Sunday, June 17, 2012

A Butch-League Presentation

Rachel Maddow lied about Governor Walker last year, and it was a whopper.............a) She claimed that Governor Walker inherited a budget surplus for fiscal year 2011. He did not. He inherited (after you deducted the outstanding obligations) a 137 million dollar deficit and a two year budget gap following that of 3.6 BILLION.............b) She claimed that Mr. Walker's 140 million dollars in tax cuts would have created a budget deficit in 2011. They would not have. The tax cuts were not set to take effect to 2012. Yes, they would have added to the shortfall for 2012-2014. But they only would have increased it from 3.6 billion to 3.74 billion.............c) She claimed that Governor Walker's tax cuts were largely a giveaway to the wealthy. They predominantly were not. Yes, a lot of them went to businesses but they were targeted for job creation and businesses of every stripe were eligible. That, and 47 million of the 140 million went to individuals so that they could deduct their personal health savings accounts (something that a lot of other states have also been doing).........................................................................................Look, I'm not saying that this Walker guy is any sort of hero or anything. I actually have some mixed feelings about him myself (while I essentially agree with him that public sector workers shouldn't be allowed to collectively bargain/stick it up the poop-shoot of the taxpayer, I also found the fellow to be more than a little heavy-handed at times). But to so blatantly misrepresent the facts the way that this Maddow character did is unfortunate and decidedly disgusting, I think

27 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

It is, Rachel Maddow after all. The Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh of the left. I'm not in the least bit surprised.

dmarks said...

Yes she is as bad as Limbaugh or Beck, lying or misrepresenting the situation in a blatantly hypocritical and partisan fashion under color of journalism. Only a blind as a bat left- or right- wingnut would come forth to defend Maddow or her exact mirrors on the Right.

w-dervish said...

BUTCH league? Really? I suppose that isn't a dig at her being a lesbian. I suppose this title doesn't reveal your prejudices?

As for these "lies" you highlight... I see no lies, only truths. I'm guessing some Rightwing source turned you onto these "lies".

From the Cap Times of Wisconsin: "In it's Jan. 31 memo to legislators on the condition of the state's budget, the Fiscal Bureau determined that the state will end the year [2011] with a balance of $121.4 million".

That is just one of Will's disgusting blatant lies debunked.

Also, I thought you favored gay marriage? What was that... just something you grabbed ahold of because you could us it to beat up on Obama? I suspect yes, because after praising him you went back to criticizing him for not pushing legislation/saying it should be left to the states.

And, dmarks, defending the truth does not make one a "blind as a bat wingnut".

dmarks said...

WD: The dittoheads and Beckbuckos say the exact same thing.

Rational Nation USA said...

wd - I was guessing you would see it that way.

It it can be difficult to clear the fog from ones own paradigm.

That and what dmarks said.

BB-Idaho said...

That information seemed to have been common knowledge. Blame Maddow if you prefer. As to the guy that was banned from Marquette U politics, well....

w-dervish said...

dmarks: The dittoheads and Beckbuckos say the exact same thing.

They do. But they're wrong. Just like Will. No doubt Beck and Rush got the same talking points.

"Rational" Nation: I was guessing you would see it that way.

I always try to see the truth.

Rational Nation USA said...

Now wd I AM LMFAO!

dmarks said...

Will said: "That, and 47 million of the 140 million went to individuals so that they could deduct their personal health savings accounts"

So, in fact, instead of being a gift to the wealthy, in fact no dollars were given (a tax break involves the government giving $0 to anyone), and most of those who benefited from getting to keep more of their own money were middle class?

WD said: "They do. But they're wrong. Just like Will. No doubt Beck and Rush got the same talking points."

Your mirrors on the Right say the same thing. As for the "talking points", it's a pointless argument (and a diversionary tactic). Talking points are no more and no more less used by Maddow and Schultz than they are by Limbaugh and Beck.

w-dervish said...

I'm telling the truth, while these individuals on the Right you refer to are lying. They aren't "mirrors". And what about you? Are you a non-mirror on the Right?

dmarks said...

And like mirrors, you two both say the exact same thing, with 'right' and 'left' switched. To all but the true die-hard believers, they look just the same.

w-dervish said...

Except I'm telling the truth. For proof of this see my first comment. I proved that Will's claim that Rachel Maddow "lied" about Wanker coming into office with a surplus was false.

dmarks said...

Perhaps this time you are. I just know that in the countless other times Will pointed out something Maddow said, he completely "pwned" you.

