“Fixing” the Economy, Eh?
It looks like the current Administration really is doing a great job of “fixing” the US economy.
In January 2013, disposable inflation income – adjusted for inflation – dropped 4%. For those who’ve forgotten: disposable income is what you have left after taxes and other mandatory deductions.
That’s the largest single-month drop since 1959 – or in at least 54 years. I say “at least” because 1959 is when the statistics for monthly changes in inflation-adjusted disposable income begin.
Consumers spent a bit more in January 2013, even while having 4% less to spend. What that means is that consumers are saving less or going further in debt. Neither is a good thing for the economy’s long-term health.
Other indicators, except for inflation, were similarly bad. Inflation was about the sole bright spot – 1.3% for the Jan 2012-Jan 2013 period. However, even that low level of inflation hurts when disposable incomes are shrinking.
And in case you were wondering – yeah, the new taxes which kicked in at the beginning of the year were the primary cause of the drop in disposable income.
Oh, by the way: that 1.3% inflation (Jan 2012 to Jan 2013) does not include the recent spike in gasoline prices. That price spike happened largely in Feb 2013. On January 28, 2013, the national average price of regular-grade gasoline was $3.296/gallon. On February 25, 2013 – $3.722/gallon – an increase of $0.426/gallon, or over 12.9%, in less than a month.
On another “cheery” note – under the current administration, the Federal government has now added $6+ trillion in new debt – in 4 years and 40 days. That’s “trillion” with a “T”, or
$6,000,000,000,000.00+
That’s an average of not quite $1.5 trillion in new Federal debt added during each of the past four years.
The words of Pyrrhus of Epirus come to mind: “Another such ‘victory’ and we shall be utterly ruined.”
Category: Economy
@45- It was Hondo who addressed my point on this thread and it was also Hondo that demanded that I find “proof” of my allegations on the other thread. I provided a link to the other thread in order to make arguing the point THERE easier. I expected Hondo to reply there. It wasn’t really my desire to take this thread off topic. But it’s Hondo’s thread.
@44- It absolutely does, Twist. But that wasn’t Jonn’s point. His point was that this was an extremely easy law to comply with. He stated all they had to do was keep their “mouths shut”. This instance proves there is a LOT more to it than that.
Forget you’re a conservative and I’m a liberal. Even forget the UCMJ for a moment. Do you honestly think that this one kiss, out of uniform, away from base, while not at work that this one tiny infraction warrants the guy 1. being kicked out of the military after 10 years service and 2. losing half of his separation money?
Perhaps that was the law but it certainly isn’t justice and it certainly isn’t the case of a guy flaunting it.
@52 I agree with you in principle. Honestly, I don’t think it’s a huge deal, and I thought the punishment was extreme. I also think that the civilians should have minded their own business.
THAT BEING SAID, the law is still the law. Justice does not always fall in line with the law, and especially not in this instance, but that’s life.
there are times they expect you to work and times they don’t
Huh–I wonder if that would work with my current civilian employer if I pissed hot on a drug test. After all, I didn’t take them on the job, now did I?
Seriously, sippy–I’d love for you to explain these “Republican policies” which have bankrupted this nation. While the one main issue I do have with trickle-down economics and their supporters is far too many people think that cutting taxes doesn’t mean you have to cut spending as well. Then again, when Reagan raised taxes in 1982-83, he did it with the promise from the DEMOCRAT-controlled Congress that there would be $3 of spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes.
A promise which the Democrats promptly shit on.
What we’re having now is people are hitting rock bottom. They’ve cut all they can over the past 4-5 years, and they simply can’t cut anymore. Now even the working class is having to either cut back or dip into savings simply to pay basic necessities because incomes have DECLINED so much over the past few years, while costs for just about everything have gone through the fucking roof, but that’s okay, because the government figures don’t include two of the biggest expenses to the average American home: food and energy costs.
Tell ya what–when you can feed a family of five and drive 40 miles each way to work on what it cost in 2008, you’ll have my apology and grudging respect.
As it is, I’m pretty sure you’re not going to get either fucking one from me, cupcake.
@53- I agree with everything you said there. Which is why I am glad the law is over. But you must also agree with me that Jonn’s contention that this was a case of them not keeping their “Mouths shut” was- at least in this case- wrong.
Oh, and to be fair, they did get the other half of their separation pay back. That was the whole purpose of the suit and Jonn’s thread. So I think we both agree that some justice was done there. But thanks for the reasonable reply!
Sippy: there is no exception regarding compliance with law for “difficulty”, nor is there one for whether the offender thinks the law “makes sense”. A 55MPH speed limit is neither particularly easy to comply with on the open highway (particularly in hilly country with a relatively underpowered vehicle), nor does that particular law make common sense to most. You are still required to comply – or risk the consequences if you don’t. The individuals here chose to engage in prohibited conduct (e.g., make an overt display of what could be reasonably construed by a rational observer as homosexual behavior) in a public place. It doesn’t matter whether that place was a public park at midday, or a car stopped at a traffic light at midnight. They were in a location where they had no reasonable expectation of privacy at the time of that overt act. Were they incredibly unlucky to have been observed by chance by someone who knew one of them? Sure. That’s also irrelevant. They played the odds and lost to a longshot. DADT may not have been easy to follow, and some never thought it made sense. Didn’t matter. It was still policy and was codified in military regulations. Willfully violating a regulation is a violation of the UCMJ. Break the law (e.g., violation of a lawful general order or regulation, Article 92, UCMJ) and get caught, you pay the price. That’s true even when the chances of getting caught are very low, the law makes (in the offender’s opinion) no sense, and is a difficult law with which to comply. Just ask anyone who’s gotten a speeding ticket on a lightly-traveled highway on a nice, sunny day. Jonn’s characterization of this incident is absolutely spot-on. In fact, this guy’s story is essentially no different than many other “sob stories” you hear from those who violate other laws. (Example: “But I LIKE meth and want to use it; it’s not fair that I got caught when others didn’t; it’s stupid that it’s illegal in the first place.”) Here, you’re the one who can’t be bothered to rationally… Read more »
Ex-PH2: I know you weren’t defending Nixon, and I’m pretty sure I know what you were referring to (their spectacularly different political views, plus the fact that Nixon could find talented if sometimes unsavory subordinates while Obama seems generally unable to do so). My observation was merely intended to point out that IMO Nixon, LBJ, Obama, and Clinton IMO do share one characteristic: they’re each about as personally trustworthy and honest as a guy running a 3-card monte hustle in a NYC or Chicago back alley.
If any of those 4 told me it was daytime outside and my watch said it was noon, I still wouldn’t believe them until I’d looked out the window and verified it myself.
insipid, I’m an Independent that leans right. I am moraly opposed to homosexuality, thats why I married a woman instead of a man. As far as everyone else, as long as it doesn’t effect me or mine I could care less if someone procreated with a goat (certain Afghanis). What I care about is the law. Why do you think someone should get a pass on UCMJ because of their sexual orientation? I do believe some people overeacted, but that still doesn’t change the fact that DADT was violated.
Twist: I’d guess you’re wasting your time. Sippy-boy only cares about upholding and enforcing laws he agrees with. As the discussion above shows, he’s perfectly OK with people violating laws he doesn’t like.
let’s flip it around. As per military regs. Sodomy, regardless of the genders involved, is an offence. If I got caught getting a blowjob from my fucking -wife-, I’d be in just as much trouble.
someone was saying something about some shit not being fair or something?
‘Fair’ is where you take the kids to eat themselves sick, and step in animal shit.
Jonn’s “analysis” was not spot on and by your own admission it was not spot on. You’re pretending that his analysis was the same as Gruntling’s above. That it was a ridiculous situation, but policy is policy and them’s the breaks. THAT would be an accurate analysis. THAT analysis was NOT Jonn’s analysis. Jonn stated directly that this was an easy policy to follow and all they had to do was “Keep their mouth shut”. By your own statements the policy was MUCH more difficult to follow than that. You cannot on the one hand say that “DADT may not have been easy to follow,” and also say that “Jonn’s characterization of this incident is absolutely spot-on” because Jonn’s characterization (not that I believe he even bothered to read the documents) WAS that the law was easy to follow. By your own damn admission it was not easy to follow. Hugging, holding, hands, forgetting to lie about the gender of your significant other, not pretending your single, sharing an apartment together, or kissing your partner in a place where someone MAY be able to see you are ALL common things most people take for granted which were ALL outlawed under this policy. So his statement that “all you had to do was keep your mouth shut” was bullshit and you KNOW it was bullshit. In order to comply with this policy you had to alter your entire existence. And if you failed for one moment you got kicked out. Yes that WAS the law. And the fact that so many thousands of servicemen and women were willing to follow it to serve their country is a testament to the patriotism of gay and lesbian service members. I am not arguing that they weren’t in violation of the law (as it was enforced at the time- since Obama came into office in 2009 he stopped booting soldiers for situations like this and only did it for soldiers like Dan Choi who did not “keep their mouths shut”). Of course they were. My argument is with Jonn’s contention that the law was… Read more »
@58- Why are so many people pretending that I’m arguing what the law was. My issue with Jonn was in his statement that the law was easy to follow. I didn’t say that the people didn’t violate the absurd policy. They did. What I’m arguing is that the policy was absurd and it is difficult to follow.
I also sincerely hope you’re married to your wife because you love her and are a heterosexual. Not because of a “moral opposition” to someone else’s biology.
sippy–thanks for once again avoiding my point. But then again, that’s about the only thing you are in fact good at.
@59- Where the fuck did I say they did not violate the law? In fact where did I say the law should not be enforced? (though I do believe that in this case prosecutorial discretion should of been used- it’s not necessary to throw the book at EVERY discretion). My argument is that Jonn, was full of shit when he said the law was an easy one to comply with.
Seems that’s been your point all along–if it’s a law with which you don’t agree, you don’t agree with the punishment. Sounds pretty consistent in your warped little world.
And if you don’t prosecute people, the rule of law means shit. Prosecutor discretion means does this violation rise to the level of this crime, or that. Both must be punished, although one might not be as severe as the other.
Bottom line–yeah, you do need to enforce the law, ALL the time, not just when it’s convenient or you feel like it.
@60- Yes, but it is not normal behavior to fuck your wife in public. It is normal behavior to occasionally refer to your wife, or her gender. It’s normal behavior to live with your wife. It’s normal behavior to hold hands with your wife, to refer to your wife by an endearment, or even to admit that you HAVE a wife, it’s even normal to kiss your wife, occasionally in public. None of these things were allowed for partners of same sex couples under DADT. Which is why the law was HARD to follow. It was Jonn’s false contention that it was easy to follow.
You seem to want to pretend that I’m arguing that there was no violation of this stupid policy. There was. But the violations were understandable and entirely human, not, as Jonn was implying a case of people flaunting it.
Sippy: “In fact, where did I say that the law should not be enforced?”
Actually, Sippy my boy – you just said exactly that in comment 64, in the parenthetical clause which follows the quote above. There you continued (direct quote): “(though I do believe that in this case prosecutorial discretion should of been used . . . )”
Here, “prosecutorial discretion” means “ignore a violation of the law” – or, in other words, elect not to enforce the law.
You’d implied previously that DADT should have ignored by taking the position that these folks had been “treated unfairly” when they were discharged. In comment 64, you merely explicitly stated that.
Sippy–silly question for ya:
What in the Wide World of Fuckin Sports does this have to do with the economy? Oh, right–nothing.
Here, suck on this one for a while and try to explain why a union which destroyed Hostess is getting millions of dollars of OUR (taxpayer) money because they were a bunch of greedy fuckers:
http://plainsmannews.com/bakers-and-confectioners-unions-get-handout-from-obama-administrations-tra-p610-1.htm#
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/022213-645487-bankrupting-hostess-brings-union-workers-government-benefits.htm
In a perfect world, they burned their bridges, and the should have lived with the results they created.
No prosecutorial discretion means that the prosecutor decides which crimes it decides it wants to go after in a big way and which ones they want to let slide. Dan Choi was kicked out under the Obama administration because he “told” and rather loudly. This guy would not of been kicked out under President Obama. Prosecutorial discretion happens under Republicans too here’s a story, granted from Mother Jones but it’s MORE critical of Obama that tells how Bush used his discretion to not prosecute useful illegal aliens:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/obama-bush-immigration-enforcement
But either way, my point is that the law was very difficult to follow and that Jonn’s contentions that it was easy was garbage. No one wants to argue that point, instead they’re pretending that I’m arguing that there was no violation of policy.
This guy wouldn’t have been kicked out under Obama even if DADT was still in place because Obama is a spineless fuckstick.
