Monday, June 18, 2012

Math 101 - A Rachel Maddow Tutorial

121 - 170 (outstanding Medicare obligations) - 21 (outstanding corrections obligations) - 58 (loss due to a tax reciprocity deal that preceded Mr. Walker) - 9 (outstanding miscellaneous) = -137. In the words of my all-time favorite cartoon character, Super Snooper, "Ah, that's elementary, Blab."

20 comments:

w-dervish said...

Budgeting 101: A Tutorial for Will Hart...

When drawing up a budget, all revenues and expenses are included. You don't include all revenues and SOME of the expenses... and then add more expenses later.

Unless you're George bush and want to hide the massive price tag of your illegal wars by keeping the costs off budget via "supplementals".

dmarks said...

There were no illegal wars, so the cost of any such wars is and was $0.

Thanks Will for the facts. It turns out Maddow was loudly lying about the budget after all. I should have not believed WD.

w-dervish said...

The wars were funded off-budget via supplementals, or do you disagree with that fact as well dmarks?

Also, Rachel Maddow does not lie.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Uh, you're factually wrong, wd. Those items WERE included in the budget/memo. Yes, they were added on and in fine print but THEY WERE THERE. Frigging Maddow either didn't read the entire memo or did and tried to pull a fast one. Either way, it was an absolutely pathetic presentation.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Factcheck.org absolutely obliterates the despicable Maddow on this one - http://factcheck.org/2011/03/walkers-tax-cuts/.............And Budgeting 101, a tutorial for Rachel Maddow and wd. 2011 and 2012 are entirely different calender years.

w-dervish said...

Will: Uh, you're factually wrong, wd. Those items WERE included in the budget/memo.

Well then there was a surplus... if they were already included... you don't get to subtract them a second time.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Man, are you stupid. The memo had the 121 million as a subtotal and then the 258 million in outstanding obligations in fine print. The guy who wrote the memo was a Democrat and he was probably trying to pull a fast one. Factcheck.org and Outsidethe beltway.com both caught the stunt and thoroughly debunked the despicable Maddow's tactics.

w-dervish said...

Right. That sounds like a fool-proof way to pull a fast one... point to a line on the balance sheet that isn't the grand total.

Maddow has done a number of stories critical of "FactCheck" recently. I suspect payback is the reason why they're slandering her.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

WD said: "The wars were funded off-budget via supplementals, or do you disagree with that fact as well dmarks?"

I am disagreeing with no facts. While these legal wars were on some budgets and not others, the only budget that matters is the "end result" that shows in the Treasury Department figures. It counts them. And this is where you find rock solid proof that Obama increased the national debt by 50%, by the way.

No one here is using or supporting this or anything being not counted as "off budget", so we can dismiss this red herring entirely.

As for Rachel Maddow lying, it is easy to look in this blog and find many examples. Will has documented it several times, and he has done a good job of it.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Factcheck.org isn't "slandering" Maddow, wd. That's a bald-faced lie. All that they did was point to the ACTUAL MEMO AND BUDGET....IN THEIR ENTIRETY. Again, Maddow is either a lazy individual or she's a liar.

w-dervish said...

Red Herring = I'm dodging this question.

Bald Faced Lie = an opinion Will disagrees with.

dmarks: While these legal wars were on some budgets and not others...

The wars were illegal under international law. This is a fact not changed by your ignorance.

dmarks: ...Obama increased the national debt by 50%, by the way...

The Republicans/bush are responsible... they passed the bush tax cuts via reconciliation, caused the recession, and are currently refusing to even get rid of loopholes. All these things are holding back a recovery and greatly contributing to the national debt.

dmarks said...

WD said: "The wars were illegal under international law. This is a fact not changed by your ignorance."

You are pulling that out of thin air. There is simply no evidence. In fact, the UN and ICC disagree with your amateur and imaginative interpretation of the UN charter.

You continue to slander a man you are obssessed with.

dmarks said...

"All these things are holding back a recovery and greatly contributing to the national debt."

Even Obama himself says that raising taxes during a recession is a bad policy, and will only make it worse. And you are making another bald-faced lie that the Bush tax cuts contributed to the debt: the amount of money coming into the treasure increased after Bush's tax cuts for the middle class: which shows that the tax cuts reduced the national debt.

dmarks said...

Finally, it is a fact that "Obama increased the national debt by 50%, by the way..."

This happened on his watch, after Bush was out of office, due to his own decisions. Perhaps you have no idea when Obama took office? It would not surprise me if you are a boob who is too stupid to look at a calendar.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: In fact, the UN and ICC disagree with your amateur and imaginative interpretation of the UN charter.

In fact they have never issued a statement saying anything of the sort. Not saying anything isn't the same as declaring him innocent.

And my "interpertation" is neither imaginative or amateur. I simply quoted the applicable articles... and they make it quite clear that what bush did was illegal.

dmarks: Even Obama himself says that raising taxes during a recession is a bad policy, and will only make it worse.

