O'Reilly defended false Clinton-Bush poverty comparison as "the only accurate measuring stick"
On his nationally syndicated radio show, The Radio Factor, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly again compared the poverty rate at the midpoint of both the Clinton and George W. Bush presidencies to argue that Bush has more effectively alleviated poverty in the United States. Ignoring the overall trend lines during their respective White House tenures, O'Reilly claimed that comparing the 1996 and 2004 numbers is the "only fair comparison" and the "only accurate measuring stick." But as Media Matters for America has noted -- and as Radio Factor caller "Larry" repeated -- such a comparison obscures the more relevant fact that the poverty rate declined every year of the Clinton presidency and has increased every year under the Bush presidency.
From the September 14 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
CALLER: Hi, Bill.
O'REILLY: Larry.
CALLER: Let's see, poverty is up since Bush took office.
O'REILLY: That's not true.
CALLER: It is true.
O'REILLY: I have the stats right here, Larry.
CALLER: I just looked at the figures. Gun crime is up since George Bush took office.
O'REILLY: All right, Larry, hold it, hold it, hold it. Let's deal with one at a time. The only fair comparison is halfway through Clinton's term, halfway through Bush's term, OK? That's the only fair comparison. You gotta go real time.
CALLER: Bill, I --
O'REILLY: Poverty is down, Larry, one full percent in real time from 1996, halfway through Clinton, 2004, halfway through Bush. That is the truth, Larry, and if you're not willing to acknowledge that's the truth, this conversation is over.
CALLER: Bill, I just finished taking a look at the poverty chart. And in Bill Clinton's years, every year poverty fell. So far in George Bush, every year he has gone up. Those are the facts.
O'REILLY: The facts are halfway through. The poverty under Bush is down 1 percent. That's the fact and the only accurate measuring stick. You wanna know why, Larry? Because of 9-11, that's why. That's the only accurate measuring stick. When Clinton took office, he was coming off a Bush the Elder recession. So he came into a situation that he turned around, and things got better poverty-wise, but it took him time. It took him time. So, halfway through his eight years, he was at -- what's the numbers? -- 13.7, OK, 13.7. Bush comes in, he gets hit on 9-11, which wipes out, wobbles the economy. All right? Halfway through, he's at 12.7. Larry, you can use statistics to do and prove anything. You've gotta get a fair measure. We gave you the fairest measure -- halfway through both terms, both men had to deal with circumstances. Clinton, a Bush the Elder recession; Bush, 9-11 attack.
I must admit that over the years, I've had a bit of respect for O'Reilly, largely for his stance on the environment (while conservative, he at least admits the environment is a serious issue that the GOP ignores and/or worsens), and his typical straightforwardness.
This latest exchange, with his ridiculous insistence that the only way to evalute poverty rates is by comparing "halfway through the terms" is about as disgustingly dishonest as it gets.
Bill O'Reilly - Until today, I had hope for you.
It's the desperation setting in. Like Hannity and Limbaugh, even O'Reilly has to go to great lengths to prop Bush up. Bush still enjoys almost 80% support from Republicans -- amazing.
I agree with you. I really think that Bill-O has lost touch with what is going on. Any intelligent person wouldn't pigeon hole themselves into such a weak arguement. His comment on real time is astounding. If you real time the first four years of their respective administrations you can plainly see that Clinton lowered the Poverty rate he inherited from Bush Sr., which was somewhere around 15% or so. he lowered it to the 13.7 Bill-O mentions. But what is left out is that the first four years of Bush's administration has seen the poverty go up from the 11 point something percent that he inherited from Clinton to 12.7. That's what i call real time. I don't understand how someone can confuse that. It's in plain sight.
BO says: "...you can use statistics to do and prove anything..."
For BO, the applicable maxim is: "Figures don't lie but liars figure."
So Bush can work toward increasing poverty by 800% by the end of his term, and he's still the best using O'Lackey's "fair" measure. I'm sure he'll be thrilled.
I think I'll vote for a president who will put into place policies that reduce poverty -- not one who complains that everything is "hard work" and then goes on vacation.
My favorite part is how O'Reilley tries to deflect criticism that the poverty rate fell every year under Clinton and rose every year under Bush by invoking 9/11.
Totally.
"You wanna know why, Larry? Because of 9-11, that's why."
The Republicans' answer for everything.
Here he goes again with his "I'm right because I know I'm right"
When measuring matters such as crime rate, money growth, the size of a forest, it's nice to look at them in terms of how they're doing. It's better to look at them in terms of how they will do.
