Quote:
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
