Fox business anchor Cavuto let Snow peddle false stock market performance stats
SUMMARY: Fox News' Neil Cavuto did not challenge Tony Snow's false claim that "since the president cut taxes in 2003, the Dow Jones is up 60 percent. The Nasdaq is up 80 percent." But even under the most favorable criteria, Snow's statistics are plainly wrong. And when adjusted for inflation, the value of both stock indices has decreased since President Bush's first major tax cut package in June 2001.
On the October 20 edition of Fox News' Your World, host and Fox News managing editor of business news Neil Cavuto failed to challenge White House press secretary Tony Snow's false claim that "since the president cut taxes in 2003, the Dow Jones is up 60 percent. The Nasdaq is up 80 percent." In fact, even without adjusting for inflation, the Dow Jones industrial average and Nasdaq Composite index have grown at nowhere near the rate that Snow alleged since Bush's second major round of tax cuts in 2003. Moreover, when adjusted for inflation, the value of both stock indices has decreased since President Bush's first major tax cut package in June 2001.
Without adjusting for inflation, the Dow, which closed at 12,002.37 on October 20, has grown 37 percent, not 60, over its opening level on May 28, 2003, when President Bush signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. That law temporarily eliminated taxes on dividends and lowered capital gains tax rates from 20 to 15 percent. In the same time period, the Nasdaq, which closed at 2,342.30 on October 20, has grown 50 percent, not 80 percent. When adjusted for inflation using seasonally-adjusted Consumer Price Index data from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the Dow has grown 24 percent over its May 28, 2003, opening level, and the Nasdaq has grown 26 percent.*
Moreover, Snow cherry-picked his point of comparison. He compared current stock index levels to May 2003, when they were nearer to their most recent low point, rather than June 2001, when Bush signed his first large tax cut package, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Since Bush signed that first set of cuts, the Dow is up 8.4 percent, and the Nasdaq is up 6.1 percent. Adjusted for inflation, however, the Dow has decreased by 4.9 percent since June 2001, while the Nasdaq has decreased by 7 percent.*
Cavuto also left unchallenged Snow's false claim that the news media had not covered "the news that the Dow Jones industrial average, for the first time, had gone past 12,000." "Nobody talks about it," Snow asserted. In fact, the news that the Dow closed above 12,000 on October 19 was reported by many major media outlets, according to a search of the Nexis database. For example, the Dow's close was mentioned on all three broadcast networks' October 19 evening news programs; the October 19 editions of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight and The Situation Room, and the October 20 edition of CNN's American Morning. The Dow's close was also the subject of October 20 articles in the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, as well as October 19 and 20 reports by the Associated Press.
Fox News touts Your World as "the No.1 business news show on cable."
*Inflation based on CPI-U price index. This assumes that there has been zero inflation since September 2006, the latest month for which BLS has provided Consumer Price Index data.
From the October 20 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: All right. I want to switch gears and talk about what's been a remarkable week in the stock market. As you know, Tony, we hit record after record, crossed over Dow 12,000, first time in history. Those averages are up appreciably, I think the Dow 13 percent, year to date.
A lot of folks making a lot of money, yet, it doesn't seem to connect in the polls for Republicans. What do you make of that?
SNOW: Well, one of the things I make of it is, nobody talks about it. There was one network last night that -- not Fox -- but, believe it or not, devoted exactly 10 seconds to the news that the Dow Jones industrial average, for the first time, had gone past 12,000.
But, you know, I think people -- people kind of get it, if they think about their own experiences. And I think we need to be talking about it more, that is, the White House and Republicans, because you look back, since September 11 -- September 11th, we took a trillion-dollar economic hit. Since then, we've been through two wars, a corporate scandal, the worst national -- natural disaster in our history.
And, yet, since the president cut taxes in 2003, the Dow Jones is up 60 percent. The Nasdaq is up 80 percent.
But, maybe more importantly, people are starting to feel it now. They've got a little more money to save. They can -- you know, they can buy the iPod for their kids, or they can save a little more for education.
You just -- after a while, you get the notion that, "Hey, I can buy a little more than before."
CAVUTO: But, so, let me ask you this.
SNOW: "I can -- I can redo my mortgage."
CAVUTO: Yeah.
SNOW: Yeah.
CAVUTO: Let me ask you this, Tony. I mean, are there, or are you aware of internal tracking polls that do take that into account, that people have seen what's been happening on Wall Street, how it might be reflective of a good economy, and that that is not being represented in some of these polls, and that are maybe skewing very negative for Republicans right now?
I could have buried money in a tin can in my backyard when Bush came to DC and done better than investing it in the stock market over the same period of time.
After nearly six years the DOW has finally risen above what it was when Bush inherited the surplus. And adjusted for inflation, which wouldn't have affected money in that tin can...well, I would have done better.
Why won't the media report that we could bury money in tin cans in our backyards and do better than six years of DOW investments under this GOP controlled economy?
