jhay78;1247804 wrote:
He seems to be saying Ryan's plan doesn't go far enough, which most of us righties would agree with. But when one step is taken in that direction, a step no one on the left running for office dares to take, the lies and distortions coming from Obama's campaign tell me all I need to know about which side to lean to.
He's not saying the Ryan plan "doesn't go far enough" as in there should be more costs put on seniors generally. He's basically saying rich seniors should bear more costs. Several liberals have endorsed this idea with caps on who can receive social insurance. I myself have expressed sympathy toward that view. The reasoning would be that something like medicare or social security would be treated as genuine insurance under such a scheme...you only use it if you need it. Likewise, I only collect on my homeowner's insurance if the need arises.
However, there are problems with this solution as it effectively raises taxes on lower income brackets and could discourage saving.
As to your point about military spending. In 1960, we were spending just under between 7-10% of our GDP on defense expenditures
because it was during the Cold War. We're now around 5% of GDP with no other major military power in the world. Spending was below 5% of GDP in the post-war 50's prior to the arms race with the U.S.S.R.
(As an aside, Defense Spending was 38% of GDP during WWII. Now that is a stimulus package! Our whole government spends 25% of GDP now with catastrophic unemployment...much of which to pay people to sit on their ass).
