Trump Team Stands by Budget’s $2 Trillion Math Error

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

No outrage on my part, I don't even see it as that big of a deal honestly I just find it ironic that something like this could slip through the cracks of the best administration in the history of America.

#TheyForgotToCarryTheSeven . . Gate

a reply to: carewemust

No problem bro, only when we stand together can we properly ignore things that we don't like.

MAGA!

a reply to: FyreByrd

I am not going to response to replies of the "well they did this..." variety.

But I will add some some links and support in of the ineptitude of this administration - which has become a 'clear and present' danger to the security of the US and, unfortunately, the world. Not to mention the dishonesty and lack of respect for the offices they hold on behalf of the people of the US.

HOW can anyone justify this incompetence.

When pressed about the unorthodox math in a briefing with reporters on Monday, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney seemed to admit, effectively, that his team had made up the numbers because they wanted them to look good, and they’d figure out the details later .

www.vanityfair.com...

Details of President Trump’s first budget have now been released. Much can and will be said about the dire social consequences of what is in it and the ludicrously optimistic economic assumptions it embodies. My observation is that there appears to be a logical error of the kind that would justify failing a student in an introductory economics course.

www.washingtonpost.com...

I'm not finding any 'answers' (I use the word loosely) from those in the trump troop and predict that all that do come up a 'talking point' it will be about as sound as many of the forgoing trump troop booster posts have been - deflect and attack and never hear a word. Stick fingers in ears and pledge allegiance to the corporate gods.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
It all comes down to this simple question...would you rather get screwed out of 2 trillion by mistake or by design? Because no matter what Admin is in charge we are getting screwed out of trillions.

IT WAS BY DESIGN. It was the only way, by their own words, that they could 'make the numbers look good'. They would go back later and 'fix' it. Kinda like "I'll release my tax returns" - over and over and over again.

a reply to: TinySickTears


What are you talking about? I, nor any of my sources, has mentioned anything other then this current error.

BUT YOU HAVE - and STILL ARE. Go back to school.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I am not going to response to replies of the "well they did this..." variety.

How about a response of "where's the error?"

I'm not seeing it. Can you please point it out?

TheRedneck

also reply to: FyreByrd

So what do you suggest? Time to grab our pitch forks and storm the WH?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The linked article doesn't say where in the budget proposal the error is. Here is the actual 2018 budget proposal. I scanned it over and saw no glaring errors. Somebody want to exceed NBC in the area of journalistic excellence and point our where this error is?

I'd appreciate it. I might have missed something.

TheRedneck

I have linked to several articles on the subject explaining (in laypersons terms) what was done.

The actual budget is of no use to the vast majority of people.


So you muddy the waters rather then admit or even consider that you (or they) might be incompetent and lying to the public one more time.

WAKE UP

a reply to: FyreByrd

Pretty sure hes on your side. You need to calm down and concentrate. Your foaming pretty bad right now.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The administration has already confirmed the mistake and say they will refine it later, they even said they did it on purpose. Not sure why the administration would be confirming something that isn't true especially when it makes them look bad.

a reply to: FyreByrd

But none of the stories focus on the actual budget language.

This is another bruised apple that hit every branch on the way down.

a reply to: FyreByrd

OK....

I read the NBC article you listed.

I clicked through to several other articles linked in it.

I saw no reference to where in the 62-page document this error was.

I looked up the actual budget proposal (which NBC also forgot to link).

I scanned through the document and saw no error.

I asked where the error was. I was ignored.

I asked again and was told it was in the article, which it was not.

So, I'll gladly take your advice and "WAKE UP"... to the fact there is no error.

And please don't insult everyone's intelligence by insinuating no one can understand... three semesters of economics. That doesn't make me an accountant, but I can damn sure understand a freakin' budget!

Fake news again, until someone points it out by page and line number.

TheRedneck

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Fair enough... I'd still like to know where it is.

It might be serious enough to make the budget unworkable, or it might be a typo. I won't have an opinion until I see it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: xuenchen

What good is the budgets language when the foundation is so utterly screwed up? How is focusing on the language going to remove the $2 trillion error?

The funny thing is that they've admitted to the error and say they will fix it (even though they did it on purpose to begin with lol) yet you guys still won't believe it.

It'd be so much easier to just admit they made a mistake and hope they fix it instead of going through these phases of denial and "fake news" accusations. Just because you admit they made a mistake doesn't mean it can't be fixed in the future.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

THe first thing is this and this is the big one for me:

It is possible that an honest accounting error was made. But real accountants - check the *(&)&W numbers before they publish a budget.

Then two we have trumps budget director saying

"When pressed about the unorthodox math in a briefing with reporters on Monday, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney seemed to admit, effectively, that his team had made up the numbers because they wanted them to look good, and they’d figure out the details later ."

The link is in an above post - the link is to vanity fair.

His public statement say in essence that they deliberately 'cooked the books' to 'make the numbers' look better.

How can any reasonable person of good will defraud the public in such a manner.

Both the above implications cast doubt on anything his team is saying about anything.

It is a clear and very public statement of the quality and character of trump's appointees and thereby calls into question his managerial ability - which was his number one PR point during his election (and just how wealthy he is).

It is a distraction from the particulars of the rest of the budget (which may be the point - and dt's [I didn't realize how appropriate dt is for - well dt] which will take some time for people to sort through.

Those are the immediate consequences of this latest blunder by dt's minions.

While I'm neither a fan of 'creative accounting' nor self-enriching government executives I find the blatant disregard for the public in this case horrendous.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

It is obviously not the "best administration' in the history of the US after 30+ years of 'voodoo economics' to quote George HW Bush. Nor the best.... in the last six months.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Read my posts - the quotes and links are there. I will not respond again.

don`t be mad at the politicians who made this budget "mistake" either intentionally or unintentionally,
in fact you should expect politicians to do this kind of shady stuff or do this kind of stuff because they are incompetent.

Be mad at congress,they have the constitutional authority and responsibility to spend the tax payers money,they have to vote on every penny that is spent. if congress is so corrupt or so incompetent to vote for stuff like this then why do you keep re-electing the same congress people?

in the end you are to blame for corrupt and incompetent politicians stealing your money.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I agree. Again, I was using sarcasm when I called it that.