Tony Snow sells snake oil...and FOX buys it up.
MMFA correctly debunks Tony Snow's incorrect statistics regarding the DOW and the NASDAQ figures since June 2003.
However, MMFA's analysis of the Bush tax cuts in total are laughable considering they don't even acknowledge the devastating effect that the 9-11 attack had on the markets. Picking June 2001 as the baseline for judging Bush's tax cuts as they relate to market performance without acknowledging that 9-11 happened AFTER that date is flat-out ridiculous IMHO.
You are absolutely correct - to leave out 9/11 in this context is misleading, at best. 9/11 had a devastating effect on much of the economy, many places and industries, such as travel and the hospitality industry, are still recovering.
Bottom line for many on the left, these are their mantras - tax cuts are never good........the government is much more capable of spending our money than we are........the rich pay no taxes........the "other" guy is undertaxed, and the government never wastes money and always needs more, and more, and more.
Telling us lefties what we believe. Strawman alert. The economy was already spiralling downward BEFORE 9/11. We were in a recession in APRIL of 2001 that is five months before 9/11. So sure that tragedy was bad for our economy but it was already looking bad. As a committed liberal, I have no problem with tax cuts, IF they are responsible and I prefer them to be targetted at the lower and middle classes instead of the rich. At wages in stead of capital. Tommy just wants all the money to go to the rich and children to starve in the streets, a statement with as much substance and pretty much equivelent to tommys strawman about what liberals think about tax cuts.
First you say > "Tommy does the usual strawman.........Telling us lefties what we believe".
*********************
Then you say > "Tommy just wants all the money to go to the rich and children to starve in the streets".
********************
Who is telling who? You look foolish, stop.
Not to people with the ability for higher brain function and reading comprehension beyond that of a gerbil I dont. That attempt to show me being contradictory was weak and pathetic. It wont fool ANYONE that doesnt desperatly WANT to be fooled. Keep up the good work of embarassing yourself though, I find it endlessly amusing.
I repeated exactly what you wrote, and you can defend the difference between the two? In your lofty words, even a gerbil can tell they are contradictory.
And if you want to include yourself in the "higher brain functioning" group with SJ, then please, PLEASE, I don't qualify for that one!
repeat exactly what he wrote. you ended it with a period, but there was a comma after what he wrote, so therefore you selectively edited. this is nonsense even for you.
At least not based on your posts. As has been pointed out you left off the last part of my statement where I made it clear I was parodying your very strawman argument. Only the legally ideologically blinded could miss that I was making the point that mischaracterizing a viewpoint is as easy as it is worthless rhetoric. Your attempt to pretend that wasnt the point, the point so painfully obvioius leaves us with only two options that I can think of that you are dumber than W or that you are being disengenuous. It doesnt really matter which it is. Most posters here can see the obvious, it really doesnt matter why you cant.
it appears that you are not manipulative of the information you receive but that you don't pay enough attention and are unnecessarily reactionary. two things today which seem to go hand in hand. a brief skimming of a subject with an already biased intent negates any information other than what one expects to see (or wants to see).
you have made yourself the fool. learn how to think with a critical mind so forums and debate can be useful. although being laughable does have it's place.
The government pumps $300 billion into the economy every year in the form of deficit spending.
Clinton pulled money out by balancing the budget, and still got a better economy than we have now.
Under Slick Willy's plan, there'd've been so much surplus that everyone could have their own tank or fighter plane from all of those pesky military bases he was closing for us.
I believe most of the middle class have stagnating or steady income levels while paying more for healthcare, insurance, education and everything else. So the bottom line is that the economy is not doing wonders for the poor and middle class. This message is falling on deaf ears for many. I believe there has been a vast amount of money transferred from the bottom and middle to the top. I keep reading about the super wealthy, I am sure they love this economy.
Last Friday night, when the issue of the economy came up on Bill Maher's show, Barny Frank ripped Stephen Moore a new one on every single RNC talking point Moore tried to spew.
If someone can post a video link for the smack-down, I'm sure we'd love to see it.
MMFA tries to spin that the Nasdaq only went up 50 percent.
Face it, Bush's tax cuts have worked wonders even in the face of a hostile federal reserve. If congress would have cut them like he wanted in the first place, the recovery would have been even quicker.
Deficits are down, unemployment down, markets up, oil relatively cheaper. It ain't perfect but it is far better than 9/11 days and you got to give Bush his due on the economy.
Dig a pit deep enough, and any climb is a bonus. Since Bush took office, unemployment is up, gas prices up (adjusted), minimum wage not changed, more uninsured, insurance rates more than doubled... hard to find a good indicator. In fact, I don't know of a single indicator that shows the avergage Joe is better off. Clinton had the opposite -- every indicator went in the direction you would hope.
Since 9-11, a couple of things have bounced back. Yeah (throws a handful of confetti) great job Bush. My wealthy business partner who's family owns much land in a major city is even richer. I'm a little more poor. Yeah. Woo woo.
