Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yea, because the NYT never makes stuff up, right?

No, they just pinch it from someone else.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Bilmore, given that you claim to be the leading advocate of intellectual merit on this Board . . .

What board have you been reading?

How and why in the name do God do you believe . . .

I'm an atheist. You lost me right here.

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.

Go back and read up on the meaning of "contingent liability". What number should they have put in? Any number would simply be a WAG - the usual way to account for such a thing in an accounting document (such as a formal budget) is to make note of the possible liability, pointing out that it may or may not occur, at some unknown level. This is pretty basic stuff.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
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

Didn't Duke "clean up" when he was running? Don't have an opinion on this issue- just saying Al still running isn't necessarially Al a year after running.
Pat Robertson in an election year, while he was running, was a less strident man than before/after his runs.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Didn't Duke "clean up" when he was running?

By "clean up", you mean not actively continue his race-baiting, white supremacy rhetoric, all the while winking and nodding to his core constituency to rest assured that he would, if elected, continue to pursue the policies for which he had previously advocated?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
By "clean up", you mean not actively continue his race-baiting, white supremacy rhetoric, all the while winking and nodding to his core constituency to rest assured that he would, if elected, continue to pursue the policies for which he had previously advocated?

Exactly! Like Sharpton.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
Go back and read up on the meaning of "contingent liability". What number should they have put in? Any number would simply be a WAG - the usual way to account for such a thing in an accounting document (such as a formal budget) is to make note of the possible liability, pointing out that it may or may not occur, at some unknown level. This is pretty basic stuff.

Your points are well taken, but I think we have to agree to disagree about how contingent this liability is, based on the statements the admin has already made about money that will need to be allocated to Iraq after the election. For instance, I think there is no realistic chance that these expenditures in some form "may not occur." You may differ.

Like many things in accounting it's a judgment call. There are many contingencies that don't get dropped to the footnotes because the value of portraying those numbers in the financial statements in chief outweighs the dangers of misunderestimation.

The problem that prompted me to post on this in the first place was not the footnotification in the budget. It was rather the statement made in the SOTU about the deficit reduction plan. The fact that something is a footnote in the budget does not mean it can be ignored in any realistic evaluation of our deficit reduction prospects. The WaPo editorial Ty posted makes the point much better than I can on this, so I'll just shut up about it.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Go back and read up on the meaning of "contingent liability". What number should they have put in? Any number would simply be a WAG - the usual way to account for such a thing in an accounting document (such as a formal budget) is to make note of the possible liability, pointing out that it may or may not occur, at some unknown level. This is pretty basic stuff.

So, are you defending that budget decision or not?

I understand the meaning of the term contingent liability. I will point out that the budget has estimates for the future costs of all kinds of other programs whose true costs are not yet known. Why are those numbers included? Because the government believes that it can assign a value to those costs with some reasonable certainty.

While this area may allow for less precision and certainty than most, I find it difficult to believe that our government is utterly incapable, despite its best efforts, of arriving at any reasonaBle estimate or estimate(s) to include.

Why, heck, you'd think that those numbers were like the guy(s) in the WH who leaked the CIA status of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak -- who are apparently harder to find than most al Qaeda leaders.

This decision by the Administration -- and particularly the statements that the public won't see any numbers for Iraq and Afghanistan until after the November election mirrors the way the Addministration handled the cost issue during the run-up to the War. i.e. refusal to provide any numbers or estimates beforehand. It is nakedly political, and I'm surprised you actually believe otherwise. Fortunately, it seems that they will be held to account.

Referring back to early 2003: "Whatever it costs, it will be less than the price of inaction." Maybe so, but shit, we wouldn't accept that from our plumber before he started a job. So, why do we accept that from our President?

S_A_M

In sum, the decision

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So, are you defending that budget decision or not?

Am I defending which budget decision? Not pulling a number out of my butt and sticking it in a document? Yeah, but premised on the idea that I know too little about the situation to know for certain if the number absolutely is too contingent to be included or estimated.

I understand the meaning of the term contingent liability. I will point out that the budget has estimates for the future costs of all kinds of other programs whose true costs are not yet known. Why are those numbers included? Because the government believes that it can assign a value to those costs with some reasonable certainty.

Generally - no, in just about every instance - those numbers are estimable to a far greater degree of precision than our future costs to remake Iraq. Yeah, spending on the White House Band might go up if someone drops a tuba this year, but the number is, at least, going to be close. No such situation regarding Iraq.

Why, heck, you'd think that those numbers were like the guy(s) in the WH who leaked the CIA status of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak -- who are apparently harder to find than most al Qaeda leaders.

Did you know that Clinton got his dick sucked right there in the White House?! (Sorry - I looked at your post, and figured that this was the paragraph in which we were to insert some snide non sequitar. I still can't get used to the new format.)

This decision by the Administration -- and particularly the statements that the public won't see any numbers for Iraq and Afghanistan until after the November election mirrors the way the Addministration handled the cost issue during the run-up to the War. i.e. refusal to provide any numbers or estimates beforehand. It is nakedly political, and I'm surprised you actually believe otherwise. Fortunately, it seems that they will be held to account.

Yes, I'm sure that they will now have to estimate a number. And the number, as they predicted, will eventually, and completely unsurprisingly, be shown to be inaccurate, as there were too many variables to allow for prediction. And then, when this becomes apparent, you (the generic "you", sort of like the royal "we", but composed of Dems) will roundly criticize Bush for lying about the number.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Did you know that Clinton got his dick sucked right there in the White House?! (Sorry - I looked at your post, and figured that this was the paragraph in which we were to insert some snide non sequitar. I still can't get used to the new format.)

Yes, indeed, and by a woman not his wife and the age of his daughter.

Speaking of snide non sequitUrs:
Anyone taking bets on the over/under for Clinton marital blowjobs in the past 20 years? I take 1.

However, I didn't vote for Clinton in 1996. You guys asked for this (unless you were misled).

S_A_M

ETA: Still refusing to believe, or admit, that the decision was politically motivated? BB, despite your protests, you are a man of faith.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


Speaking of snide non sequitUrs:
Anyone taking bets on the over/under for Clinton marital blowjobs in the past 20 years? I take 1.

That low? I figured Hillary got at least 5 or 6.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Still refusing to believe, or admit, that the decision was politically motivated? BB, despite your protests, you are a man of faith.

"Political"? Of course it was "political". Pretty much every decision by either party or official of any admin is. I thought the discussion was pertaining to "misleading". As in, "they intentionally left this off in order to attempt to mislead us. And then they announced it. The cads."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Speaking of snide non sequitUrs:
Anyone taking bets on the over/under for Clinton marital blowjobs in the past 20 years? I take 1.

S_A_M

so you think they have a normal married sex life?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
so you think they have a normal married sex life?

I think he was asking who was over and who was under, not the more basic "do they?" question.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think he was asking who was over and who was under, not the more basic "do they?" question.

Confidential to Billy: one of us whiffed, probably me now, but I was making a joke based upon the "1."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Political"? Of course it was "political". Pretty much every decision by either party or official of any admin is. I thought the discussion was pertaining to "misleading". As in, "they intentionally left this off in order to attempt to mislead us. And then they announced it. The cads."

No, no no. That wasn't what I was talking about. See, Larry?