“Legal Insurrection” Shows Off Some Conservative Math

8:48 am EST July 13th, 2011 | Conservative | 21 Comments

William A. Jacobsen, of the conservative blog Legal Insurrection, under the headline “Obama fails to match Bush fundraising” writes:

Instead you will see headlines about Obama’s blowout fundraising of $86 million combined for his campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Of that amount, $47 million was for Obama’s campaign.

But as The NY Times notes deep down in its article on the fundraising, that $47 million number is less than the $50 million George W. Bush raised during the same quarter of 2003.

Emphasis mine.

From the article Jacobsen links to:

The president’s top political aides have said they expect to match — or even possibly exceed — the $750 million that Mr. Obama raised during the 2008 campaign. Mr. Messina noted that the support for Mr. Obama during the last three months far exceeded the support he got as a candidate. The numbers also reflect the inherent advantages of incumbency; President George W. Bush raised just more than $35 million during the same period in 2003, as he prepared for his re-election campaign.

Emphasis mine.

Then Jacobsen plays some sleight of hand and links to this report of July – September 2003 campaign receipts for Bush of $50 million. But, the numbers Obama released today aren’t for July-September (unless they have a time machine!). They are for the quarter ending June 30. On the same site Jacobsen links to, we can see the comparable time period in 2003.

As the Times stated, Bush’s receipts for this time period were $35 million. I’ve never been so hot at math, but I can plainly see that this is $12 million less than President Obama raised over the same time period.

But then, I don’t know how to do conservative math.

I do find it curious that someone who claims to be a legal professor thinks that July-September is the same time period as April-June.

No Related Post

« Obama Beats Fundraising Goal… By About $20 Million
Rick Perry, Closet Confederate Sympathizer? »

21 Responses to ““Legal Insurrection” Shows Off Some Conservative Math”

The Dark Avenger says:

July 13, 2011 at 9:21 am

He probably uses Manju as a consultant, that would explain a lot……………
Rheinhard says:

July 13, 2011 at 10:23 am

Obviously has the same conservative math skills as Megan McArdle and Ann Althouse.
Dave in SoCal says:

July 13, 2011 at 11:59 am

Of course, that’s nothing compared to the progressive math skills on display here:

Washington gets $200 billion a month, Social Security costs $50 billion a month, and Obama is threatening to starve Grandma?

President Obama told CBS News today that he “cannot guarantee that those [Social Security] checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

But wait just a minute. If Washington receives about $200 billion in monthly revenues and sends out roughly $50 billion worth of Social Security checks and the same amount of Medicare payments, why is Obama claiming the checks may not go out?

Isn’t $200 billion minus $100 billion still $100 billion?

Oh wait, Obama’s not math-challenged, he’s just a lying bag of crap:

Because Obama is playing the demogogue, that’s why. Pure and simple. He is trying to scare seniors into making panicked calls to their congressmen begging them to do whatever Obama and the Democrats want in order to keep the checks coming.

This is demogoguery of the worst sort because Obama has to know that what he is saying is false. When you and I say something we know to be false, it’s called a “lie.”

Obama’s Treasury Secretary (Turbo Tax Timmy) has full authority to prioritize what gets paid. And the gov’t takes in over $200 billion in revenue every single month, which is more than enough to make the debt payments, make all Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid payments as well as pay active military personnel and veteran’s benefits. And Obama knows it. Which is why he is a lying liar trying to scare Grandma into thinking that she’s not getting here August SS check because of those evil Republicans who refuse to raise taxes.

Not that you’ll see any of this on oliverwillis.com. Oliver is clearly too busy following the Media Matters mission statement of bringing down the Emperor Murdoch media empire.
Quaker in a Basement says:

July 13, 2011 at 12:19 pm

But wait just a minute. If Washington receives about $200 billion in monthly revenues and sends out roughly $50 billion worth of Social Security checks and the same amount of Medicare payments, why is Obama claiming the checks may not go out?

Why? Um, because Social Security and Medicare aren’t the only things the government has to pay for.

Are you suggesting, Dave, that the government should pay Social Security recipients before it redeems bonds that have matured? Before it pays interest on existing debt? Before it pays members of our armed forces? If so, I’m glad to hear it; we finally agree on something.

It’s funny, though, that conservatives take this opportunity to pretend away all sorts of government obligations–and then call others “lying sacks of crap.”
Quaker in a Basement says:

July 13, 2011 at 12:20 pm

Suddenly, it’s as if there’s no deficit at all! The government has plenty of money to pay for everything!
Dave in SoCal says:

July 13, 2011 at 12:20 pm

Oh and Oliver, your eCard above is insulting to women. You’re quite the misogynistic tool aren’t you?
Dave in SoCal says:

July 13, 2011 at 12:33 pm

Are you suggesting, Dave, that the government should pay Social Security recipients before it redeems bonds that have matured? Before it pays interest on existing debt? Before it pays members of our armed forces?

Gotta work on that reading comprehension, Quaker. From my comments above:

the gov’t takes in over $200 billion in revenue every single month, which is more than enough to make the debt payments, make all Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid payments as well as pay active military personnel and veteran’s benefits.

Here is some helpful info:

The BPC study projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there’s enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion).