I'm not aware that Obama said anything close to this... but *if* he did... he's wrong.

dmarks: the amount of money coming into the treasure increased after Bush's tax cuts for the middle class: which shows that the tax cuts reduced the national debt.

The first statment may be partially true, but that is due to inflation and a economy growing (growing because that is what an economy usually does, due to the increasing population... not due to anything bush did). The second statement is a bald-faced lie. The national debt did not decrease under bush.

It did not even decrease under Clinton who ran a surplus (as Will and you have pointed out). If you really believe this you must be an even bigger boob than I suspected.

dmarks: This happened on his watch, after Bush was out of office, due to his own decisions.

This statement shows dmarks is completely ignorant as to how a democracy functions. Obama was elected president, not king. The Republicans did not allow Obama or the Democrats to institute their "own decisions". If not for Republican obstruction the recovery would be well under way already.

dmarks said...

WD, have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty. Obviously not. In fact, you again and again use innocence as proof of guilt.

"In fact they have never issued a statement saying anything of the sort."

The UN has had plenty of time to issue resolutions or take other actions concerning Bush. They haven't.

I guess to you that is more proof of his guilt. But you must realize that according to your logic, you are also a war criminal. The UN has also been silent on your innocence. Guilty!

"And my "interpertation" is neither imaginative or amateur. I simply quoted the applicable articles... and they make it quite clear that what bush did was illegal."

None of the above was true. You quoted the articles, and then you made entirely false statements about Bush, in a real big stretch, to mis-apply the situation to the articles. The only thing you made clear was that you like to make up stuff about Bush.

"I'm not aware that Obama said anything close to this... but *if* he did... he's wrong."

Well, you were aware of this from the time I told you he said it. i guess this is one of those areas in which you have complete ignorance, and speak out of such ignorance.

Here is Obama's exact quote: "First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession."

He's right, of course. Taxes only drag down the economy. Why drag it down even more?

"The second statement is a bald-faced lie. The national debt did not decrease under bush."

No, but my wording could have been better. I will improve it. Instead of saying that Bush decreased the debt, I will point out the fact that his tax cuts, which resulted in more revenue coming in, made the debt less than it would have been. They made the problem less bad.

It did not even decrease under Clinton who ran a surplus (as Will and you have pointed out).

Wen did I say this? I checked the Treasury figures. Clinton ran a deficit during every one of his 8 years.

Of course, how could it? The debt not decreasing, and the deficits are directly related. If Clinton had run any surpluses, the national debt would have gone down that year.

"The Republicans did not allow Obama or the Democrats to institute their "own decisions". If not for Republican obstruction the recovery would be well under way already."

The opposite is true. The Republicans reduced the stimulus's negative impact, and kicked a lot of the teeth of of "Obamacare", making sure that Obama did even less damage.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: WD, have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty. Obviously not. In fact, you again and again use innocence as proof of guilt.

I never said the UN not issuing a statment proved bush guilty, I only said it didn't prove him innocent... or that the UN agreed with his actions. And I've explained this to you before, so you're lying when you ask if I've ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty". You know I have. You know I've never said the UN declared him guilty of war crimes, just like they've never declared him innocent... although many prominent members of the UN (like Kofi Annan) have said they believe he should be tried by the ICC or that Iraq was disarmed.

dmarks: The UN has had plenty of time to issue resolutions or take other actions concerning Bush. They haven't.

What would be the point? It would not change what bush did. But bush might have said the UN couldn't send anyone to participate in the rebuilding of Iraq. They wanted to participate (for humanitarian reasons), so they didn't condemn bush's actions.

dmarks: I guess to you that is more proof of his guilt. But you must realize that according to your logic, you are also a war criminal. The UN has also been silent on your innocence. Guilty!

You guess wrong. You also are wrong that "my logic" means that I'm a war criminal. Me being a war criminal is impossible. I've never been in a position to commit any war crimes.

dmarks: None of the above was true. You quoted the articles, and then you made entirely false statements about Bush, in a real big stretch, to mis-apply the situation to the articles. The only thing you made clear was that you like to make up stuff about Bush.

It's all true. I quoted the articles, then pointed out how they apply to what bush did. And the fact that they do apply is indisputable.

dmarks: I guess this is one of those areas in which you have complete ignorance, and speak out of such ignorance.

I admit that what Obama said is CLOSE to what you claimed. Although I believe he is talking about taxes on the middle class and working poor. He didn't say raising taxes on the wealthy is bad -- in fact he's been advocating that we do just this for awhile now... so you're wrong. Raising taxes on the wealthy is raising taxes.

dmarks: He's right, of course. Taxes only drag down the economy. Why drag it down even more?

It would be a boost to the economy.

dmarks: ...the fact that his tax cuts, which resulted in more revenue coming in, made the debt less than it would have been. They made the problem less bad.

