Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
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.

If the Administration really has no idea what these costs are going to be, perhaps that explains why the reconstruction is not going so well.

[bilmore]

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

A. Who's Larry?

B. I must have misunderstood the following lines: ". 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. I can see how I did mess that one up. They actually say "misleading", and not "political". That would tend to make any careless soul like me think they were speaking of "misleading" and not "political". Mea culpa.

(If you are now telling me that you were not taking up Ty's argument, then you should point out the clear indication of segue that I missed. Maybe I did. That's why you guys doing the double-team can get confusing. "No, no, that was Ty's point - I changed focus 3.52 posts ago.")

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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."

If everything is political, and nothing political is misleading, and everything political is spin, then everything is spin and nothing misleading. It's bilmore's world: Welcome to it. One could draw a Venn diagram, but it'd be a pretty boring one.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If the Administration really has no idea what these costs are going to be, perhaps that explains why the reconstruction is not going so well.

No, please talk to SAM. The snide non sequitUrs go in the third paragraph.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If everything is political, and nothing political is misleading, and everything political is spin, then everything is spin and nothing misleading. It's bilmore's world: Welcome to it. One could draw a Venn diagram, but it'd be a pretty boring one.

In your case, it would simply be a vector representation showing hot air, rising.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
In your case, it would simply be a vector representation showing hot air, rising.

Good one. A twist on your "I know I am, but so are you" line, which is always such a convincing defense of the GOP. Speaking of which, Matt Yglesias finds new confirmation of your view that it's all politics, all the time:

POLITICS IS EVERYWHERE! I've already noted the Bush budget's curious resemblance to a campaign brochure and today thanks to the Center for American Progress I see that the president is spending taxpayer money on what's quite literally a political ad:

• The Bush administration launched a $9.5 million television advertising campaign Tuesday to rebut criticism of the new Medicare law.
  The ad is to run on network and cable television through March, clustered around soap operas, game shows and news programs. Its theme is "Same Medicare. More Benefits."
  
  The administration is spending another $3.1 million for a newspaper, radio and Internet effort in both English and Spanish.
  
  The 30-second ad addresses some of the major criticism of the law, including assertions that it will force seniors out of traditional Medicare and into managed care plans and that savings will be paltry from drug discount cards and prescription drug insurance starting in 2006.

I wonder how this all fits in with the deficit reduction plan.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
A. Who's Larry?

The Larry Davis Experience, who intiate this thread, and who I warned in my first responsive post (which preceded Ty's) NOT to use the term "misleading" because it would piss people off and confuse things.

Originally posted by bilmore
(If you are now telling me that you were not taking up Ty's argument, then you should point out the clear indication of segue that I missed. Maybe I did. That's why you guys doing the double-team can get confusing. "No, no, that was Ty's point - I changed focus 3.52 posts ago.")

You were reading and quoting from Ty's post. My points (which I think were fairly clear from reading _my_ posts, including the ones before his posts) were that: (a) this is no more"misleading" than any usual budget politicking, but (b) its a b.s. trick which I don't believe is justified by good accounting practices, but instead (c) was done by the Admin. to make the number look smaller for the purposes of election year politics.

My conversation with you was premised on amazement at your apparent belief that omitting those costs was not only "s.o.p" -- but was entirely justified because the Admin. is honestly freaking clueless on the issue to the point that they can't even estimate a budget two years out -- but will give us numbers post-November, 2004. (Plus, I was irked by your "I don't disagree with you on substance re budget. But you all suck b/c you're mean to club re Sharpton." response earlier.)

To avoid such confusion in the future, you might wish to read my posts as continuations of MY earlier posts, and as an ongoing debate with the person on the other side -- unless I quote from Ty or elsewhere to make it clear that I'm talking about the same thing.

That is how I keep you, club, and Hank straight.

AG, Ty and I (and Gattigap and LDE) are all distinctive voices who certainly don't agree on everything.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
My points (which I think were fairly clear from reading _my_ posts, including the ones before his posts) were that: (a) this is no more"misleading" than any usual budget politicking, but (b) its a b.s. trick which I don't believe is justified by good accounting practices, but instead (c) was done by the Admin. to make the number look smaller for the purposes of election year politics.

A. Agree.

B. It is entirely justified by GAAP. If one were to do this differently in the real world, one would be in trouble. Or, leading Enron.

C. I think it was done more out of paranoia that, no matter what number was chosen, the attacks would happen anyway ("too small - how can you think we're going to fix Iraq for just that much - Idiots!", or "too much - we have things to do here!", or "you're lying - you can't do that for that!"). When virtually every impulse is met by the kind of mindless hysterical reaction that characterizes the anti-Bush crowd, sometimes you just need to punt, I think. And, doing it this way, they are up-front about the fact that they can't even guess at this point. Would you rather they make something up? (Or, are you just regretting the missed opportunities listed above?)

My conversation with you was premised on amazement at your apparent belief that omitting those costs was not only "s.o.p" -- but was entirely justified because the Admin. is honestly freaking clueless on the issue to the point that they can't even estimate a budget two years out -- but will give us numbers post-November, 2004.

See above.

To avoid such confusion in the future, you might wish to read my posts as continuations of MY earlier posts, and as an ongoing debate with the person on the other side -- unless I quote from Ty or elsewhere to make it clear that I'm talking about the same thing.

You all look alike.

That is how I keep you, club, and Hank straight.

We can converse about political topics, but when you start making explicit assumptions about my sexual preferences, I have to object. Wrong board.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
B. It is entirely justified by GAAP. If one were to do this differently in the real world, one would be in trouble. Or, leading Enron.

(a) I think that proposed budget bills stopped following GAAP a long time ago.

(b) I guess that, like Larry, I'll have to agree to disagree with you about just how "contingent" this liability is compared to some of the other unknowables in the budget.

Originally posted by bilmore
C. I think it was done more out of paranoia that . . . . "too much - we have things to do here!")

That's the one.

Originally posted by bilmore
When virtually every impulse is met by the kind of mindless hysterical reaction that characterizes the anti-Bush crowd, sometimes you just need to punt, I think. And, doing it this way, they are up-front about the fact that they can't even guess at this point. Would you rather they make something up? (Or, are you just regretting the missed opportunities listed above?)

Nope. I think that doing it this way -- if they don't fill in a reasonable estimate -- works out worse for them than if they'd filled in a number.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore
You all look alike.

You got that one right. I cannot keep the Dems apart on this board because everything they say is just a variation on the same theme - GWB is stupid and he lies.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
You got that one right. I cannot keep the Dems apart on this board because everything they say is just a variation on the same theme - GWB is stupid and he lies.

If I had a shred of respect for you, I might take offense.

S_A_M

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If I had a shred of respect for you, I might take offense.

Psst. Take it from me: The shred of respect requirement is flexible.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If I had a shred of respect for you, I might take offense.

S_A_M

I hurt your feelings with my comment and you know it. Nananana.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

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

I do, indeed.

[Gattigap]

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.

Christ. It's not cheerleading. It's frustration with the thread.

If what you want is the translation of, "I get it. You think Sharpton's getting a free ride because he's black. I agreed with you a good while ago about that. Let's move on.", then fine.

That's more boring, but if you want a Big Letter Edition of posts, maybe you'll see it as less "cheap."