Fellow di tutti Fellows Eric Boehlert asks if Rush Limbaugh lied when he said:
Well, he inherited a AAA credit rating, an unemployment rate of 5.7%. Does anybody doubt that this is on purpose?
Boehlert then tweets:
Hey cons, did Limbaugh lie about the unemployment rate again today? http://t.co/2L9XF7C #justchecking #Limbaugh #tcot
This links to a Media Matter For America article that clearly shows the unemployment rate in January 2009, when President Obama took office, was 7.6 percent. Details here.
But, no, Rush didn’t lie. The figure he’s using is an average for 2008.
I pointed this out to the good-Fellow and Boehlert responded:
Ah @GPollowitz, makes perfect sense! When Obama took office in Jan. `09 he “inherited” the unemployment rate from April `08; #notquite
Uh, who said anything about April 2008? Who’s lying now? Here’s what I wrote:
@EricBoehlert 5.8% is the unemployment rate for the year http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
Oh, and by the way — the unemployment rate in 2008 was 5.8 percent; 9.3 percent and 9.6 percent for years 2009 and 2010 respectively. Boehlert is free to debate the semantics of “inherited” however he wants, but the fact is Rush was correct in his statement.
Did Boehlert argue about Obama inheriting a AAA rating? Just curious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks
Pete
No, Rush is not correct. If my dearly departed Uncle, who does not exist, had an average net worth of 10B the year he died but was worth nothing the day he died, cause he wanted to go out with a bang, then do I inherit 10B? One does not 'inherit' an average one inherits a snapshot. Obama has made a hash of the economy by stifling the recovery that would have naturally happened but in no way did he inherit an economy with only 5.8% unemployment.
I doubt Rush was lying but his analysis, and yours, is wanting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUh, Tom, even "snapshots" have exposure settings, no?
5.8% is a published rate, it is a valid rate.
I wouldn't defend a quibbling attack with more quibbling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am not defending the statement that what Rush said was a lie. The question is not whether the rate is valid but whether it has any meaning in an analysis of what the conditions were when Obama took office. Never before have I seen yearly averages used when analyzing the conditions on the ground when a President takes office. In fact, typically, the first year is discounted because it is a budget the incoming President has little power over.
There are so many arguments that can be made against Obama and his policies. He was not responsible for the unemployment rate skyrocketting, he is responsible for killing what would have been a normal recovery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse'In fact, typically, the first year is discounted because it is a budget the incoming President has little power over.'
Generally true. But in this case the Democrat controlled Congress did a short term budget as they were expecting to get control of the WH. So should we still disregard the first year in this case?
Averages are used for a reason. A snapshot can be misleading as it could just be showing a particular high or low. But if you're using an average you should make it plain that is what you are using.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHave a look:
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama's change
External Link
How can you inherit the average of the previous year? The President inherited the conditions on inauguration in Jan 2009 ... when unemployment was 7.6%.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeems like a lot of silly bickering could have been avoided if some people had used the word "average" in their message. I mean, if you mean "average", why not state "average"? Unless... Oh.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOK he inherited an unemployment rate on January '09 of 7.6% and a AAA credit rating - now are you happy?
We were guaranteed if the Stim-U-Loss was passed the unemployment rate would never go over 8% and in April we were assured by TurboTaxTimmy we wouldn't lose our AAA - how's that hope and change working for you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, I am not happy. I am ticked off. Obama is responsible for destroying whatever recovery might have happened. But I think it is incorrect and unfair. The economy cratered before he took office, that is not his fault.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTom, I concur. Limbaugh has gotten inexcusably sloppy on the subject of economics in the past couple of years, getting extremely loose and tendentious in how he deploys economic statistics. And he's done so in an era where these left-wing "watchdogs" are more ubiquitous than ever. He's hurting his own credibility, and by association, the conservative movement's. He may not care at this stage in his career, but he would do well to think carefully before he just vomits out questionable factoids.
BTW, he's sounding pretty tin-foil-hattish in continuing this idea that Obama is wrecking the economy purposely, but at the same time, Obama is panicked because he has no accomplishments to run on, and therefore must destroy his GOP opponent. Well, which is it? Would he have rather had a good economic record to point to, and not NEED to go scorched-earth to win, or is economic chaos a considered, evil plot? I yield to no one in my cynicism, but Obama is simply an incompetent ideologue, not a James Bond villain.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood points, Shawn. I'm a charter listener of Rush(since 1988). He's steadily gotten sloppier and shriller over the past year or so. Sometimes he pulls economic statistics out of thin air(or out of somewhere). Other times he misspeaks badly, probably because his mind is 2 paragraphs ahead of his mouth(or because of some other, unexplained issue). Doesn't help his credibility.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAdd to this the fact that his show is rarely funny anymore, and you have a guy whose influence is fading.
Tom,
You are correct - the economy was cratering before Obama took office. Of course, the economy cratered specifically because of policies that ACORN advocated for...and said cratering of the financial system was an express goal of ACORN's founder. The Democrats were in control of the Congress from what point? 2006?
The fact that Democrats say that the economy cratered because of free market, conservative policies just doesn't hold water when one looks at the level of government involvement. Unless I've missed something - conservatives don't subscribe to government being heavily involved in the economy w/ regulation and manipulation to achieve policy goals...that's what leftist believe.
The economy cratered because we have been pursuing economic policies that are proven failures since FDR. Reagan brought us back from a similar situation with free market principles.
What is indisputable is that the reason we haven't recovered is adherence to the same failed Keynesian theory we've been mostly operating under for years. This Keynesian activist government (economically) stopped us from letting banks fail and discovering the true price of assets. Then it enabled Obama and the Democrats to go on a spending orgy in the hopes of permanently forcing European levels of taxation on America. The regulations the Democrats have passed and promulgated are strangling business - you'd have to be stupid or desperate to be expanding under these policies (or the threat of these policies).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would not disagree with a single point you bring up. Which is why sloppy arguments from the right make me so angry. There are so many ways to point out how the policies of the left are counterproductive, even to their own stated goals, that using something as weak, shoddy, and easily countered is just silly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA perfect demonstration of the futility of arguing with liberals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually Rush's point is perfectly valid. In accounting we say "a snapshot" is a balance sheet. An income statement is the prior activities of a going concern. Comparing either can lead to good analysis or it can be misleading. It depends on what other information is provided and the context in which the statement is made.
But it is perfectly valid to say someone inherited a company with net assets of $1 million and perfectly valid to say someone inherited a company with $10 million in sales (which the guy who inherted then drove into the ground) In the example given earlier of the uncle - he was not a going concern. Let us all hope that the U.S. remains a going concern.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOK, to accept your metaphor no one would buy a company on its average balance sheet of the past year. While average sales for the year is important what is more important is the general trend and health of the concern. Obama inherited a mess, the economic situation was awful. If it was not he most likely would have lost. Where he fails is his policies failed to have anywhere near the stated outcomes.
Obama was not responsible for the sorry mess the economy was in in 2009 but he is certainly responsible with how badly he has handled it since then. The man deserves to be fired.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe told three previous women, he would remain committed to them forever....was that true?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse