Rush Limbaugh made a curious argument the other day about the economy.
"The vast, vast majority of problems we have in this country are directly traceable to liberals, Democrats. And I know that that sounds simplistic and it probably is not persuasive, but I'm sorry, I don't know how else to say it. I really don't. And it isn't complicated. It isn't complicated to explain why these things are happening. And here's Henry Waxman -- well, you know, he inherited a horrible economy, hemorrhaging jobs in 2008 -- they started hemorrhaging jobs in this economy after Obama was elected in 2008.
"Go back and look at the monthly unemployment numbers and then take a look at November and December and then Jan-- the bottom fell out, the Wall Street bottom fell out, and it hasn't recovered. But these people had all the answers. Hope and change. Everything was going to be better now. They had miracles waiting to enact. Everything they have done has brought great damage to this economy under the guise of fixing it."
I'm afraid the only way to address this is with a chart.
This image shows private-sector job gains and losses every month since the beginning of 2008 -- a year before President Obama took office. As you might notice, it has a few numbers attached to it.
Let's flesh this out a bit: #1 shows when the Great Recession began; #2 shows the month of the 2008 presidential election; #3 shows Obama's first full month in office; #4 shows when the Recovery Act started spending money; and #5 shows the most recent jobs report data.
For Limbaugh the fact that the bottom fell out before Obama took office, but after Obama's election, is proof that the president is, well, bad or something. But here's the obvious follow-up question: if "everything" Obama did hurt the country, and nothing is "better now," how does Limbaugh explain the overall trajectory of the chart after the president's policies began working?
Leave a Comment:
"...how does Limbaugh explain the overall trajectory of the chart after the president's policies began working?"
Rush doesn't have to "explain", it's not as though the corporate owned lame-stream media is actually going to press for an explanation, and "his followers" aren't going to question a word he says!
How convenient!
Limbaugh is right about two things: 1) his explanation IS simplistic, and 2) it is NOT persuasive.
Should be :
Everything was going to get better .....
Until Republicans in congress thwarted every attempt to improve the economy ...
So we could carry out our prime directive ...
Remove Obama from office
No, no, no, Steve. The graph is misleading because, based on Republican reality that we're all supposed to KNOW and ACCEPT, Obama really (secretly) started controlling things in January of 2008--not 2009. The fact that he was running for office and was beginning to look like the favorite for the Dem nomination at that point, scared the business community into cutting jobs. That Bush guy was just a puppet for Obama at that point.
Therefore, ALL of the job losses from this recession are Obama's fault.
You see how easy this is to explain.
Considering Ann Romney has a pretty cushie life style, she can play the game anyway she wants to with Romney. But really does Ann Romney really think she can turn a stone into a turnip? And fool the people? Ann Romney must be goofy as her husband considering she thinks it was funny on what her husband has done to other people. Especially when some of those things were pretty horrific.
We need to stop obsessing over Limbaugh, he is on his way out. No more publicity of any kind for him from our side, and that includes all the MSNBC shows please. There's plenty of buffoons to make fun of, we don't need him any more.
It WAS Clinton's fault now it IS Obama's fault?
I am not surprised by anything Rush says,like when he claimed there are more trees in America than there were before the "Europeans" got here, however the fact that he is believed by his base of Limbaugh addicts is a little disturbing. Don't get me wrong-I am not so liberal as to care a rats ass about his base and their delusions but-I am concerned by the way that these freaks have managed to join forces with religious nutcases and power mad wealthy pukes. Combined they are proving to be a force to be reckoned with as they get anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-contraception,anti-science,anti-voting rights,anti-government legislation passed at the state level and are intent on destroying Democracy.
When free speech becomes free access for super pacs to buy elections, when gun "rights" extend to the right to kill a skittles packing stranger, when keeping informed and ever vigilant becomes an exercise in mind control and when an entire political party becomes some twilight zone of mass hysteria pumping dolts -well I guess I need to just laugh it off except my dad fought in WWii, Korea and Nam; my brother fought in Nam and died slowly for it sooo I tend to get pissed when I see how much like our old enemies the GOP has become.
This graph needs the numbered explanation points and arrows because some are subject to memory loss, denial and history revision. Facts are facts, but as my friend I dearly love says, I go with my feelings and my own need for a job. She admits a human connection, but her own life rules her feelings.
So the designed agenda of doing nothing and manipulation of emotions to get folks angry at the President for jobs and spending leaves me asking: How does that knowledge that they are doing nothing and using fear and anger to make you afraid and angry make you feel? Angry at the manipulators of at their target? Do people want to know facts?
