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: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (41694)	3/8/2010 1:02:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Blue Ribbon Committee not being "structural change" whatsoever. By my definition anyway. It seems we agree more than I thought we did. 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.* Here is where we disagree. I think actual serious reduction in deficits, however they are reduced, will have a greater effect on future deficits, than the very weak structural changes will (not perhaps than strong structural changes, but I don't see any of them happening any time soon) If they are reduced by raining in non-entitlement spending, than I think the effect is even stronger, if by eliminating non-entitlement programs, than even stronger, and if by serious reform of entitlements than I think the effect, even in narrow terms of reducing future deficits, would be as strong as very strong structural reforms; not as major of effect as the tightest and strongest imaginable and technically/constitutionally possible structural reforms, but at least as strong if not stronger than any even semi-realistic structural reform (assuming your not considering entitlement reform itself and elimination of programs to itself be structural, which by some definitions it is).