Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Is there any principled reason to exclude the costs of (a) Iraq, (b) Afghanistan, (c) AMT changes, (d) etc. from his budget? No. The only reason it was done was to make the deficit look smaller. If some thing is done solely to create an incorrect impression, it is fair to call it misleading. The fact that the press sometimes picks up on this does not change it. The Administration does it because the press coverage will revolve around its description, even when the reporters know better.

I suspect that there may be technical accounting reasons why this is done, but I don't know enough about accounting.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I suspect that there may be technical accounting reasons why this is done, but I don't know enough about accounting.

I think the technical accounting reason is the "If we tell them that, nobody is going to buy the stock" phenomenon that the transactional lawyers tell me is pretty common in preparing SEC papers.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Fortunately, after the first 600 posts, I've learned to better recognize the point at which you stop engaging with Tyrone about some substantive point, and move on to simply vent outrage at the way the world works.

I count that one as cheap. You agree philosophically with Ty, and so pile on with cheerleading comments that intentionally avoid the premise presented, acting as if there were no premise. This comment (of yours) would be just as substantive had it been made to Ty. I'm noticing the argumentative trend moving this way, and it's a letdown.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I think the technical accounting reason is the "If we tell them that, nobody is going to buy the stock" phenomenon that the transactional lawyers tell me is pretty common in preparing SEC papers.

The technical accounting reason has to do with the specific word choice that was presented. A contingent expenditure budget notation is a footnote, added to a disclosure, that says that, while we are not counting this as a budget item at this point, due to a lack of foundation for inclusion, we recognize that it may arise in the pertinent period and so disclose that possibility now.

Ya'all are having fun, but the bandwagon sarcasm team method of debate has little intellectual merit. As long as you're being your own audience, though, I suppose it works. (Please note that this is addressed, not specifically to this post, but to the overall theme du jour.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I count that one as cheap. You agree philosophically with Ty, and so pile on with cheerleading comments that intentionally avoid the premise presented, acting as if there were no premise. This comment (of yours) would be just as substantive had it been made to Ty. I'm noticing the argumentative trend moving this way, and it's a letdown.

For the love of God -- we were all agreeing that Sharpton is a bad man. Thereby making us all non-PC. What more does it take to please you people?!?!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
The technical accounting reason has to do with the specific word choice that was presented. A contingent expenditure budget notation is a footnote, added to a disclosure, that says that, while we are not counting this as a budget item at this point, due to a lack of foundation for inclusion, we recognize that it may arise in the pertinent period and so disclose that possibility now.

Ya'all are having fun, but the bandwagon sarcasm team method of debate has little intellectual merit.

Speaking of little intellectual merit, your defense of the Bush budget -- assuming that you are defending it, and not just quibbling, though that's hardly clear -- is an elevation of form over substance, unless you actually believe that there is a "lack of foundation" for the belief that we will be spending money in Iraq and Afghanistan after September. If so, the Administration is undercutting you, since they apparently concede otherwise:

• The plan called for an increase in military spending of 7 percent, or $26.5 billion, to $401.7 billion. But that figure did not include money, which the administration said could be as much as $50 billion, for continued military operations next year in Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration said it would specify and seek financing for the expense only after the presidential election.

link

Hmm. I wonder what the presidential election has to do with principles of accounting?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If so, the Administration is undercutting you, since they apparently concede otherwise:

Hmm. I wonder what the presidential election has to do with principles of accounting?

Billmore, in case you didn't realize, what he meant to say is that the NYT is undercutting you.

A little more color on this issue. In the press conference, OMD stated that the numbers are not included because they have no idea what they are going to be, though they concede they could be as high as $50B. I agree with Ty that it would be preferrable for them to have made an assumption and included it in the budget. But from an accounting standpoint, I know from experience that it is not unusual for contingent liabilities to not be included if they cannot be adequately quantified, so long as that fact is sufficiently disclosed.

Ty, I agree with you that the result will be that these footnotes and qualifyers will drop off in the national debate, and that is unfortunate. But I just don't see how this is misleading in a nafarious sense.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Billmore, in case you didn't realize, what he meant to say is that the NYT is undercutting you.

When the NYT attributes statements to the administration, they are usually attributable to the administration. If your argument depends on the assumption that the NYT is just making shit up, it's time to hang it up.

A little more color on this issue. In the press conference, OMD stated that the numbers are not included because they have no idea what they are going to be, though they concede they could be as high as $50B. I agree with Ty that it would be preferrable for them to have made an assumption and included it in the budget. But from an accounting standpoint, I know from experience that it is not unusual for contingent liabilities to not be included if they cannot be adequately quantified, so long as that fact is sufficiently disclosed.

I cannot believe that you accept that line.

Ty, I agree with you that the result will be that these footnotes and qualifyers will drop off in the national debate, and that is unfortunate. But I just don't see how this is misleading in a nafarious sense.

Here's the WaPo's lead editorial this morning:

• Bogus Budgeting
  
  Tuesday, February 3, 2004; Page A18
  
  
  THE BUSH administration's 2005 budget is a masterpiece of disingenuous blame-shifting, dishonest budgeting and irresponsible governing. The administration mildly terms the $521 billion deficit forecast this year "a legitimate subject of concern," but asserts that it has the problem well in hand: The deficit, it assures the country, will be cut in half by 2009. This isn't credible -- and even if it were, it wouldn't be an adequate answer to a problem far more serious than this administration acknowledges.
  
  Having presided over record deficits, the administration now wants to claim credit if it manages to cut the bloated number in half. Imagine someone who's been piling on extra pounds at an alarming rate. Trimming his annual weight gain from 30 pounds this year to 15 pounds five years from now still leaves him fat -- and getting fatter. The goal shouldn't be to cut the deficit in half; it should be to remedy the gap between what the government is spending and what it is taking in. To keep running up these deficits is to stick future generations with a tab they won't be able to afford.
  
