Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
On Getting Serious
I spent yesterday afternoon debating spending and the deficit with some fellow local Republicans. My view on the subject is really quite simple: Cut it all. There is no program, no department, so sacred that it shouldn’t be cut in some fashion.
That said, we have to talk about the Big Three: Social Security, Medicare, and the military. These three spending categories together represented 74 percent of federal spending in 2015, according to these guys. If you are going to do something about the $500 billion in overspending, you have to do something in these three areas. Period. It’s just math.
Now, in my discussions with my fellow Republicans, very few have agreed with me. They say cut foreign aid (1 percent), or cut the EPA and USDA (~4 percent combined). One person offered up a list of eight wasteful programs that combined make up about $20 million in spending. But cut Social Security? Medicare? Hello no!
This brings me to my point. One of the people I was discussing this with said he was fed up with Washington for not getting serious about dealing with the deficit. Even here on Ricochet I see folks angry that none of the presidential candidates are talking about dealing with the deficit. Folks, they aren’t serious, because we aren’t serious. And until we are ready to take a hatchet to our sacred cows, we won’t be serious. And it’s time we got serious.
(Note: I’m not being sarcastic.)
Published in Domestic Policy, Economics, General, Military
Since the Federal Gov is the biggest landowner, sell the land and use the money to pay those on SS and those already paid in. Allow young people to opt-out and use their money however they want for their retirements. SS will phase out over time
My dad used to say: “If a man is down, kick him. If he gets up, he’s a winner.” I don’t know that I agree with that from a moral perspective, but I do think that this is true of how cold, hard capitalism works.
If that is true of capitalism then is it any wonder why it’s so often rejected in its pure form? Because the ability to get up after being down and kicked is not always a matter will or character.
I’m not sure that characterization of capitalism is actually accurate, but I do think that’s a widespread perception. Where I think the disconnect lies is in one’s view of community/society – if no such thing exists (the view on the libertarian end more or less) then that is an accurate description of capitalism but if community/society is the only thing that exists (the view on the left end) then this is simply a destructive description of life that needs to be avoided and corrected and punished whenever possible.
Larry Elder floated this as an idea a few years ago, I believe when he was dancing with running for senator in Ca. I think it’s a great idea.
I think capitalism in its purest form is pretty harsh. But that’s why religion, community, family are all so important. And since those are things the left does NOT value, it’s understandable that many on that side would see capitalism as almost evil.
It’s like the social capital that (Megan McArdle?) spoke of. When my sister needed a lot of help a few years ago we all stepped up. None of us were consciously thinking: well, better give her a hand. Who knows? Might need her some day.
But that’s how it works. Or should work.
Yes, he did several years back. It’s a good solution, but it will never happen. Fixing SS? The public won’t hear a word of it. We’re doomed.
Pretty much…