How do we get this graph with numbered critical notations on more peoples' radar?
On the 4th holiday my circle of friends had a brief discussion about the ACA and the fallout if it were overturned. I know my friend above heard the beginning of that, but then tuned out. She tunes out after hearing the first few bits because she hates conflict. She hears the opposition saying what she calls valid points. I can only guess it is feelings, because she won't say what is valid. We talk and she says, I know you like facts and I go with my feelings.
I think this is a case of "polite conversation" avoids religion and politics. I guess I am impolite to start a deeper subject matter discussion than what others wish to discuss. I don't think that is fair to me because I do not care about fashion or horoscopes, but I listen politely and participate occasionally.
Sandy: Great input. Participate more.
...and that's an order?
Med: A supportive suggestion to step-up from "occasional".
I meant that I participate in the small talk occasionally. This friend may reject or accept more political talk. She has said she feels some distress because it seems like conflict and she feels the need for peace around her or disconnect. She may come around, she voted for Obama but says she can't again. I think the health care issue may affect her outlook, but her parents and g/f will give her Republican input.
I meant participate more in your input to this blog, but maybe you do already and I haven't seen you around. I just think your desire for clarity of fact in it's presentation as substantive v. emotional appeal is positive contribution to this blog and what blogs need. Less emotional name-calling and labeling others negatively and more salient, pertinent fact.
Thank you for that. I appreciate it. I do not enjoy name calling and it seems like wasted energy. I do get frustrated now and then it comes out, but I definitely prefer real conversations
I get the emotion as well, but I agree there needs to be a clear recognition of techniques that will reach through to emotion where fact will not reach.
I use both emotion and facts because personalizing things gets through a barrier when some other fact based scenarios fall on deaf ears. Then when we need a fact(s) there you go, here is what I read.
Where facts may not convince, emotion can persuade. Even in debate forum of fact presentation to support a claim, it is the emotional appeal that must succeed to win.
C'mon, it's not like ol' Fatso would lie or anything, right?
First, I agree that we should ignore Limbaugh. He's not relevant, and he's just babbling to the misdirected and ill-informed and trying to hold on to his job.
Second, one of the most interesting differences I've noticed between reporting on MSNBC, primarily the Maddow show, and pretty much everything I hear from Limbaugh or see on Faux News (which I watch for as long as I can stand it, just to see what the other side is talking about, and how they're spinning it), is that one side uses facts, figures and a calm, unemotional discussion, while the other side pretty much just blabbers, yells, waves their arms a lot and tosses out meaningless buzzwords.
Watch Faux News and see how quickly someone raises their voice, interrupts someone, says some version of "Obama is ruining this country" without any supporting information, or goes off on a wild, unrelated tangent. You won't have to wait very long. Then wait for someone to provide some actual, factual information. Don't hold your breath on that one.
The Rachel Maddow Show is a treasure. Each time I tune in I enjoy a terrific learning experience. There are a few others on MSNBC who take the time and make an effort to "teach" viewers something new about our nation, the world, politics and a variety of other topics. I enjoy learning stuff and knowing things--and apparently so do many others who watch Rachel, Ezra Klein, Steve Kornecki and others. Unfortunately, education isn't so important to millions of others who pray at the alter of the right-wing, anti-American media of Fox, et.al. That's why we who like to be informed and enlightend and who truly want to act in a responsible way as responsible Citizens are at a disadvantage. The radical right-wing acts on impulse, not on information. They want to be spoon-fed psuedo-facts, and are happy to believe every outrageous claim or allegation or insinuation made by the right-wing media. They don't need to hear proof. And they ignore evidence of the right-wing lies and hypocrisy even when they're made to stare it in the face. It appears that today's typical right-wing voter has never heard of videotape, for they never seem to notice that what O'Reilly said today is the exact opposite of what he said a couple of years, or months or days ago. As long as 50% of American citizens remain oblivious to facts, and as long as the right wing politicians and media understand this and continue to take advantage of it, we're doomed.
This graph would be better if it used net of job growth in some form. Small gains are really losses when netted against growth in the labor pool. Limbaugh is wrong, but the record after the first 6 months of 2009 isn't pretty either.
While I've enjoyed following Steve's graph for as long as he's been publishing it, it does have a quality which makes it prone to misinterpretation.
http://phd9.blogspot.com/2012/05/difference-between-jobs-job-losses-and.html