Tax cuts result in LESS money coming in. This is basic math. If you have revenues of a certain amount and then you cut those revenues -- it is impossible for more money to come in. This is supply side mumbo-jumbo.

dmarks: I checked the Treasury figures. Clinton ran a deficit during every one of his 8 years.

Obviously you didn't check them closely enough, because Clinton did run a surplus in his final year (I believe).

dmarks: If Clinton had run any surpluses, the national debt would have gone down that year.

The national debt didn't go down is because the interest on the national debt was larger than the surplus.

dmarks: The opposite is true. The Republicans reduced the stimulus's negative impact, and kicked a lot of the teeth of of "Obamacare", making sure that Obama did even less damage.

The stimulus had a positive impact, although it was diminished by the actions of Republicans (forcing part of the stimulus to be tax cuts, for instance)... and the nonpartisan CBO said ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

dmarks said...

WD - "I only said it didn't prove him innocent"

One must assume innocence. right?

"or that the UN agreed with his actions."

Bush said that his actions were within the guidelines of the existing resolutions. The UN did not object, and let his reasonable interepretation stand.

"And I've explained this to you before"

But what you said is always full of slander and baseless accusations, and you shift around like a sidewinder.

"...although many prominent members of the UN (like Kofi Annan) have said they believe he should be tried by the ICC or that Iraq was disarmed."

Yes, a man's "off the cuff" comments in little value... comments that the UN does not believe or find any evidence to act on. Again, you have such a colossal ignorance of the UN if you think that the Sec Gen is a dictator who can bring resolutions to completion in mutterings during press interviews.

"What would be the point?"

There's be none, as there is no evidence of war crimes.

"It would not change what bush did."

Exactly.

"They wanted to participate (for humanitarian reasons), so they didn't condemn bush's actions."

Thanks, nut-job, for another conspiracy theory to explain the fact that according to the UN, Bush is not a (haha) "war criminal."

"You guess wrong. You also are wrong that "my logic" means that I'm a war criminal."

Well, until I provided evidence that he lacked credibility, you presented as your main source of information on the Bush is War Criminal joke one Francis Boyle. Boyle also declared Alan Dershowitz to be a "War Criminal" merely for being outspoken and Jewish. So there is a precedent here for handing out (haha) "war criminal" accusations without any merit. So, hey, why not you too?

"Me being a war criminal is impossible."

It is impossible for George W. Bush. He wasn't one during his 8 years in office, and he is in no place of power any more.

"I've never been in a position to commit any war crimes."

Ah.... Another piece of "WD crazy justice". If someone is in a position to do something, they are guilty of it.


"It's all true. I quoted the articles, then pointed out how they apply to what bush did."

Yet, nothing that Bush actually did applied.

"And the fact that they do apply is indisputable."

So says you, the amateur armchair attorney. The adults in the room, the UN and the ICC, disagree with you.

"I admit that what Obama said is CLOSE to what you claimed."

It's exact.

"He didn't say raising taxes on the wealthy is bad"

He made absolutely no distinction on the wealth of the taxpayer. You are putting words in his mouth.

"in fact he's been advocating that we do just this for awhile now... so you're wrong."

No, I quoted him exactly. I was right. Whether or not Obama changed his mind (which he does, being a shifty politician) does not change Obama's statement.

"It would be a boost to the economy."

Only for the economy of people who staff soup kitchens and the unemployment like. Tax hikes would cause economic chaos.

"Tax cuts result in LESS money coming in."

In the case of the Bush and Reagan tax cuts, federal revenues increased. Check it. You have no idea.

"This is basic math."

Exactly. The rates went down, which helped the economy, and the revenues went up.

"it is impossible for more money to come in. This is supply side mumbo-jumbo."

Sorry, you are blowing crap out your mouth again. It's all in the Treasury numbers. Revenues increased as a result of the rate cuts.

"Obviously you didn't check them closely enough, because Clinton did run a surplus in his final year (I believe)."

I checked them very closely. In his final year, the deficit was very low. But it was still a deficit.

dmarks said...

"The national debt didn't go down is because the interest on the national debt was larger than the surplus."

There was no surplus. And the interest is part of the budget. Come on, none of those tricks to keep things off budget.

When you and your wife make your household budget, do you automatically remove your mortgage interest payments from any calculations???

"The stimulus had a positive impact"

Unemployment went up a lot after it passed. I saw it wipe out a small business in my town.

"although it was diminished by the actions of Republicans (forcing part of the stimulus to be tax cuts, for instance"

Which was a very good idea!

"and the nonpartisan CBO said ObamaCare will reduce the deficit."

They said it before. Now they say it will increase the debt a lot. They are always bad at predicting. They never get it right.

But it is obvious that Obamacare will add a lot to the debt, because it greatly increases government spending (along with the cost of healthcare, and the total # of uninsured)