Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (41672)	3/6/2010 4:24:05 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Re: "I know you like structural means of changing things, but I think it biases you to see any structural change put in place for the purpose of bringing down deficits as important; when this new commission isn't...." Well... let's just say that: 1) I, (naturally enough), believe that there are DIFFERENT LEVELS of change... (based on how effective and rigorous they each are over the long-term). With amendment to the HIGHEST LAW IN OUR LAND, the U.S. Constitution being the highest/best/most effective/most rigorous "structural change" that is POSSIBLE in our nation, which is founded on the precepts contained in our Constitution. And I also think that such things as Congress voluntarily adopting rules on itself like PAYGO budget rules (which can be just as easily overturned with a single vote, and does not even bind any future Congress), and "Deficit Reduction Commissions" which are only advisory and NOT EVEN guaranteed a straight up-or-down-vote for their recommendations are both at the VERY LOWEST LEVEL of what I would consider to be "structural change" at ALL. With PAYGO being a low-level structural change and the advisory committee not even that... Blue Ribbon Committee not being "structural change" whatsoever. By my definition anyway. Useful both... but MINOR in strength and therefore in importance. Good to do, (each helpful in small part), but not really what I am talking about when I call for truly STRUCTURAL CHANGES at all! 2) However, I regard almost any "structural change" as BETTER and STRONGER then all the non-structural changes, all the non-lasting, non-guaranteed changes that there are... (such as relying upon some noble new elected politician to come along and save us all from our bad, bad, over-spending ways). THAT sounds more like a Chimera to me... mere fop and fodder to sell the masses while the same old big government games go on forever.