DSCC Reminds Voters of Sununu/Bush SS Privatization

The "redirect to a 401-K" notion (4.00 / 3)

It can be appealing if somebody thinks Social Security is strictly a retirement plan: pay in for 40 years, live on the balance and earnings. Over forty years there is a very good chance the earnings will be strong - despite some years like 2001-2009.

But that is only one part of Social Security. It is also an insurance program that protects you if you become disabled, and protects your family if you die young. And those benefits are provided regardless of how much you paid in so far - really, like insurance.

(My dad died young and Social Security benefits helped my mother go back to college and raise three kids.)

So, how does the insurance part work if Bob takes out one-third of his contributions and puts them in the stock market instead? Does that affect Bob's family's benefits if he gets hit by a truck? After all, a third of his money is no longer available to pay for Sally's family.

The Bush plan simply didn't answer that.

It's a basic question, but the right-wing free-market ideologues don't know how Social Security works today, and they don't have any idea what tinkering with it would do.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:37:01 AM CDT

O' Yes you can! (0.00 / 0)

Via PolitickerNH:

While state Rep. Gene Chandler (R-Bartlett) took issue with Shaheen's argument that U.S. Sen. John Sununu has supported the Bush administration policies.
...
Chandler added, "The state just can't vote out one of the smartest men in the Senate."

Are GOoPers impressed by credentials, like a degree from MIT? Yet, Obama going to Harvard is a bad thing?

Hannah,
This is your cue....

www.KusterforCongress.com - www.paulhodesforsenate.com

www.nikitsongas.com - www.devalpatrick.com

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 15:05:08 PM CDT

If John Sununu is so smart... (0.00 / 0)

why does he blindly follow Bush 90% of the time?

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day...

A smart man would not have forgotten that he is supposed to represent NH not Crawford...

Have you written a letter to the editor today? Have you donated today? Have you put up signs? Have you made calls? Have you talked to your neighbors?

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:41:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Glad you're happy with that ad, Dean. (4.00 / 3)

On a similar note, if the Obama campaign asked me what I wanted for the next ad, it would look like this:

I've been waiting for two years for someone to address our indebtedness to China, and how the Republicans are the ones making it worse.

--
"Don't lose your grip on the dreams of the past; you must fight just to keep them alive!"

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 19:39:25 PM CDT

Linking Bush-McCain & China (0.00 / 0)

I've been waiting for that one at last!!!!  This is the AD you play in PA,OH,IN,VA and every other state especially to Moms checking the baby formula tainted with Malamine or the Cadbury chocolate and the latest toys for lead paint.

"I'm not smart enough to run the economy."

- John McCain (r) Arizona

---

by: TJMCNH1 @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 21:51:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think the indebtedness (0.00 / 0)

is by itself far scarier than who the creditors are, but perhaps less salient.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 22:46:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It matters. (0.00 / 0)

If the creditors are Americans, we can use fiscal policy to get it back from them.  It's still 'in the family', within the taxing jurisdiction of the United States.

If the creditors are Canadian or EU, that's less advantageous but they're dependent on us in similar ways to the ways in which we depend on them.  It's a more equal footing, so it's easier for it to be fair, in my thinking.

The People's Republic of China is not our friend.  They're nobody's friend, not even their own people.  They are rapidly becoming the world's most powerful nation, and it is in nobody's interest except theirs for that to be expedited.

Also, the more of our debt they hold, the harder it is for us to play hardball with them on trade or anything else.

--
"Don't lose your grip on the dreams of the past; you must fight just to keep them alive!"

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 08:59:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well (4.00 / 3)

It's as if they personally asked me what I wanted for the next Senate ad:

You are #36 and all. :)

OK, I'll let that go after this ...

---

by: JimC @ Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 20:16:55 PM CDT

"Privatization" (0.00 / 0)

Let's start this debate by being honest about the issue. Neither Bush nor Sununu have proposed to create a private system to manage this behemoth of a federal program.  That would be impossible and foolish.  The proposal was simply to VOLUNTARILY let younger workers put a small amount of their SSI withholding into government approved securities rather than having the money just disappear into the general fund.  

The most aggressive plan proposed by Bush was for 4% diversion of withholding capped at $1000/year.  This money would become the property of the individual so that it could be passed to heirs upon death.  History shows that despite the ups and downs of the market, in the long run the interest appreciation would be much more than the paltry sums gained now by the SSI program.

To label the proposed changes as a "privatization" is a cynical tactic used to scare people into thinking that the entire program would be placed into the hands of Wall Street.  This is an example of dishonest politics.  Unfortunately Jeanne Shaheen has jumped on this bandwagon and it is a hit on her credibility.

To learn more about the debate you can visit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

NHIndependent

---

by: NHIndependent @ Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:50:26 AM CDT

Analysis (0.00 / 0)

here.

"Just 4%" is actually about 1/3rd of a worker's FICA contributions. So Bush claimed that Social Security was in a financial crisis - and proposed to take away up to a third of its new money.

---

by: elwood @ Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:20:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

more facts... (0.00 / 0)

The total voluntary contribution would be capped at $1000 per year.  The median household income in NH is $55k which means that household pays around $8250 into SSI each year. Putting up to $1000 into a better earning plan that you actually own should not be considered excessive.  

Putting money into these accounts in not taking money away from the system, it actually does the opposite.  It ensures that workers paying in today will actually get something when they retire which many believe is in jeopardy right now.  

When taxpayers actually know the facts 70% of us support the idea.  That is probably why the hard left lies so much about the issue.  Does anyone have the courage to break from the the socialist mantra and agree that this idea merits discussion with out demagogery?  

Are there no moderates in the party anymore?

---

by: NHIndependent @ Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:13:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is a lie. (0.00 / 0)

Putting money into these accounts in not taking money away from the system

That is a plain and simple lie.

If I take 4% of my current 12.8% FICA tax out of the Social Security fund, that money is not available to pay for current survivors of workers who died young, or current retirees.

You may think that's a good trade-off. I don't. But you are not welcome to come here and simply lie about it. It takes money out of the system.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:20:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And another lie. (0.00 / 0)

The total voluntary contribution would be capped at $1000 per year.

No.

From the only detailed description the administration ever provided:

The size of the personal accounts would be limited to 4 percent of a worker's wages from their payroll taxes. But there would be a cap placed on the accounts in the first year -- contributions to the accounts of $1,000. Now, each year that cap thereafter would rise in increments of $100 on top of the natural wage growth that drives the growth in payroll taxes. And what that means is that over time, more and more of the work force would be able to contribute the full 4 percent of their wages to the personal accounts.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 12:46:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Um (0.00 / 0)

Putting money into these accounts in not taking money away from the system, it actually does the opposite.

Elwood understands this much better than I do, but I can see the absence of logic where there should be logic, and that is plainly illogical.

---

by: JimC @ Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 13:09:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]