Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
Fri Apr 24, 2015, 03:51 PM Apr 2015

Rand Paul concedes he will cut Medicare and Social Security to pay for tax cuts

http://www.examiner.com/article/rand-paul-concedes-he-will-cut-medicare-and-social-security-to-pay-for-tax-cuts

Rand Paul (R-KY) is testing the limits of what a candidate can advocate while still being elected. Yesterday on “Fox News Sunday”, Paul admitted that he would eventually have to raise the retirement age for Social Security, and reduce benefits for Medicare in order to pay for the Bush tax cuts (video to the left). While Paul was very vague about what kind of cuts he would make, the admission by itself is important. In previous elections, Social Security and Medicare have been considered the “third rail” of politics. Politicians who merely talked about making cuts to the popular programs many times found themselves “dead” on election day.

Paul conceded he would have to cut Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for an extension of the Bush tax cuts. As Chris Wallace noted, a full extension of the Bush tax cuts, which Paul advocates for, would reduce the federal revenues by about $4 trillion over the next ten years. The government would either need to add that $4 trillion to national debt, or make some serious cuts to entitlement programs to offset the loss revenue. In his initial answer Paul tries to simply say he will “reduce spending”, but to his credit host Chris Wallace challenges him, saying that government would need to cut entitlement programs to reduce spending that much. It is at this time that Paul agrees he would need to raise the retirement age and cut Medicare benefits as well. Paul’s opponent, Jack Conway, says he would reduce Medicare fraud and close tax loopholes to help pay for the Bush tax cuts. In fairness to Paul, Conway’s cuts would also not completely offset the costs of the extending the tax cuts.

Conway made a courageous move in agreeing to debate Paul on the Republican-friendly Fox News network. Polls (seen on the left) have shown Conway consistently trailing Paul by a small margin. In the past Paul has made a number of mistakes when interviewing before the national media. It is possible that Conway agreed to the debate hoping to get Paul to make one more embarrassing statement on camera. It has yet to be seen whether Paul’s statements on Medicare and Social Security will hurt him with Kentucky voters this November.


I'll bet rugs will still be covered.
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Rand Paul concedes he will cut Medicare and Social Security to pay for tax cuts (Original Post) KamaAina Apr 2015 OP
Raise the cap to $250 thousand and be done for decades yeoman6987 Apr 2015 #1
Robin Hood in reverse. lpbk2713 Apr 2015 #2
Well, the cat is out of the bag Sherman A1 Apr 2015 #3
The cat is out of the bag and decomposing on Rand's scalp. FSogol Apr 2015 #4
That should pull Rand Paul off the table for 80% of the voting population. nt Zorra Apr 2015 #5
How could that even pay for such cuts? It is an entirely separate fund. Dragonfli Apr 2015 #6
The Social Security Trust fund is invested in Treasury bonds. Mariana Apr 2015 #9
In other words, steal it. /nt Dragonfli Apr 2015 #10
Yes, exactly. nt. Mariana Apr 2015 #13
Weaselrug is only admitting in public hifiguy Apr 2015 #7
What does he have to lose? If a Democratic President can put SS on the chopping block A Simple Game Apr 2015 #8
If he became a Democrat, a great many here would support his ideas Dragonfli Apr 2015 #11
I agree with you with one exception. A Simple Game Apr 2015 #12
"Weaselrug" FTW!! KamaAina Apr 2015 #14
A dead weasel. hifiguy Apr 2015 #15
Are you sure? KamaAina Apr 2015 #16
 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
1. Raise the cap to $250 thousand and be done for decades
Fri Apr 24, 2015, 04:01 PM
Apr 2015

I don't understand why that isn't done first?

lpbk2713

(42,759 posts)
2. Robin Hood in reverse.
Fri Apr 24, 2015, 04:08 PM
Apr 2015



Rather than make the one percenters and the megacorps
pay he will take it away from those who really need it.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
6. How could that even pay for such cuts? It is an entirely separate fund.
Fri Apr 24, 2015, 07:00 PM
Apr 2015

In theory, one could cut PAYROLL taxes by savaging SS, but that would only apply to FICA payed on income below the cap.

This doesn't even make sense.

Mariana

(14,858 posts)
9. The Social Security Trust fund is invested in Treasury bonds.
Fri Apr 24, 2015, 07:57 PM
Apr 2015

If there is a shortfall - if there is not enough OASDI tax collected in a given year - bonds are redeemed to make up the difference. That's why the trust fund exists in the first place, and why we've been overpaying OASDI tax for decades, so SS would be funded even when there isn't enough tax collected to cover the benefits being paid.

The money to redeem the bonds comes from general revenue. What Paul seems to be suggesting is that he would refuse to redeem the bonds in the SS trust fund.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
7. Weaselrug is only admitting in public
Fri Apr 24, 2015, 07:03 PM
Apr 2015

what every candidate or potential candidate not named Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren or Martin O'Malley is already planning.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
8. What does he have to lose? If a Democratic President can put SS on the chopping block
Fri Apr 24, 2015, 07:35 PM
Apr 2015

and have half of his party defend him for doing so what does a Republican candidate have to lose?

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
11. If he became a Democrat, a great many here would support his ideas
Fri Apr 24, 2015, 08:05 PM
Apr 2015

because, you know, the Republicans are worse. The reasoning does not appear to apply to Republican policy, so changing registration should do the trick.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
12. I agree with you with one exception.
Fri Apr 24, 2015, 08:12 PM
Apr 2015

If Hillary were to change her affiliation to Republican I think many here on DU would still vote for her to be President.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Rand Paul concedes he wil...