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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (622269)	7/31/2011 1:40:59 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1578930

>> To pay for part D would require 15T today ? In that range. That's correct. To pay for LBJ's Medicare, Part D, and SS combined we would need $60 Trillion today. A point I've been making here for years and one you've never understood, and one I don't expect you to start understanding today.

To: Alighieri who wrote (622269)	7/31/2011 5:29:29 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578930

A lot of the Obama deficit the pinheads here howl about is simply crap Bush had off the books that Obama put ON the books. Like the two wars and Medicare part D.

To: Alighieri who wrote (622269)	7/31/2011 8:55:54 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578930

Do Republicans Hate Republics? Thomas Lane \| July 31, 2011, 7:38PM We've been reporting on the Republican sticking points in the latest debt drama. Brian Beutler noted that leeriness over defense cuts may scuttle this deal yet. Evan McMorris-Santoro described the outrage of hardcore conservatives who had pinned their hopes on the passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment that would lock in future spending. This provoked a fascinating observation from TPM reader, PS: "These groups have repeatedly rejected deals that appear (to people like me) to have given them everything they have wanted, and more. The sticking point? At least without a balanced budget amendment, future Congresses might undo deals made in the present. But that is the essense of republican government -- trusting future generations to govern themselves as we today govern ourselves. Seeking restrictions on future generations, at least on issues of spending and generating revenue, is to reject a central premise of republicanism -- that experiment at each moment of a people governing itself as best it can."