It's more important to measure the process - or first derivative, for the mathys out there - than to take any instant in time.
Does it matter more that the forest is plentiful, or that we're draining it faster than it can replenish? (I don't know if such is actually the case, but my point should be obvious)
I'm guessing O'Reilly has no business or accounting experience, else he would think this way.
I think even a 4th grader could see from looking at a poverty rate chart that under Clinton, it went from "higher" to "lower" and so far under Bush, it's gone from "lower" to "higher". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. It's amazing that BO actually had the balls to stick by his explanation - what a putz.
CALLER: Let's see, poverty is up since Bush took office.
O'REILLY: That's not true.
CALLER: It is true.
_____________________________
And when O'Reilley got caught lying (which he does compulsively), he changed his argument and made a new assertion based on a desperate shuffling of statistics in an attempt to defend Bush.
Is it so hard for O'Reilly to just say that the poverty has been increasing during the Bush administration, despite 9/11 being long gone, and we should address the problem? The question is now, will the pundits start using Hurricane Katrina (sorry, Hurricane Corina according to Laura Bush on CNN) as the next fallback for failed Bush administration policies?
Actually the best one is to compare the poverty rate from when Clinton left office until now. In raw numbers, more Americans are living in poverty than ever before.
Would a conservative reader please step in and explain Bill O'Reilly's point to us? I'm serious here. Maybe we're missing something, because as it stands, my interpretation is that Bill's argument is too absurd to be real.
Yeah you are missing the point that the the only thing that matters is creating "reality".
When refuted by data, structure the argument in a way that supports the new "reality".
When you control the show, control the show. Pull the microphone plug if necessary.
The only permissible measure is the measure that makes your point. If you can't accept that, this conversation is over.
get your own damn show, librul. but here's a hint, corporate sponsors don't like you to mess with their war, their reconstruction, their pollution, their labor relations, or their tax loopholes.
This sounds almost like that exchange between Winston and O'Brien.
How many fingers am I holding up?
2 + 2 = 5
Thanks for the chuckle.
Am I the only one who remembers what Ron Suskind of the New York Times was once told by a senior White House advisor back in 2002? According to Suskind, this man (whose name was withheld) said -- and this is a direct quote -- "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
How much more obvious can it get? To all appearances, neoconservatives actually do believe that they can create their own reality and that something isn't true unless they believe it is.
What Bill O'Reilly should have said:
1. A greater percentage of persons were living in poverty in 1996 than in 2004.
2. A greater number of persons were living in poverty in 2004 than in 1996.
3. The % and # of persons living in poverty decreased every year of Bill Clinton's presidency.
4. The % and # of persons living in poverty increased every year of George Bush's presidency.
That's where you start. And then you can argue the why's, wherefore's, recessions, 9-11s, etc. The why's can be debated. But at least start with an honest listing of the factual/statistical data.
I agree that listing the statistics is better; however, by only picking 1996 and comparing with 2004 (end of 1st term years), one is cherry-picking the statistics and it is misleading. In Clinton's case, he had to start with a higher poverty rate at the beginning of his first term than Bush, 14.8% vs 11.3% for all people at the end of 1992 and 2000, respectively. To only compare the 1996 to 2004 rates, 13.7% and 12.7%, only says that Clinton didn't improve the poverty rate as fast as Bush let it worsen (assuming governmental policies, e.g., tax rates and governmental spending, affect the poverty rates).
The trend is the most meaningful statistic here when comparing Clinton to Bush and the trend is that the poverty rate steadily decreased under Clinton and increased under Bush. If you want to know if the poor are better off, then look at 2000 versus current or most recent (2004). Again, Bush loses out again because there were more poor in 2004, in actual number and in percentage terms.
fair? accurate????
Two things both O and Fox are totally ignorant of...
Using BOR logic.....
there is no difference between skiing up hill and skiing downhill.
Clinton as President,poverty goes down,Bush is President,poverty goes up,and will continue into his second term. O'Liely just spins to make Bush look good.
Baaaaaa Baaaaaa
That is not surprising considering his large ovine viewership constituency.
american media, particularly o'reilly (oh, hell, any of the conserative pundits that MM exposes), are disgusting.
yet, as much as i appreciate the efforts of MediaMatters and the comments posted here, what's the point?
isn't lying to the public on television illegal?
something must be done. but what?
lying about a blow job vs. lying about uranium in niger
JonJon,
I'm sympathetic to your point, but you need to realize that you're only enabling Captain Jack to shift the debate away from O'Reilly's crimes. Captain Jack is instinctually using Clinton's BJ as a simple ploy, a cheap diversion to drag attention from O'Reilly's latest crimes. And it pains me to see these diversionary tactics succeed so frequently in MMFA discussions. The discussion should be regarding O'Reilly's persistent lies, which aren't even very interesting lies, but the dullest, crudest, child-like denials of fact. Whenever you engage somebody like Captain Jack on tangential accusations, no matter how specious or facile those accusations may be, you are allowing the main point of the MMFA article to be disregarded. The conversation then quickly degenerates into liberal-vs-conservative cliches.
