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 (622449)	8/1/2011 6:18:21 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1580481

>> For Part D? Wow...the republicans passed a bill that will spend 100T for prescription drugs alone....LOL...you are really a piece of work... As previously pointed out, the bill was passed with bipartisan support and the principal complaint amongst Ds at the time was that it didn't spend ENOUGH. >> First it was 15T, then 17T from mythical reports we never saw I believe I cited the report. >> >now a new interpretation of "expenditures" in the trustees report. There was no "interpretation". They said it. "Present value". Can you concede that the 75 year present value of expenditures is not the same thing as "expenditures"? >> did you know that the trustees specifically differentiate "expenditures" by saying that Part D has no unfunded liabilities...do you know why they say that? They generally use the term "obligation", for the reasons that Tim has frequently set out in this thread: They are not technically liabilities -- Congress can declare the program dead anytime they have the political will to do so. However, the reason they don't count it as an "unfunded obligation" is that they ASSUME the federal government will be able to pay these massive commitments as they go. Which the chief actuary clearly doubts, and as do I.