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 (622371)	8/1/2011 12:26:21 PM
From: Bill	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579125

Your hatred for a certain political party oozes through every ignorant word you type. It has apparently turned your mind to mush.

To: Alighieri who wrote (622371)	8/1/2011 1:16:49 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579125

What you said was: "the last trustee report said that Part D had created 75 year expenditure of $9.9T..." Nobody is talking about "expenditures". That is NOT what an unfunded liability is. That you made this remark clearly reflects a total misunderstanding of what the obligations under these plans are and what they mean. My reference to the larger figure was admittedly taken from an earlier estimate. But I do understand the meaning of the term. And you quite obviously do not. Perhaps if you did, you would comprehend the scope of the crisis. I suggest you get up to speed. >> yet it passes another social program without any attempt to fund it and then comes back a couple of years later proposing a budget that essentially eliminates medicare...i guess for republicans the only good social program is the one passed by republicans. The critical Senate vote that allowed passage of Part D was 76-21. Bipartisan. And the Democrats who ultimately voted against the bill did so, not because of its funding, but because they opposed a key element of the legislation that made it so fiscally successful -- the "doughnut hole" -- which liberals have now removed, destroying its fiscal sanity in the process. And, of course, STILL leaving it unfunded. I did not support Part D at the time, and while it is irrefutable proof that competition amongst private organizations is preferable to government run operations, we still couldn't afford it. Unlike you, I don't have any compelling need to support or oppose legislation because of any party affiliation. My "vigorous defense" of Part D has been solely based on the fact that it is the ONLY federal health care plan to come in consistently under budget. However, like all such programs, it ultimately was destroyed by liberals. ..actually you've proven this point frequently here with your vigorous defenses of medicare part D.