The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

There needs to be revenue as well, so I'd add in, when there is a cut in services, there is a matching increase in income tax.

So if you want to do 100 billion, it would be 50 billion of cuts, and 50 billion of revenue increase. That would be fair and a good compromise.

Stipulation the revenue has to go to deficit reduction.

Don't always agree with Ben Stein's viewpoints, but he is a very respected and reputable economist. I tend to agree with a lot of his statements in this linked interview.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/...26394.html

(10-21-2013 08:14 AM)Broncobelt Wrote:  Don't always agree with Ben Stein's viewpoints, but he is a very respected and reputable economist. I tend to agree with a lot of his statements in this linked interview.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/...26394.html

Thanks for posting. I like it when smart men talk common sense and make the issues seem so simple. But the answers, especially in our current political, economic, and taxing structure are so complex. We have to stop spending so much, but we also can't just take raising taxes off the table.

Suggestion on Msnbc today, you can't fix everything in one fell swoop.

So, they said, start with something. Both sides give something small. Do that, wait awhile, do some more.

That worked for me in my younger years. The experts said I needed to save xxxx for retirement. It was a joke, no way I could save that much. But wife and I agreed. We started with something. Then every time a raise or unexpected increase or new job, we did a little more. Surprise, 40 years later, everything is cool. A good approach.

They'll hit high water mark, the drama queens will be crying "it's the end of the world as we know it", and eventually the corrections will be moved into production, and the system will burn in/work just fine. Part of the cycle, especially when they drive towards a date that way.

Nothing of note will happen in when this committee gets together. Sequester will kick in. Works for me.

(10-22-2013 05:32 PM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  Nothing of note will happen in when this committee gets together. Sequester will kick in. Works for me.

Platitude, kettle?

What don't you get. We've been down the "super committee" road before. Nothing came of it. If they can't throw together a budget they all agree on the sequester kicks in. I think that is a good start to cutting our bloated central government.

Quote:Pre-existing conditons no longer exclude you from coverage (and as a cancer survivor I appreciate that immensely

I'm sure you do.

And I would too.

Surely you realize that issue has nothing to do with "insurance" though.

Forcing insurers to provide "coverage" for those with pre-existing conditions is simply a coerced subsidy.

Akin to forcing insurers to provide fire insurance to people whose homes are burning.

I'm okay with that. More bad on top of bad? Sure. Until we fix the root cause, seriously go back to a free market system (19th century style), this is all window dressing, rearranging chairs on the top deck of the Titanic.

If it wasn't so real, I would have a hard time taking it serious. Somehow money got involved and nobody wants to risk their share of it, even open up the discussion out of fear of losing their lot. When I see that type of behavior in any space, especially when politics or a bureaucracy are involved, it usually throws up a red flag to me that the people who exhibit that fear aren't so sure that they could repeat the same success again, draw your own conclusion on that observation.

I'm amazed there's medical practice in this discussion still. That's a testament to the profession, in the end, when you go to a hospital, it all becomes very real and this surrounding noise is just annoying, background chatter. I saw that first hand at the City of Hope Cancer Ward this last year.

Quote:Somehow money got involved and nobody wants to risk their share of it, even open up the discussion out of fear of losing their lot. When I see that type of behavior in any space, especially when politics or a bureaucracy are involved, it usually throws up a red flag to me that the people who exhibit that fear aren't so sure that they could repeat the same success again

Couldn't agree more.