O'Reilly echoed false claim that "unemployment rate now is lower than it was under President Clinton"
On the June 7 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly claimed that "the unemployment rate now is lower than it was under President [Bill] Clinton." In fact, according to the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 5.5 percent in June 2008, which, according to BLS data, is higher than during any month of Clinton's second term. Additionally, as the chart below shows, the current unemployment rate is 1.3 percentage points higher than when President Bush took office in January 2001. Previously, on the June 17 edition of MSNBC Live, MSNBC political analyst Rev. Joe Watkins falsely claimed: "No matter what you think about the current administration, at least unemployment is at an all-time low. It's at 5 percent, and some points, less than 5 percent, which has been the lowest it's been in decades."
(Source: BLS data available here)
From the June 7 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Charles, West Palm Beach, Florida. What say you, Charles?
CALLER: How you doing, Bill?
O'REILLY: Good.
CALLER: I basically want to say that I kind of agree with you as far as the parenting, but as far as the situation with the gap between the rich and the poor, you're way off. It's just like the last caller just said, it's like the deficit. You have all these problems and, it's like, you -- it seems like you're trying to shield for what the problem is. Because when Clinton was in office, everybody was making money. Everybody got a piece of the pie. Now, over seven-and-a-half years of Bush, I just see it. Everybody is suffering. Everybody is losing their jobs and it's just crazy right now.
O'REILLY: All right.
CALLER: It's just out of control.
O'REILLY: The unemployment rate now is lower than it was under President Clinton. You aware of that, Charles?
CALLER: That's what you say. I heard --
O'REILLY: That's what I say. That's what the U.S. Census says. OK? So if you're not gonna believe them, don't believe them. Median and per capita income's higher now than it was under the Bush administration. So, you think it's worse. That's fine. You can think what you want. The stats don't say that. We had seven years of prosperity under Bush. Yes, there is a widening gap between the very wealthy and the working American. There's no doubt about it. But if you think that a big federal government instituting entitlements is gonna turn that around, you're crazy. What it's gonna do is severely hamper the economy so that the unemployment rate will be higher and that people will suffer a lot more than they're suffering now.
It was interesting, Charles -- was it Pew that did the study on poverty? That poverty study? Was it Pew who did it? There was this recent study -- and they'll find it for me -- on poverty that listed all the things that poor people have in America. They studied it. Because if you're below a certain income level, like, I think it's $26,000 dollars or something like that, you're considered poor. People have cars, air conditioners, color televisions -- they have the luxury items, OK?
So, yeah, I don't like the big gap. I think these greed heads making $50 million a year and then, you know, the oil company chieftains and then turning around saying, "Oh, no, no, no. We're not gouging anybody." I think that's deplorable. But the only way that you are gonna improve your status in America economically -- and I'm to talking you, Charles, and everybody else listening -- is to get smart; to learn a skill, to do it well, to get educated, to present yourself well -- that's how you prosper. And you will prosper, because I have. I am the poster boy for this. We'll be back.
I think these greed heads making $50 million a year and...
Why does Bill O'Reilly hate Rush Limbaugh? Or is he just jealous that Limbaugh's now pulling in $50 million a year?
And he's ahead in the polls:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/7/84325/49028/547/547610
No, I think the Col. is referring to "Special Report with Brit Hume", I believe currently on TVLand, though I haven't seen it in years.
While admittedly funny the first 10 or 20-odd times, the same old jokes just got old after awhile.
Oops, guess I was wrong. Sorry.
And really, after thinking about it, that "Brit Hume" character on "Special Report with Brit Hume" was even too over-the-top to remind anyone of any real person. I should have given it more thought before I tossed in my two cents...
"But if you think that a big federal government instituting entitlements is gonna turn that around, you're crazy. What it's gonna do is severely hamper the economy so that the unemployment rate will be higher and that people will suffer a lot more than they're suffering now."
So more of the same market fundamentalism that led us here is your answer, Bill? O'Reilly is an ad-man for corporate America, his job is to sell the lie that the CEO shares common ground with middle Americans. He is entrusted with the deconstruction of middle class empowering New Deal policies. He disgusts me.
Nice to know there's another Bluegrassian on MMFA.
Bill, since you're stupid as a brick, let me help you out:
U.S. Civilian Unemployment Rate Forecast
Percent Unemployed Seasonally Adjusted.
MonthDateForecast
Value50%
Correct +/-80%
Correct +/-0May 20085.500.00.01Jun 20085.50.30.52Jul 20085.60.40.63Aug 20085.60.40.74Sep 20085.70.40.75Oct 20085.80.50.86Nov 20085.90.50.87Dec 20085.90.50.98Jan 20096.00.60.9Updated Monday, June 09, 2008
U.S. Civilian Unemployment Rate
Past Trend Present Value & Future Projection
Percent Unemployed Seasonally Adjusted.
I know - I love how they credit the dot.com bubble, while at the same time refusing to credit Mr.Gore for HIS contribution (like it juts appeared out of nowhere by American's who pulled up there bootstraps) and then they act like it was all an illusion... Except that... the internet is still very much HERE. In fact it's now part of every single business transaction over $1 going on every single day. And as to the dot.com companies? Well... A few of those fly-by-nighters like eBay, Google, Amazon, Netlfix (and a few others) did pretty well... So: Where's the bubble? There was a correction, to be sure, but today's DOW, as abd as it is, is not back to the 2000 level. YET. (Knock on wood.)
Bottom line: Growth is growth. We had it under Clinton, We didn't under EITHER Bush. And there's just no way t spin that.
"Why is it that these cons like Bill Oreilly and Rush the Druggie continue to say things that are so untrue?"
Answer #1: Both Bill and Drugbaugh know that they are both sustained by their allies throughout the corporatist conservative Republican Party controlled news media.
But they sure do love them some divisiveness!
I'm guessing that we will see more of this as we get closer to election day. In other words: the worst is yet to come. Stay tuned...
Baby steps.
Reading charts with axes is a huge step for them that will take time.
Flow charts with big red arrows in the meantime, while they're still learning.
O'Reilly's lying fascist racist willfully ignorant fans choose not to read charts that Bill or some other lying right winger doesn't tell them to read.
It should be known that Bill-O STILL doesn't know the meaning of the broadcast television expression "To play us out."
Q) How can you tell Bill O' Reilly is lying.
A) He's talking.
Look at that rambling idiot throw a dozen random maybe-facts against the wall without really caring if any of them stick.
If it was my job to carry water for the government, I would actually sit down for a couple hours and nail down a few hard numbers for use on my show. But that's too much for Bill, so he spews what he thought he might have heard somewhere once.
Never forget that with the bias comes a vast ocean of stupidity.
Dear Intern for Mr. Baxter,
Please advise your boss that he is wrong..AGAIN. Nothing personal just informational. If you want to get somewhere in your business, you had better start weeding out the chain of command immediately. Remember, there is nowhere for you to go unless you call out the liars, like your Boss.
Just trying to protect you...actually, as an aside, don't stay in the same hotel as him if you wish to keep your job. Abandon ship, you'll like it.
Yours Truly,
A Former Producer at Fox.
Hey, Tommy, maybe you can help O'Reilly out.
I disagree with Tommy almost all the time and I understand YOUR point but Tommy hasn't posted on this thread yet and your mention of him comes across as an ad hominem attack. Why not just wait until he actually posts on this subject and then make a critique. It makes "our side" look better.
Tommy is pretty reliable most of the time. Just show some patience.
Attack? No, that's overstating. More of a gentle ribbing. The chart just brought that old exchange to mind where, in effect, Tommy was arguing that 2+2=3 and never could bring himself to accept what the math showed, that he was wrong.
I will grant it qualifies as ad hominem, which isn't usually my style. Put it down to impulse.
You’re a good poster and I respect you, so thanks. I'm no saint, truth is, I may have once or twice resorted to name-calling and personal attacks -- but I’ve grown a thick skin in these whiney liberal waters, so let's just say I give far more than I get. I’ve also had the chance to down a lot of donuts, little chocolate donuts. Oh crap, scratch that, I'm not Tommy. Never mind.