However, I am not finding something that indicates an actual surplus. If it goes as it has before, Will will come up with resounding proof.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The 121 million dollar surplus is a bogus figure, dmarks. As factcheck.org correctly pointed out, when you include the 170 million that was outstanding to Medicare, the 21 million that was outstanding to corrections, and the 58 million that pertained to a tax reciprocity deal, the end result was a 137 million dollar deficit. Maddow is either a totally incompetent "journalist" or a bald-faced liar.......And she was also wrong on even the most elemental part of the story; the fact that Mr. Walker's tax cuts weren't even taking place until 2012! Now, one could certainly debate the wisdom of these particular tax breaks, but to say that they were causing a deficit in 2011 is totally factually inaccurate and Ms. Maddow should in fact be called out on it.......And I love lesbians. Just not this particular one.

w-dervish said...

Sure Will. Why did they leave out these specific things? Why not leave all expenses out... then everything they took in could be counted as a "surplus". I'm not buying this.

dmarks said...

From an factual point of view, Will is way ahead now. He's made the case. I guess I should have known that WD tends toward complete ignorance of Wisconsin matters. Much of the time, he doesn't even know the name of the governor.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

From Outside the beltway.com - "The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Lang’s memo that — read on its own — does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.

But the remainder of the routine memo — consider it the fine print — outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall."............There's nothing whatsoever to "buy", wd. These are facts.............And, so, too, is it a fact that Ms. Maddow lied about when the tax cuts would in fact take place. She said that they would count against the 2011 calender year and they WOULD NOT. LIES!

dmarks said...

Will: Then there is the point that Wisconsin doesn't have to be on the bring of collapse in order for it to be time to enact needed reforms.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Exactly, and 140 million in tax cuts (the necessity of which actually could be debated) compared to a 3.6 billion dollar shortfall is hardly the issue here, either.

w-dervish said...

So, what happened was... Walker saw a surplus, then said, "wait a minute, what about these expenses that weren't already deducted for some strange and convienent for me reason (because it plays into my narrative)".

And then he concluded that the solution was to cut taxes and union bust? (even though the unions had already agreed to all the concessions).

I still don't buy it. Your version of events don't make sense.

dmarks said...

Your version never happened. Walker did not union bust. No union, not one, was banned. No single worker has been harmed, threatened, or punished in any way for wanting to join or stay in the union.

If anything has changed, it is that the unions no longer bust workers like the did.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Your version never happened. Walker did not union bust.

Your version of events never happened. Walker took away the unions' power and the workers decided they didn't feel like paying dues to a union that could no longer do anything for them.

Also, Walker's own words prove you wrong. He told a supporter that his busting of public sector unions was part of his overall "divide and conquer" tactic he was going to employ to weaken all unions.

This is on video. Look it up if you don't believe me.

dmarks: No single worker has been harmed, threatened, or punished in any way for wanting to join or stay in the union.

They sure as hell were. They were harmed in that the union has far less ability to fight for their rights. And they were punished if they stayed by paying dues that got them nothing in return.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

It's not my "version", wd. These outstanding obligations are mentioned in the memo and they absolutely pertain to 2011. Maddow either didn't read the entire memo or she's a bald-faced despicable liar. Face it, wd, you've lost on this one. Give it up or risk looking like an even bigger idiot.

dmarks said...

WD said: "Your version of events never happened. Walker took away the unions' power and the workers decided they didn't feel like paying dues to a union that could no longer do anything for them."

Incorrect. Even before Walker, most of the teachers and others didn't want to be in the union.

"Also, Walker's own words prove you wrong. He told a supporter that his busting of public sector unions"

What did he actually say?

"They sure as hell were. They were harmed in that the union has far less ability to fight for their rights.

Most workers were opposed to the union, and it fought against their rights.

"And they were punished if they stayed by paying dues that got them nothing in return."

That's a pretty damning statement for unions in general. Workers are forced to pay dues and get nothing for it.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: Even before Walker, most of the teachers and others didn't want to be in the union.

You're basing this conclusion on nothing more than your dislike of unions. You don't know these teacher's lives or their situations. For you to make such a blanket statement (using the word "most") only shows how full of yourself you are. In your arrogance you think you know what is best for all WI's teachers.

dmarks: What did he actually say?

He said he was going to use "divide and conquer" to bust the unions. If you want "exact words" you can look them up yourself... but don't claim I'm wrong simply because you're to lazy to look up the info.

dmarks: Most workers were opposed to the union, and it fought against their rights.

Most workers were in favor of the unions, as they fought for their rights.

We know this because those who support public sector unions made the recall possible. They protested en mass and turned in over a million signatures.

dmarks: That's a pretty damning statement for unions in general. Workers are forced to pay dues and get nothing for it.

They're only getting nothing for their dues now, AFTER Walker neutered their unions. Previously the workers were happy to pay their dues because the unions had power to fight for them.

dmarks said...

WD said: "He said he was going to use "divide and conquer" to bust the unions"

Did he say he was going to bust the unions?

dmarks said...

I'm asking because you are saying that he did something to bust the unions, but based on evidence so far, he never intended to "bust the unions" and never did so. That is why this wording is so important.