Choi would still be in (although probably been booted as a multiple non-select, a definite achievement for 1LT to CPT, but not in a good way) because Obama’s policies are not of leadership, but pandering to those who would destroy the foundation which made this country strong.
Bottom line–Obama is not a leader, nor was Choi. They’re placeholders and histrionic drama queens who pander to the most base element of the “gimme” spoiled child society.
@67- Prosecutorial discretion can also mean going short of throwing everything at them. They could of given him a reprimand, told him not to do it again. They didn’t have to throw him out and cut his separation pay. Not EVERY violation- especially one coming from a guy who had a good record until that point- entails going cut-throat. And not every use of prosecutorial discretion entails just letting the guy go (though that was the option Obama employed in 2009). Remember, kicking this guy out of the military and going through the resultant class-action lawsuit probably cost the military hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do you really think the “crime” warranted that?
Uh, Sparky, Choi WAS kicked out under Obama, you moron.
In other words: “prosecutorial discretion” means the prosecutor decides when to enforce the law, and when not to. Which in turn means you’re advocating that the law should not have been enforced in this particular case.
You’re in a deep hole already, Sippy. You’d be best advise to quit digging.
You do yourself and the causes you support no favors by again contradicting yourself in writing in the same sentences where you claim not to have ever done so. That’s akin to a 5-year old kid caught with his hand caught in the cookie jar and crumbs on his lips claiming he never took a cookie. Even the guilty kid knows that won’t fly when he tries it.
@68- I linked to the other thread expecting Hondo to answer me there. He didn’t.
Sippy – they didn’t “throw the book” at the guy. He wasn’t prosecuted for a violation of Article 92, UCMJ (violation of lawful order or regulation). That could have gotten him a DD and (if I recall correctly) up to 2 years hard labor. Instead, he was administratively discharged and received a non-punitive discharge (e.g., an Honorable discharge).
Once again, you’ve logically and literally contradicted yourself. Try again, sonny-boy.
Uh, moron, Choi would have been shitcanned so fast his ass would have left a vapor trail under any other administration. The fact that he thought he could get cover from an Obama-led military means he was not only stupid but naive as well. But then again, he kinda did.
So who’s the moron again? I wouldn’t trust Choi to lead a bunch of pillow biters into a Soho bath house. The fact it took a YEAR for his discharge to be finalized when we had guys who claimed to love teh cock get sent on their merry way within DAYS tells me he thought he could get cover.
The fact he tried to get back in tells me he’s even stupider than he looks, ya moron.
Those might be “other words” but they’re not mine. Reduced charges are part of prosecutorial discretion as well as plea bargains. If EVERY violation of every law was prosecuted to the fullest extent possible the entire criminal justice system would soon come to a screeching halt. Prosecutorial discretion is a necessary part of the criminal justice system and even part of military justice. This was a guy not out to make any trouble, not trying to make any statements, just going about his day.
I’m not saying the prosecutors had no right to do what they did. What I am saying is that their time could of been used more constructively with more flagrant violators.
Uh, sippy–try answering HERE.
@76- Dan Choi made that statement because he WANTED to be kicked out. It’s called passive resistance, you fucking nitwit. His entire purpose was to make a political statement and one year from the time he made it to the time he got discharged was not terribly long. Especially since he had a lot of money behind him.
Either way, your contention that he’d of gotten by under Obama is provably bullshit. And if you think that Dan Choi is or ever was a fan of President Obama then you’re a bigger moron than I thought you were.
No, he was basically on his way out because he got physical with a PFC and tried to weasel his way out of it. Even if he hadn’t come out, he would have been cashiered because he was a shitty officer. You DO realize that non-select from O-2 to O-3 is basically unheard of, right? Yet Choi had not yet reached Captain after SIX YEARS of commissioned service. That tell you anything?
And Obama is the one who lifted DADT, so while Choi would likely still have been shitcanned, it wouldn’t have been because he liked dick, just that he WAS a dick.
Hondo, your comparison of those four people is apt, but I wasn’t referring to that.
I was actually thinking of Nixon’s lack of sociability — almost a prerquisite for the office — and the fact that the longer he stayed in office, the more paranoid he became until it backfired on him with Watergate and the White House burglars and all that went with it, and everything fell apart. He had a chance to revoke LBJ’s welfare act, but let it go. And here we are 44 years later, up to our eyeballs in someone else’s expensive mistake.
