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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (28292)	5/5/2008 5:32:58 PM
From: Geoff Altman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Alright Buddy, what did you do with Peter? He seems to be MIA. You didn't by chance off him in order to take over his thread did you?.......<ggg>

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (28292)	5/5/2008 5:46:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

I thought, by "statutory limitations" that you where arguing that the budget method was illegal under statute. It isn't, but that wasn't what you meant (which wasn't clear until your last post). As for PR and spin, sure the future budget estimates get spun in all sorts of ways, including the estimates for future costs of wars. But this isn't seriously different than all the other spin from politicians, except perhaps in the statutory limitations on CBO estimates, and even that probably isn't unique, other supplementals would be treated the same way. The problem isn't inherent in having supplementals, but rather one of not letting the CBO estimate them. And the problem isn't one that means that actual spending doesn't get accounted for correctly, it is rather narrowly limited to the CBO estimates for future spending. Those estimates, are likely to be off for so many other reasons, that I wouldn't put much stock in them, esp. for more than a year or two ahead. And they are just estimates, not the formal accounting for spending.