"That's what I say. That's what the U.S. Census says. OK? So if you're not gonna believe them, don't believe them."
Why do I get the feeling that if the US Census had said the complete opposite Billy would have said:
"That's what the U.S. Census says? OK? I don't believe them! GOT IT! I don't believe them. Your gone! Call Fox security.... That's the problem with all these liberals, always arguing with my truth! F**k it! Next caller!
Last time I checked, US Census only completed one of those every 10 years. Hmm...
Air conditioning is now a "luxury" item? Is Bill O aware that you can buy a cheap window until for less than 80 bucks? How do I know this? Just bought one myself. Cars luxury items? No, in America, they are required for most people to get to their jobs, or to be able to go to the store. Color TVs? When was that last a luxury item? Like 1960?
And his assertion that if you get educated, promote yourself, get smart, and all will be well, that just ain't true either. My wife, case in point. She's got her PhD and can't find a job. That's about as much education you can get, and she's very smart, and presents herself well, and yet, no job..
"I am the poster boy for this."
He's now elevated himself to the role model we should all follow. Become a vulgar, self-centered, perverted, potty-mouth troglodyte moron liar by design and you, too, can live the American Dream.
It's tempting, but I just couldn't live with myself.
"...only way that you are gonna improve your status in America economically -- and I'm to talking you, Charles, and everybody else listening -- is to get smart; to learn a skill, to do it well, to get educated, to present yourself well -- that's how you prosper. And you will prosper, because I have. I am the poster boy for this."--B.O.
I am completely speechless.
And Bill O'Reilly's IQ is lower than it was when he was on "Inside Edition".
I know, Col. I have played that remix of Bill-O's cuss-fest THOUSANDS of times!
Hey, Col., we'll do it LIVE! HA HA HA! I just cannot get enough of barbecuing Bill!
"Note that the Clinton rate dipped under the current 5.5 percent only AFTER the GOP took control of Congress..."--NoLeft
Have you considered that divided government works best then? The highest unemployment rates under George W. Bush were when Republicans had full control of all branches of government.
I think if you look at this through non-partisan glasses, I think you will see that we are much better off putting one party in charge of the executive branch and another party in at least one chamber of the legislative branch.
Ahhh..like right now? The highest since those pesky Bush-GOP tax cuts brought us out of recession in 2003? A nice sprial upward - about a full point since the Dems seized power in 2006.
The unemployment rate is just a bit lower than the Dems approval rating in Congress, which is at an ALL_TIME low of 9%.
I find this chart interesting too. Congress had its highest approval ratings in a generation between 1995 and 2003. The conservatives ran the place then and the people seemed quite happy with the job they were doing. The peak looks like it came in 2002. Wasn't that the year of the vote on the Iraq War? Whre's the outrage among the people? It's all ginned up by left-wing agitators like most of you who post here!
Hey liberals...just because you scream the loudest doesn't mean anybody is listening or that anybody cares!
Once again your projection is showing. Better get that checked. It's congress overall that's at 9%, not the Dems. Dems are still polling higher than reps are, it's the reps who are pulling down the overall average. Nice try though.
And we never left that recession. Matter of fact we already have double digit inflation in the gas and food goods market. Your beloved republicans make Carter look like an absolute geneous...
The United States has already slipped into a deep recession that could be the most serious since World War II, said Martin Feldstein, president of the Cambridge group that is considered the official word on economic cycles.
Der Spiegel, May 28, 2008:
The United States is already in a recession and it will be longer as well as deeper than many people expect, US investor Warren Buffett said in an interview published in German magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday.
Sorry to burst your bubble. Bubble, get it? Ha ha ha...
"Ahhh..like right now? The highest since those pesky Bush-GOP tax cuts brought us out of recession in 2003? A nice sprial upward - about a full point since the Dems seized power in 2006."--nlt
Actually that has been my point before as well. Divided government does work better when it is a Democratic President and at least one chamber is controlled by the Republicans. The current situation is second best, but one party rule is the worst.
NLT,
If the Republicans are to get the credit for the low unemployment rate, wouldn't it stand to reason that from 2000-2006, it would have been lower than ever?