Gas prices are only down when compared to the insane hike that made Billions for the thousands of Bush friends.
when deficits were way down and I could fill up my car from empty for $15. When was that? Oh yeah - 1999.
is at about 2001 levels, if you take the elderly out of the equation it has dropped for the FOURTH STRAIGHT YEAR. Yeah the stats can look good when generalized since the rich and corporate profits have rocketed but the middle class has taken a beating. Ok unemployment is down after losing THREE MILLION JOBS many of them high paying manufacturing jobs now they have been replaced by lower paying jobs with no pension and less benifits
[link to www.zmag.org]
In the last three years, according to the Labor Research Association, "The 2001 recession and jobless recovery have accelerated the shift to low-wage work." About one in five US workers have been laid off at least once since the beginning of Bush’s administration. Also, "while 71 percent of these workers have found new jobs, half of them are earning less than they were before they were laid off." Some estimates show that workers returning from layoff since Bush became president are earning an average of $9,000 less annually.
You get outraged when I call you a troll yet here you are again spitting up the same, tired, old Republican talking points. You can't have it both ways.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
If you think the government spends your money better than you is a talking point, and untrue, well, that's your business.
I would hope in that case that you send more of your money to the IRS than they withhold from your paycheck each period? Because if you don't, then not only are you a hypocrite, but you are living proof of a Republican talking point
The government has to pay for things. That's a fact of life. The debate should be who pays, and what things and services are bought with the money. Cons don't want to have that debate as they'd have to admit that they'd like the tax burden to be born by the working-class.
The next time I see you advocating privatizing the police, fire, military and road construction, then you'll have some logical consistency.
Far leftists such as yourself don't want to have that debate as they'd have to admit that they advocate income redistribution to compensate for their innate laziness and "take from the productive members of society and give to those who share your envy towards those of their own means, and your pathetic work ethic".
The next time I see you advocating such income redistribution, then you'll have some logical consistency.
All working societies have income distribution. It's vital. Take Macroeconomics 101, my friend. Those at the top benefit the most from society and have a vested interest in the masses in middle and bottom having disposable income to buy their products. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. The rich do best when the middle-class is stronger, like the nineties. They're just too greedy to realize it.
However, in your leftist eutopia, income gets redistributed this way > Person (A) works and earns their own money, this is unfair because Person (B) is lazy and feels they have a sense of entitlemint to the fruits of Person (A). So in order to equalize this inequity, the government takes disproportionately Person (A)'s earned money and distributes it to Person (B).
Summarizing your postings, it's more than obvious that you are in the (B) category. Try and work a little harder and you might get an (A).
More strawmen from Tommy. You should learn from your con friends. If you have no leg to stand on, stay out of the argument. Coming up with your weak strawmen only does your cause more harm.
I think it would be interesting for you to explain just what is the "strawman" Tommy is talking about.
I may be wrong, but after reading your post it looks to me like you are using a "straw man" straw man.
;-)
By those who WORK not one bit by those who buy and sell. The WORKING class is the most productive part of society NOT the rich. YOU of course are the envious one. Pressing your face against the window of the posh restaurant hoping that if you kiss enough rich butt you will get some crumbs. THAT is envy. As usual the policies that widen the income gap arent class warfare to tommy only POINTING it out is class warfare.
As Abraham Lincon said:
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.
And yet rightwingers have made it so money made on money is taxed at a lower rate than money I make on my labor and tommy has the nerve to say that the moneychangers who make their money off of MY BACK when they buy and sell the fruits of my labor THEY are the most productive members of society. Here is another basic economic precept if everyone in this entire country that buys and sells dissapeared tonight in some wierd phenomenon our economy would barely skip a beat. Your bacon would still be on the table, goods would still move. If just 10% of the skilled workers in this country dissapeared tonight our economy would not recover for a generation IF EVER.
Solon wrote: Here is another basic economic precept if everyone in this entire country that buys and sells dissapeared tonight in some wierd phenomenon our economy would barely skip a beat.
You are living proof of several Democratic talking points.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
quoted from comment on Digg:
While his percentages are off, you might be surprised to find they are not that far off. In fact, a little massaging of the numbers could easily produce the values he reported.
Here comes the math:
7891.08 - Closing value for DJIA in 02/03 x 1.6 - A 60% increase ------------- 12625.7 - What the market would need to be trading at right now for this to be true
12103.3 - What the market is actually trading it today 53% - The actual increase since end of 02/03.
1009.74 - Closing value for the NASDAQ 100 Index in 02/03 x 1.8 - A 60% increase ------------ 1817.53
1722.18 - What the index is trading at right now 70.5 % - Actual increase
Disclaimer: I used the closing values for the month of February 2003 and not the low prices of those months. If the low prices were used (7628 and 938 respectively) I imagine the percentages he reported would be correct. Tomato, tomahto.