Buchanan falsely claimed stock market is at an "all-time high"
SUMMARY: On the April 20 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Pat Buchanan falsely claimed that "the Dow Jones [Industrial Average] hit a record today" and that "the stock market is at an all-time high." In fact, none of the three major U.S. stock market indices reached record highs on April 20.
On the April 20 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan falsely claimed that "the Dow Jones [Industrial Average] hit a record today" and that "the stock market is at an all-time high." In fact, none of the three major U.S. stock market indices reached record highs April 20.
Buchanan made his remarks during a discussion with host Chris Matthews and Roll Call staff writer Mary Ann Akers, regarding the recent personnel changes at the Bush White House. After Matthews suggested that Vice President Dick Cheney was a "problem" for the Bush administration, Buchanan commented that Bush's problem was "not the vice president" but the Iraq war. He added: "[T]he Dow Jones hit a record today also, and the president ... is at 33 percent on doing well on the economy when the stock market is at an all-time high?"*
But contrary to Buchanan's claims, the Dow did not "hit a record" on April 20, and the other two major U.S. stock market indices -- the Standard & Poor's 500 (S&P 500) and the Nasdaq composite index -- also failed to reach "an all-time high." The Dow reached an intraday high of 11,429.25 before closing at 11,342.89. Although the Associated Press noted that this was the Dow's "highest close since Jan. 20, 2000," it was well short of the Dow's record high close of 11,722.98 on January 14, 2000. The S&P 500 closed at 1,311.46, below its record high close of 1,527.46 on March 24, 2000. The Nasdaq composite index closed at 2,362.55, far short of its record closing of 5,048.62 on March 10, 2000.
From the April 20 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: OK, wait a minute. The vice president involved with that shooting, that weird incident where he didn't even call the boss. Why can't they deal with that problem? Why doesn't the president make a move on the vice president, squeeze him out? Isn't he the problem?
BUCHANAN: Squeeze out the vice president of the United States?
MATTHEWS: You can't do that?
BUCHANAN: You would dynamite his whole administration. Cheney wouldn't go.
MATTHEWS: Ha!
BUCHANAN: That's a constitutional office --
MATTHEWS: Right. I know that.
BUCHANAN: You can't fire him.
[...]
MATTHEWS: I'm just asking an open question, Mary Ann. The problems seem to be related to Cheney over and over again, and yet Cheney sits there, immutable.
AKERS: Well, I have to say one of the biggest problems was sending [White House press secretary Scott] McClellan out to a pack of wolves completely uninformed, and I think that removing him from the situation is going to help tremendously. And it looks --
MATTHEWS: And all it would have taken was one call from the vice president's office --
AKERS: Absolutely.
MATTHEWS: -- and they would warned off McClellan and say, "Don't deny any involvement in the leaking, we know more than you know."
BUCHANAN: Chris, the problem is not the vice president. The problem is the president of the United States who has listened to counsel of the vice president, and the counsel of [Secretary of Defense Donald H.] Rumsfeld and the counsel of others. He has taken it. He is the decider, Chris. He's the decision maker, and he's the one that made the final decision. The big problem with this administration is Iraq. You're right about $3 a gallon for gasoline, but the Dow Jones hit a record today also, and the president, what, is at 33 percent on doing well on the economy when the stock market's at an all-time high?
MATTHEWS: Why do you explain that? How do you explain that?
BUCHANAN: Iraq pervades everything. It's on everybody's mind. You get up in the morning, you look at it, four more Marines dead, another explosion in a mosque, and the president can't get away from it. There's no way to get out of it and there's no way to end it, and I think it's just dragging everything down in this administration.
*Although it is not clear which poll Buchanan was referencing, the most recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll showed Bush's overall job approval rating at 33 percent.
I'm not an economist and don't really know very much about the economy, but I do know that there are certain economic indicators to a strong/healthy economy. I never thought a high Dow Jones average was one of them. Isn't the Dow Jone's more or less just telling us how corporate/wealthy America is doing?