And with only two exceptions, not one of those clowns in DC that I wrote to last year about putting together legislation that would allow vets who are seniors to subsitute VA health care for all parts of Medicare (in addition to Part D) and let the VA charge Medicare for services the way they’ll charge your insurance — none of them, except for Kirk and Durbin, who sent me blah-blah-blag form letters, has bothered to send a reply – and I sent those letters to members of both houses and both parties.
I guess I was actually expecting a response to a common sense approach to something.
And yeah, I think Choi IS an Obama fan, otherwise how do you explain why Choi-boi tried to get back in after DADT was repealed?
Sippy-boy: prosecutorial discretion was indeed used in this case, numbnuts. The guy WAS NOT PROSECUTED. He could have been for a violation of Article 92, UCMJ (failure to follow lawful order or regulation). Instead, he was processed for an administrative discharge.
I’d expect someone who claims to both be ex-military and a paralegal to understand the difference between a criminal proceeding (e.g., a courts-martial) and an administrative action (e.g., an administrative discharge IAW existing procedures and regulations). The fact that you seem to lack the ability to grasp that distinction does make me wonder.
I understand that, obviously if he were accused of a crime he would not of been honorably discharged and there would of been no separation pay at all. Bottom line was he was removed from the service earlier than he wanted and he lost half his separation pay. Though he did eventually get the last part back.
Plus, Sparky your contention @76 that he would of been “shit canned” by any other administration in one week is provably bullshit. During the Bush Administration and the run up and prosecution of Operation Desert Storm President Bush Sr. stopped discharging people who TOLD their superiors they were gay and then started it again right after the war was over.
So in other words:
1. The military prosecutor indeed elected to use prosecutorial discretion, though you initially claimed above he did not and that you wished he had.
2. In doing so, the prosecutor opted not to enforce the law – which you initially claimed is not what happens when prosecutorial discretion is used.
In short – you contradicted yourself twice above in writing, got caught both times, and tried to weasel out of it.
Par for the course for you.
What I “claimed” was that the punishment was too harsh for such a light transgression. Just because SOME was used doesn’t mean more wasn’t warranted. Again, there’s plenty of history of both Democrats AND Republicans electing not to discharge people under certain circumstances. Plea bargains and warnings are all parts of law enforcement. A written statement saying this is what happened and that they should be more careful would, to me, of been a better policy in situations such as this then discharge and loss of separation pay.
But again, these cases in which no prosecution was done and which an honorable discharge was granted were generally cases similar to this in which no overt action was taken by the offender- they were just “caught” in the wrong place and wrong time. Far from opening their mouths. IN other words, Jonn was full of shit and rather than saying that YOU’RE trying to weasel out of it.
DADT did not make it legal to be gay in the military. It prevented the military from asking, or investigating without substantial evidence that you were. Many heterosexual acts were also against UCMJ. The “don’t tell” portion was merely precautionary for those that were breaking the rules.
The FICA tax reduction under Obama was a shell game that hid the extra deficits he was incurring, while expediting the bankruptcy of Social Security. It would have been more intellectually honest of him to have increased the minimum level of Fed Income tax exclusion, or to have reduced the tax rate of the first $90k of income, but he did not.
To overcome the current deficit by taxes alone would require an across the board increase in the tax rate by 25%. To overcome it after the interest rate returns to normal rates will require an across the board increase of 50%, but don’t worry, Bernanke and Obama do have a plan. It is to inflate us out of the deficit. Unfortunately, the lag on creating extra dollars that are never printed, will create the inflation well after the culprits are noted. And unfortunately, the wage rates are not and will not reflect these inflationary practices.
But given that 25% of all taxes collected worldwide are collected from Americans, that government spending of the US govt exceeds that of all governments combined (minus a few distant runner ups), we simply cannot afford to tax and spend our way out of this problem.
Sippy…didja ever figure that there might be a shitbag or two who claimed to like sucking dick in order to get out of going to the sandbox? There have been estimates that show as many as 2/3 of the discharges under DADT were in fact to avoid deployment, etc. Just like there were A FEW women who’d get pregnant for the same reason.
Nah, couldn’t be that…
I actually KNOW someone in basic that got out by that very trick, Sparky. A very good reason to end the policy. Either way, this case in question is not that. He wanted to stay in.