I do wish someone was able to grill O'Reilly on the air without having their mic turned off. I would just love to ask, in the light of this stunning new statistical revelation;
"OK, for the sake of argument, let's say that poverty was 0 when Clinton took office, then 17% in 1996, and 50% in 2000. Let's say now it was 22%. Clinton's percentage in 1996 was a full 5 points lower than Bush's at that ever-so-important halfway point! Obviously Clinton did the better job, and surely you would be making that argument right now based on that only accurate measuring stick."
Of course, republicans don't seem to like hypothetical questions very well anyway. In any event, if one were to believe O'Reilly to be an independant, this would have to be one of the stupidest things he's ever said. Knowing he's really a republican though, we know this is just his usual dishonesty.
Clinton wasnt perfect.However, if the best you can muster about this guy is that he lied about a blow job so his wife wouldnt find out?Ya, your right!8 years of peace and prosperity,a kick ass stock market,and more jobs than Americans! Thanks for voting for Bush!
Guess what guys. The national debt is just another way of just printing more money. Thats inflationary. Put it this way. The Germans did the same thing. You would need a basket of franks just to get a loaf of bread.
"Guess what guys. The national debt is just another way of just printing more money. Thats inflationary. Put it this way. The Germans did the same thing. You would need a basket of franks just to get a loaf of bread." -mattyroc
------------------------------------------------------
We are still following a "hard money" policy. This means that instead of printing money, we borrow it. It is not as inflationary in theory.
The problem is that as we borrow more money, we find it harder to get lenders. The rates that we borrow on become higher to attract more lenders. This has the effect of raising interest rates nationally because the Prime Rate is increased.
It will eventually have the same effect as printing money, but as far as we know, we haven't yet crossed that threshold. No one knows for sure when or if we will cross it.
There was much less poor people with president Clinton than bush.
where do these 9-11 excuses for the economy come from? maybe air travel dropped a little at first, but i don't think people hid in their houses and stopped spending. i can't think of anything i stopped doing or didn't buy because i was worried about another attack.
Picture this:
Clinton starts a cross-country road trip from LA to NY. Four days later, he makes it to Denver. Four days after that, he makes it St. Louis. Then Bush takes over the trip and sets on his way to NY. Four days later, he's in Kansas driving west the whole time. O'Reilly says Bush is doing better job getting everybody to NY because Kansas is closer to NY than Denver.
Skiploader1111. What a great analogy. Clarence Thomas(no relation, I hope,) thank you for pointing out how the repugs love to change the subject when they face an argument they can't win. The White House has been doing it since they stole the election in 2000. Smear your enemy instead of arguing the actual point(Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan, etc.) Attack the credibility of anyone who criticizes you instead of their argument. I'll never understand why people watch that idiot O'Reilly.
Well, it's official.
Bill O'Reilly is a Republican shill, and an idiot.
That was the weakest debating I've ever seen from this man, with the possible exception of the Paris Business Review debacle. Deny, deny, deny, make up, make up, make up!
At this point, I wonder if, if the poverty rate trend under Bush continues up, if O'Reilly will admit at the end, Yeah, Bush didn't do squat for the poor. He probably would, but only because there won't be any statistics that he can spin to favor Bush at that time.
At this point, I wonder if, if the poverty rate trend under Bush continues up, if O'Reilly will admit at the end, Yeah, Bush didn't do squat for the poor. He probably would, but only because there won't be any statistics that he can spin to favor Bush at that time.
by Handsome Pete - Monday September 19, 2005 09:58:25 AM EST
If indeed the spending on programs for the poor went up from 191 Billion in 1996 to 368 Billion in 2004, almost double, what else can Bush or anyone do, if that question isn't too specific??
"If indeed the spending on programs for the poor went up from 191 Billion in 1996 to 368 Billion in 2004, almost double, what else can Bush or anyone do, if that question isn't too specific??" -tx_paco
--------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the specific question. Do you have any government sources to support your figures? It is extremely difficult to reply or to seriously consider such questions without viewing the sources for the facts used in your question.