I'm gonna put the blame on Bush for 9/11, seeing as how he was in office and all.
Tell you what -- you show me a single instance of Bush saying the word "terrorism" before 9/11 and I'll take it back.
Bush didn't give a crap about terrorism until he found out he could exploit it politically. Never forget to add the biggest security breach in US history to Bush's other accomplishments.
"Well 9/11 did have an affect and the dot-com bust. Your BOY Clinton gets the blame for BOTH of those."--NLT
So much for that "personal responsibility" crap from you. I figured that one would go under the bus pretty quickly. What a pathetic hypocrite.
So true, Open Mind.
Have you noticed that the legitimate conservatives haven't written in? This case is so obvious that the only thing they could honestly write is "Yep, O'Reilly's flat-out wrong here." Alas, this isn't very interesting and certainly does nothing to push their own agendas, so they don't.
It takes a real off-the-wall nutjob to write in and desperately try to paint a rosy picture for the right here, and to do it he has to ignore O'Reilly entirely and bring up canards about Congress and 9/11. "Pathetic" is the perfect term.
Note that the Clinton rate dipped under the current 5.5 percent only AFTER the GOP took control of Congress - noleftturns
Actually, what's very clear from the chart is that unemployment was declining sharply until 1995 when the Republicans took Congress. At that point it was still declining, but much less sharply. One could look at the timing and conclude the Republican Congress took much of the steam out of the job creation policies of Clinton and the Democratic Congress.
Anybody with a brain knows that when President Clinton came into office the unemployment rate was 7.1% and when he left it was 4.2%. I knew these figures without having to look them up.
Also, the annual deficit was 254 billion when he came into office and we had a surplus for the last 3 years of his term. Not one Republican voted for the deficit reduction plan in 1993 that accomplished this. And Democrats are big spenders? Give me a break ! Oh, that's right President Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% Oh the horror of it all! Those poor people!
"People have cars, air conditioners, color televisions -- they have the luxury items, OK?"
C'mon, people, see...being poor isn't so bad...they have the luxury items! Not as many luxury items as Bill--I mean, they have to get the off-brand falafel, but you know, poverty is still the new luxury.
*off topic, but Snoopy, (referencing your earlier post) was that from the Pemberton twp NJ Republicans?
"the unemployment rate now is lower than it was under President [Bill] Clinton."
********************
This is a true statement based on the chart but Bill O. should have qualified it by referring to Clinton's "First Term". Why did Media Matters qualify their comments, limiting the "truth" to Clinton's "Second Term"? Why are both resorting to distortions? Why is any one in this forum standing up for either side? Doesn't truth mean anything any more? Isn't that why Media Matters supposedly exists?
Both O'Reilly and Media Matters are being a bit dishonest here. Look close at the highs and lows of the unemployment swings. There are no direct correlations with any administration, (D) or (R). Unemployment was heading down before Clinton took office and unemployement was begininng to head upward near the end of Clinton's presidency. Unemployment was higher under Clinton on 1993-94 than it is now. No administration should be taking blame or credit. I simply limited by comments to Clinton's administration for consistency.
It's the economy stupid and it is cyclical. I am disappointed with most of the posters in this forum!
O'REILLY: The unemployment rate now is lower than it was under President Clinton. You aware of that, Charles?
It is lower than one period of time when Clinton was in office, and higher than Clinton at other times.
Therefore, O'Reilly is wrong, and Media Matters is right. I'm sorry if that disappoints you, Otter. The only way that O'Reilly's comment could be correct would be if Bush's rate today was lower than Clinton's rate ever was.
The only fair comparison is looking at similar timeframes during their terms in office, and by that measure, O'Reilly is wrong too.
"O'Reilly's statement is factually accurate according the chart MMFA has on the website. O'Reilly doesn't specify a specific time during Clinton's presidency."--Raymanrevo
No. His statement is provably false for a reason you mention. O'Reilly doesn't specify a specific time during Clinton's presidency. The only way O'Reilly's argument would be true is if he did specify a correct period of time. This is pretty simple logic.
Totally lame, brother.