Oh, here’s Obama’s “buddy” Dan Choi tearing up an OFA poster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJS845QGX3o&feature=player_embedded
Believe me, my opinion about Dan Choi and Bradley Manning is probably pretty similar to yours. Both of them are a disgrace. Especially Manning’s use of being gay as an excuse for treason was particularly nauseating. Dan Choi is just a publicity hound who takes credit for ending DADT but only delayed it. In fact, it was my dislike for him that led me here.
@88- Obama’s plan is not to remove the deficit by “taxes alone” his plan is for a balanced approach. The same thing he ran on and, I recall, won.
That could have gotten him a DD and (if I recall correctly) up to 2 years hard labor.
Close — two years’ confinement. “Confinement at hard labor” is no longer a sentence, though I believe it used to be. Now there is “hard labor without confinement” (that can only be given for up to 3 months, and not to officers) and “confinement.”
Since Choi was an officer he could not have gotten a DD or a BCD – only “dismissal.” Which amounts to the same thing – a punitive discharge and a black mark on your record.
Alberich: thanks for the correction; you’re obviously correct. I was using the phrase “hard labor” as a synonym for “confinement at the USDB”; as you pointed out, that’s technically incorrect.
However, regarding the DD I was referring to the USAF NCO booted under DADT that Sippy has been defending above vice Choi. That individual could have gotten a DD for violation of regulations and/or sodomy vice had his chain-of-command opted to prefer charges vice process him for administrative separation. Policy at the time was not to do so, but I believe under DADT it was still technically an option. Can’t recall it ever being used, though.
Sippy: re your comment 91 – really? Care to identify any current-year or future cuts other than those imposed by sequestration or due to the winding down of operations in Afghanistan that the Obama administration has supported? Not reductions in future planned increase that still result in a smaller increase – I’m talking about actual cuts. You know, cuts, as in proposed program reductions vis-a-vis the previous year’s spending.
I can’t really think of any, and I particularly can’t recall any significant ones that this Administration has proposed. But I guess I could have missed some.
Educate us. But remember: something that results in a smaller increase is not a “cut” – that’s just a smaller increase.
sippy’s confused–he thinks the deficit is coming down too.
I think the subject to the original post was the economy – not carpet munchers and other gay bullshit. Let’s get back to the discussion, shall we?
@95, He also thinks that Obama getting his tax increase and then asking for more is not moving the goal posts.
#93, oh, I see. That fits what I saw; gay boys and gals (who outed themselves or got “outed” with pictures) got a very quick chapter with minimal fuss.
On the other hand I’m not sure it really could’ve been an Article 92 charge. The homosexual conduct policy was in AR 600-20, and I don’t believe that particular section had “punitive language,” as do the sections on fraternization and hazing. A quick google got me this older version — http://dadtarchive.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Doc_19_Army_Reg_1_Homosexual_Conduct_Policy_331.pdf . Compare section 4-19c with section 4-20d, which does have the “punitive language.” (“Violating a regulation” is only an article 92 crime if the court finds that the regulation is intended to be punitive – so you can’t court-martial people for uniform violations under 670-1, for example. Punitive language helps to establish that.)
Actually engaging in sodomy — as opposed just saying that that’s what you liked to do — that could be prosecuted under Article 125, but in practice wasn’t worth the bother; for consensual sodomy you had to run a constitutional gauntlet and show that the acts in question were some kind of specific military problem. (Consensual sodomy is normally charged only as a “consolation prize” in sex assault cases – so the prosecutor can “get him on something” if the forcible part falls through. But that is another story.)
Alberich: interesting. Did not realize a regulation had to specify that violations were subject to prosecution prior to being prosecutable as a crime under Article 92. I’ve seen that used enough times I thought it applied across the board to all cases of willfully disregarding or disobeying a service regulation.
Learn something new daily.
#99, well, it isn’t strictly required. The trick is that the prosecution has to show that the Secretary (or whoever issued the order/regulation) intended for it to be punitive. The punitive language is the easiest way but not the only way to do that.
In 600-20, since some sections have that language and others don’t, I think the prosecution would have a hard time establishing it for that particular policy.
It’s a little like interpreting a contract – if the parties have language that covers the situation in question, great; if not, the court has to figure out what they meant.