My parents have an awful lot of money in the market, and this is good for them. However, most people I know (on the lower end of the pay scale) have very little or no money in stocks. So how is a strong stock market indicative of them having good financial situation? Especially now that prices in the grocery store are reflecting the inflation at the gas pump. So why should we even care about the Dow Jones average? Can someone please explain this to me?
Rich, you probably make at least most of your annual income from the Stock Market. If you get all your Income from Stock Dividends, the maximum tax rate you pay is 15%. Therefore a booming stock market is good if you are rich. If you work for a living, your inflation adjusted wages have gone down for the last 5 years, so the Stock Market has not helped your economy much. Also, during a booming stock market, there are a lot of Corporate mergrers, resulting in big losses of well paying jobs.
mergers
This is the kind of economy that works great for Wall Street, but doesn't work for Main Street.
And, for that matter, the Great Booboisie (to use H. L. Mencken's term-of-choice for the masses)?
(IMHO, it would probably be one based on cooperativism, as in the Rochdale Pioneers. And just so you know, cooperativism is not based on Socialistic or Communistic models, in case anybody gets any ideas....)
the indices are a measure of how well the economy in general is because they cover a wide range of businesses.
If businesses are profitable and the outlook looks good, then we have increasing employment numbers and better wages.
When the market started tanking 9 months before Clinton left office, it was an indicator of a slowing economy and job losses on the horizon. Bush cut taxes to get the economy stimulated again, and now the unemployment rate is in the 4-5 percent range and inflation is tame even with $3.00 gasoline. The stock markets have recovered from the 9/11 disaster and the economy is wonderful again with plenty of room to grow.
So even with the lefties whining about deficits and a lousy economy, the truth is the government is taking in massive record revenues from income taxes and unemployment has trended (MMFA likes trends) downward and real wages are increasing at a perfect rate not to trigger inflation.
Now if Congress would cooperate and cut government and pork everything would be perfect. But somehow that never happens.
So the fact that the markets are strong is a terrific indicator for the U.S. economy and that means job and prosperity.
Median Worker Wages, including inflation, have decreased for the past 5 years. However, CEO wages have increased at least 400%.
Low Paying Jobs for Americans, and Prosperity for Corporate America.
Ever notice how the stock market always does better when a democrat is in charge? [link to www.frbsf.org]
My IRA went absolutely ballistic during the Clinton years, and pretty much went stagnant when Dubya took over.
Well, i have alot of money in the stock market and it is worth more than it has ever been worth. I dont think that is because of Bush, but the economy is good right now.
was at, or very near, its record high when Clinton left Office. There was also a Record Budget Surplus, Record Low Unemployment, Social Security was secure, and the CIA had Bin Laden in its sights. All this has changed for the worse, since Bush's "Election" in 2000.
Wake Up America!!!!!!!!
Of course, doug, you knew that already. For all the others, they want to destroy it. When people have secure futures they tend to vote for policies that favor mankind (clean air, clean water, good food, housing, etc). When your future is unsecure and in the hands of the stock market you vote for policies that favor your employer in the hopes that he moves your investment in a + direction. Both have risk, but one is definitely lower than the other. [link to www.fma.org]
Don't you people understand what an economy is? An economy is a nation-large role-playing game. The more absorbed we become into its unreality, the more this unreal reality will become true, and thus benefit us all with its made-up rewards.
Therefore, when a large mantis creature compressed in a human body suit (Buchanan) tells you the word "stockmarket" or "economy", just cognitize these terms as "The Forces of Goodness".
Carrying on in our large, nation-wide role-playing game, with little tickets and mortgages, is more important than taking the time to learn that "stockmarket" does not mean "economy" and that Pat Buchanan cannot stay on one topic for more than 3.5 seconds.
Pat's stock portfolio consists of Carlisle Group, Halliburton, Northrop, Exxon-Mobil.
He hit a record Friday. That's all that counts.
In light of Pat Buchanan being as much if not more a critic of the American and global economy than most Dems I think a little cutting of slack is in order. What Pat was plainly saying was that with even a number of economic pluses Bush is at his lowest levels of approval. I think most of us can agree on that.
I'd say the stock market is reflecting the economy of the day. Actual man-on-the-street economic indicators such as real wages and real unemployment have suffered setbacks over the past 5+ years and so has the market.
