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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (38380)	2/3/2013 12:15:24 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

and brown made up future revenues to get his 'balanced' budget. he's not gonna get the money form the rich on his new increase. MD tried it they were getting 3.5 billion from the rich, so they increase their taxes on over a million, said they would now get 5.5 billion so the dems like Brown figured that in the budget. the rich moved, MD got 1.5 from the rich. oops. idiot liberals

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (38380)	2/3/2013 12:49:52 PM
From: i-node	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

>> You can't include future obligations without including future revenues. This is the kind of ignorance I was referring to. "Unfunded obligation" DOES include future revenue. The unfunded obligation is what is still needed after future revenues are exhausted, discounted back to the report date. OTOH, you seem to have no problem at all with ignoring the matching concept when it comes to reporting current financial position. In the case of SS, if you want to be able to pay the required benefits for the next 75 years and end up with zero assets in the trust, you would need to deposit $9,000,000,000,000 today, according to the trustees. If you wait until next year to make that deposit, the required amount will go up. Had you studied the first chapter in Principles of Accounting you would know this, you couldn't possibly have missed it.