Face the Nation, Nov. 14, 2010 (Rand Paul; Chuck Schumer)

[alp227]

Run time: 22:53 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDBcMqASja0   Posted on YouTube: November 14, 2010 By YouTube Member: CBSNewsOnline Views on YouTube: 164   Posted on DU: November 15, 2010 By DU Member: alp227 Views on DU: 1044

 
This is today's entire episode of Face the Nation. Guests: Senator-Elect Rand Paul (R, Kentucky); Senator Charles Schumer (D, New York); Commentary: on compromise.

The Schumer interview is about 11 minutes into this clip.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

1. Wow, Rand Paul is really, really off his nut

I'm going to have to avoid watching any future video of him. Bob Schieffer is damned annoying, too. The Sunday morning talk shows are a huge waste of a Sunday morning.

[JDPriestly]

2. Rand Paul seems to make a "poor choice of words" pretty frequently.

And his idea about means-testing Social Security rather than simply taxing the income of higher income Social Security recipients is just silly. There is no difference. Either way, it is a form of a tax on the higher income Social Security recipients.

By the way, right now, if you take Social Security, you pay taxes on any amount of income over a certain amount. And if you take your Social Security before the official retirement age, your payments are lowered by anything you earn over a certain amount.

Rand Paul is willing to see the end of the deduction for interest on the purchase of a house (a middle class tax cut), but does not want to see taxes raised higher for the wealthy. Shows you what side he is in.

And -- lowering taxes for the rich will not help our American economy unless we make sure somehow that the money is invested here in the U.S. in creating jobs in the U.S., preferably in manufacturing things we can export as well as sell domestically.

As to companies and wealthy people needing to keep their tax breaks because they have planned their businesses based on the existence of the tax cuts: that is stupid since the tax cuts were, from the beginning, scheduled to expire at the end of this year. They were part of the Bush stimulus plan. Any rational company would have taken the end of the tax cuts this year into account when planning.

Schumer's idea of extending the tax cuts of those earning less than one millions is interesting. I would want to see what kind of effect that would have on the tax revenue and on the deficit. I suspect that most millionaires do not report much, if any, income that is taxable. That's my only problem with that suggestion. If it really contributes to lowering the deficit, then great. But if not, it is just a gimmick.

As for raising the Social Security eligibility age -- at this point it is unrealistic. If anything, right now, that age should be lowered. So many people in their 50s and early 60s cannot get jobs. And the fact that they cannot get jobs means they cannot save for retirement.

If we can, as a country, create more jobs, then raising the Social Security age at a time in which people live longer would be fine. But right now, only a very fortunate person over 65 can continue to work. Employers fire you when you start approaching retirement age -- if they didn't outsource your job or hire a younger person to do your job when you were in your 50s or early 60s.

So, it sounds easy to cut Social Security costs by raising the eligibility age, but it may actually increase the cost of Social Security if it means that the unemployed in their 50s and 60s have to spend down all their savings before qualifying for Social Security. Politicians seem to forget that people on Social Security who earn over a certain amount (which is not that high) already pay normal taxes on the amounts that exceed that amount.

[Enthusiast]

3. Dang, you write good stuff!

:fistbump: :headbang: :applause: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[BlancheSplanchnik]

4. I must agree with Enthusiast. Also, regarding Soc Sec. age,

raising the age is difficult for health reasons as well. With US healthcare being out of reach or insufficient for so many, citizens' ability to perform their jhobs is compromised. Women especially live longer but are subject to more health problems while at the same time being more likely than men to have insufficient or no healthcare. This sets them up for poorer health in later life.

Laborers, male or female are also endangered by raising the age, for obvious reasons.

I'd wish for age-related job protections too, for this reason. I just am in despair for the many people I know who were laid off just before retirement, or in their 50's, needing to break their backs to try and make a buck with handyman work or cleaning, struggling against physical decline.