Since #43 took office, the market has only gone up marginally, about 14% (10,000 to 11,400). Under Clinton the market doubled from 1995 to 2000, real wages were up and real unemployment was down. The connection isn't as dubious as people think. It's just the MSM continues to obfuscate how poorly we have done under the guidance of all Republican governance. One simple chart plotting the path of the stock market from 1993 to April 2006 would tell the tale, no explanations required. Even a child would be able to discern that America was doing better under Bill Clinton, period, end of story, say goodnight Gracie, halleluiah, where’s the Tylenol.
Forgive my skepticism, but I don't think that's a true statement. What was the market at when Clinton left office? Didn't the DJIA closed at 10,587 on January 19, 2001? That's a less than marginal increase of only 7%!
When one considers the negative personal savings rate, the sustainability of GDP growth and the market are questionable. Sooner or later we'll have to pay up; retail sales will suffer (although I'll admit I don't know to what extent). Alot can still happen to prevent that from becoming a recipe for recession, though I don't have any faith in the current administration to be a positive influence.
However, another scenario I've considered recently, with growing globalization, is one of sustained GDP growth, but coupled with increasing economic stratification. I.e., you effectively end up with two economies, one for the haves and one for the have-nots. (The economies of some past Central American regimes come to mind.) An eventual outcome is oligarchy effectively replacing democracy, a possibility probably not overlooked by Rove et al. (Consider the recent campaign finance "reform.")
I've heard that myth a number of times. Another conservatives like to tell is how bad Wall Street was doing during the Clinton years. Whenever I hear news stories talking up the economy they speak of a record statistics that only go back four years. Bush has been in for nearly six years. In other words, we're approaching zero from the negative side. The same is true with job stats, we have yet to get back to the level of 1999. No new jobs have been created. The jobs that are merely taking the place of others lack medical insurance and other benefits, and pensions are on the chopping block. This doesn't count the over educated--under employed. Additionally, many people get dropped from the unemployment numbers because they're no longer drawing unemployment, but they're not necessarily finding jobs. So right now the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is being decimated.
What I think Pat Buchanan meant to say was that the stock market (the Dow Jones) hit a record high for the year. I don't think he was trying to intentionally mislead those with whom he was speaking. And I think that the larger point that Buchanan was trying to make was correct: Iraq is obscuring all other news (both good and bad). I would disagree with Buchanan that the stock indices are indictative of a healthy economy for middle class and poor America. They represent corporate profitability. Under Clinton, everybody seemed to have some extra money to play the stock market and benifit when it rose. I don't know many middle class citizens who seem to have any extra money to invest in the market. Most that I know are struggling to maintain what they have.
This was the person who declaimed, within the last year, that the United States was on the verge of winning in Viet Nam, when Watergate distracted Nixon from the course he was taking.
And Buchanan didn't just spout that vague logic, as ill-conceived as it is. He mentioned a specific time frame and several battles/campaigns/events that in his reality represented an imminent American victory.
So even before we interpret his interpretation of reality, we should question the way he defines it.
This must be one of the Right's new talking points. I heard Limbaugh and Hannity say that very same thing last week. Of course, I thought it was a lie and planned to check Media Matters for the truth. Thank you Media Matters.
the dow reached a 6 year high and what Mr. Buchanan probably saw was the Russell 2000 small-cap index set an all-time high. It was widely reported during that time period and I'm surprised Media Matters missed it, or decided to leave it out because it proved Mr. Buchanan correct.
"The Russell 2000 (up 8.61 to 778.42, Charts), the small-cap stock benchmark, closed at an all-time high for the second day in a row"
[link to money.cnn.com]
the NASDAQ, which represents a majority of the Stocks traded is less than 50% of its Record achieved during Clinton's final Year.
A reference to the "stock market" or "the market," without further context, is taken to mean the broad market. Most commonly that refers to the Dow Industrial or the S&P 500, though there are many other broad market indices.
The Russell 2000, however, is a small cap index. It is not a broad market index.
Everyone seems to forget that neither Matthews or the other guset even tried to correct him. Matthews: "How do you explain that?"
It is easy to explain: it's not true.