Regarding maturing bonds:

As bonds come due, the Treasury would again use monthly income to pay them off. This would lower the debt owed beneath the so-called debt ceiling. Then, the Treasury could turn around and issue debt in that amount up to the debt ceiling.

Suddenly, it’s as if there’s no deficit at all! The government has plenty of money to pay for everything!

That’s certainly not what I said. I merely pointed out that when Obama says we can’t make SS payments because “there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it”, he’s lying. Plain and simple (and unsurprising). We CAN pay SS. And Medicare. And Medicaid. And interest on the debt. And maturing bonds. And military pay (active and veterans).
Rheinhard says:

July 13, 2011 at 12:48 pm

Shorter Dave in SoCal: “Look over there!”
Enlightened Liberal says:

July 13, 2011 at 12:52 pm

Also Shorter Dave in SoCal: “There really is no crisis! We can pay all our bills!”
Oliver Willis says:

July 13, 2011 at 1:11 pm

Look! Over there!
Quaker in a Basement says:

July 13, 2011 at 1:30 pm

As bonds come due, the Treasury would again use monthly income to pay them off. This would lower the debt owed beneath the so-called debt ceiling. Then, the Treasury could turn around and issue debt in that amount up to the debt ceiling.

And just how big of an elephant do we have to swallow here? Let me tell you. In May of this year, redemptions of marketable treasury instruments totaled about $400 billion; in June it was about $500 billion. Of course, a lot of those redemptions are balanced with new debt issues.

But wait! If we hit the debt ceiling, we can’t borrow from new lenders to pay off the old lenders; so we’ll have wait to issue that new debt until after the old debt is redeemed. And that’s the problem DaveyDave. The federal government doesn’t have any wiggle room left to finance the debt rollover. That’s what you call a default.

When that default happens, the cost of borrowing Will. Go. Up. and the whole problem will get a lot worse.
Quaker in a Basement says:

July 13, 2011 at 1:30 pm

Oh and Oliver, your eCard above is insulting to women.

Advertising. Ever hear of it?
Quaker in a Basement says:

July 13, 2011 at 1:34 pm

As bonds come due, the Treasury would again use monthly income to pay them off.

This assumes that the monthly income arrives before the bond redemptions. I assume you have evidence that this will happen. If so, this whole “debt ceiling” panic is simply overblown. There’s no problem at all!
Burn says:

July 13, 2011 at 1:38 pm

Oliver is clearly too busy following the Media Matters mission statement of bringing down the Emperor Murdoch media empire.

Murdoch did it to himself, you fucking dumbass. But I know how you wingnuts think…it’s always someone elses fault, right? Murdoch bears NO responsibility whatsoever for the phone hacking scandal.

Nope. It’s all because of Media Matters. Yup, that will comfort your ten watt talk radio addled brain. Media Matter forced Murdoch employees to hack into the private phone accounts of people. That’s right. Just keep telling yourself this over and over and over. Because how I always forget, wingnuts are ALL about personal responsibility and taking accountability for their own actions.
Burn says:

July 13, 2011 at 1:42 pm

Oh and Oliver, your eCard above is insulting to women. You’re quite the misogynistic tool aren’t you?

Oh no, DouchinSomeCow is offended by an ad placed on a website! Oh no, the horrors! What a traumatizing experience this must be for such an accomplished individual such as yourself. What ever shall you do?

Here’s a hint…you are free not to visit this site if it upsets your delicate little fee-fees. Mmmmkay, sweetie? Think you can remember that?
Quaker in a Basement says:

July 13, 2011 at 1:48 pm

We CAN pay SS. And Medicare. And Medicaid. And interest on the debt. And maturing bonds. And military pay (active and veterans).

This must be the latest from the Heritage Foundation. I heard Michael “Heckuva Job Brownie” Brown hawking this same line on the radio last night.

Dave, I’ve been hearing conservatives holler all summer long how “spending is out of control!” If the debt ceiling isn’t raised and the government can’t borrow any more money, somebody will not get paid. According to you, it won’t be Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid beneficiaries. It won’t be bondholders. And it won’t be members of the military.

Then who is it? Somebody isn’t getting paid. Who?
Willie Stark says:

July 13, 2011 at 2:22 pm

Me
merl says:

July 13, 2011 at 3:35 pm

When cons talk about personal responsibility, they mean that some one else is responsible for whatever law the con violated.
Zython says:

July 13, 2011 at 4:09 pm

But wait just a minute. If Washington receives about $200 billion in monthly revenues and sends out roughly $50 billion worth of Social Security checks and the same amount of Medicare payments, why is Obama claiming the checks may not go out?

Because conservatives are threatening to not pay any of the country’s debt obligations lock, stock, and barrel?
Manju says:

July 13, 2011 at 6:18 pm

As the Times stated, Bush’s receipts for this time period were $35 million. I’ve never been so hot at math, but I can plainly see that this is $12 million less than President Obama raised over the same time period.

Jacobson says the error originated with the NYTimes:

The NY Times originally reported the $50 million Bush number as being for the same period, and I used that number for this post, but The Times story now has been changed to $35 million; The Times was citing the 3d Quarter numbers, not 2d Quarter in its original post.

Here is his proof:

http://twitter.com/#!/thecaucus/status/91102210301239296
Quaker in a Basement says:

July 13, 2011 at 8:20 pm

Here is his proof:

There’s no proof in that proof.