  The administration presents itself as blameless victim. "Today's budget deficits are the unavoidable product of the revenue erosion from the stock market collapse that began in early 2000, an economy recovering from recession, and a nation confronting serious national security threats," its budget states. "Had there not been one dime of tax relief under President Bush, we would have still run substantial budget deficits."
  
  Yes, but what this omits is the degree to which the administration's tax cuts -- many dimes' worth, as it happens -- contributed to the problem. Of this year's $521 billion deficit, the tax cuts account for $272 billion. In 2009, when the administration projects that it will have cut the deficit to $239 billion, the tax cuts (assuming the administration wins the extension it demanded again yesterday) will cost $183 billion -- in other words, the lion's share of the projected shortfall.
  
  But this low-ball estimate is a mirage. Like the 2005 budget, it doesn't take into account continuing costs in Iraq and Afghanistan. It fails to address the acknowledged problem of the alternative minimum tax, which was aimed at the wealthy but is sweeping in growing numbers of ordinary taxpayers. It doesn't fully fund the administration's long-term defense spending plans. A more accurate picture of the likely deficit in 2009 -- even assuming the administration manages to keep to its stated spending limits -- would put it more than $150 billion higher. And, of course, the surplus in government retirement accounts masks the true size of the shortfall: $501 billion in 2009, even under the administration's fuzzy math.
  
  As to the spending cuts, Mr. Bush proposes to squeeze significant savings out of a small slice of the budget -- the less than one-fifth that goes to discretionary spending not related to defense or homeland security. Is this credible? Consider this statement yesterday from House Appropriations Committee Chairman C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.): "No one should expect significant deficit reduction as a result of austere non-defense discretionary spending limits. The numbers simply do not add up." One illustration of the gulf between the administration and Congress comes in the amount set aside for highway funding. The administration's budget contemplates $256 billion over six years -- nearly $120 billion less than the measure now before the House.
  
  The biggest distortion is to present a snapshot of 2009 and stop there. Making the tax cuts permanent would cost $132 billion in the coming five years, but $936 billion through 2014. How Mr. Bush can adhere to this reckless course is the true "subject of concern."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Without checking any sites, what's the line now on when he drops out? Ten days?

I'll take an over. Watch "A Face in The Crowd." This type of personality disorder isn't capable of recognizing futility.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Speaking of little intellectual merit, your defense of the Bush budget -- assuming that you are defending it, and not just quibbling, though that's hardly clear -- is an elevation of form over substance, unless you actually believe that there is a "lack of foundation" for the belief that we will be spending money in Iraq and Afghanistan after September. If so, the Administration is undercutting you, since they apparently concede otherwise:

Not defending that budget at all. No, thanks. Complaining about the methods of debate. Picky about Sharpton? No, just awed that you cannot simply agree with an obvious point without fifteen quibbling posts, followed by cheerleading to the effect that Club is being repetitive.

"Lack of foundation" refers to the quantification. Usually one uses numbers in a budget, not just a line item that says "maybe a little, maybe a lot." Had they picked some number, they'd be blasted for picking either the wrong number, or attempting to quantify too early.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In short, your distinctions are laughable.

In short, your arguments in this matter (as in many instances), badly lack a sense of history, context, or perspective. Motivations matter.

I am not arguing that Rev. Sharpton is a good man with an admirable record. I am merely arguing that, in my view, his record and views are not as bad as that of a former leader of the KKK and a current prominent figure in the White Power movement.
On that point, I would suggest that reasonable people can disagree.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
This White House never puts policy in the front seat and politics in the back seat. Rove et al. are always driving, as the Suskind/O'Neill book makes all too clear to anyone who bothers to read this. If you point this out, though, you are being "partisan" -- thus, everything is partisan, and there's no reason to talk about policy at all.

S_A_M, how is this governing like a conservative Democrat?

Was Clinton a conservative Democrat?

I think this description also applies fairly accurately to the Clinton WH (if you change the names). They tried two big initiatives based on principle right at the beginning (gays in the military and health care reform); they got killed for both, and went to a much more politicized and careful approach. One difference is that Bush pretends he pays little attention to polls. His policy track record puts the lie to that (i.e. on the fly policy adjustments and the prescription drug benefit).

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
The technical accounting reason has to do with the specific word choice that was presented. A contingent expenditure budget notation is a footnote, added to a disclosure, that says that, while we are not counting this as a budget item at this point, due to a lack of foundation for inclusion, we recognize that it may arise in the pertinent period and so disclose that possibility now.

Ya'all are having fun, but the bandwagon sarcasm team method of debate has little intellectual merit. As long as you're being your own audience, though, I suppose it works. (Please note that this is addressed, not specifically to this post, but to the overall theme du jour.)

Bilmore, given that you claim to be the leading advocate of intellectual merit on this Board, please explain the following:

How and why in the name do God do you believe that there is a "lack of foundation for inclusion" in the proposed budget of any estimated expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2005? Do you really believe for one second that the Administration has no ideas, no contingency plans, and no way to estimate probabilities? If so, you should be a Deaniac.

On a related note -- "we recognize that it may rise in the petiment period" is a nice touch, but explain how there is any likelihood that the U.S. will spend _no_ money in Iraq and Afgahnstan in 2005.

Those are the points, so address them Mr. Substance.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
When the NYT attributes statements to the administration, they are usually attributable to the administration. If your argument depends on the assumption that the NYT is just making shit up, it's time to hang it up.
[/list]

Yea, because the NYT never makes stuff up, right?