. Did Social
    Security give the family a check for all of her Social Secuirty
     donations?

    NO!!!!!!!

    Under the Franken plan he wants that family to be screwed

    If Social Security was even partially privatized that family
    which is a middle class that Al Franken claims to fight for would’ve
    gotten some of her donations back. And with even conservative
    investiging that money would’ve grown.

    This family was hurt by Franken’s and the dumb philosphy
    supported by the Democrats.

    Oh by the way that Mother I descrbied was my mother!

    So that ad and thoughts of wanting to steal from the rich
    in yet another way is just bull!!!

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • Typical Frightened Right Wing Guy
    September 13, 2008 at 2:40 pm

    Walter hanson, I agree 100%,

    We, the Republican party, have a proven record of success, and have consistently used the taxpayer’s dollars in a responsible way that promotes the profits of private industry and has made it very easy for any business owner or investor involved to make a lot of money on Wall Street.

    This is the only responsible way.

    The subcontractors who subcontract a subcontractor who subcontract a subcontractor who subcontract a subcontractor who subcontract a subcontractor have been an efficient, free market approach of utilizing the programs we Republicans think are important.

    The no-bid contract of Republican legislation allows the free market to decide the bill for taxpayers of other Programs we Republicans wrote and passed, and that is also the only responsible way to spend taxpayer money. That is the only way that makes any sense!!!

    Anyone who was too stupid to buy the stock in the Companies who make record profits year after year because of our Republican legislation deserves to be poor. It was an easy to see feeding frenzy on Wall Street for 3 years, and if you missed the boat, you’re on your own.

    That is why privatizing Social Security makes so much sense. If Government programs cannot make a huge profit in the free market, then it is not a program America should be interested in, and is not a program Minnesota Republican bloggers will support. The free market is the best way to pay for this. The sooner we throw the switch the sooner we can make some easy money. Whatever Corporation gets this one is lucky.

    Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger Walter Hanson

  • Walter hanson
    September 14, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    Wow. On a liberal blog they don’t want to try to reply to
    us. That shows just how stupid this great Al Franken ad
    really was!

    Walter Hanson
    Minneapolis, MN

  • Typical Frightened Right Wing Guy
    September 14, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    Walter Hanson, I agree 100%,

    They don’t respond to us Minnesota Republican bloggers
    because they cannot. Everyone knows that means you have
    won the argument.

    Fact is, these Liberals cannot defeat us, because we
    divide and conquer America WAY better than these pathetic
    Liberals do. America should be divided, because we are
    right and they are wrong. America DESERVES to be divided.

    There is nothing wrong with it, it is a popular, easy to
    understand way of winning elections.

    Great Job Minnesota Republican blogger Walter Hanson

Leave a Reply