Example of benefit of listening to Rush Limbaugh

[BDKJMU]

A nice tribute. I wonder if the post-Trump JSO will agree?

I think I still think the basic point if valid. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh you will hear things that can be validated by other sources. However, I have noted post Trump that he does make a lot of false statements. Like one I remember is one time there was a 2-point-something quarterly GDP growth estimate after Trump took office and Rush said that there hadn't ever been a quarter with over 2% growth during Obama. As soon as I heard him say it I knew it was false because I had been into the economic data stuff we talk about all the time. I knew that there was one Obama quarter with >5% and several others with >4% growth. I can't quickly find raw quarterly GDP growth figures again now but you can look at real GDP at https://www.statista.com/statistics/188 ... in-the-us/ and see that there were four Obama quarters with higher growth by that measure than anything so far during Trump. Anyway when I heard Rush say that I knew he was totally full of shit.

Another thing that happened is that the Trump thing caused me to start watching Fox News less while watching MSNBC and CNN more as well as listening to NPR. That made me realize that Rush was frequently mischaracterizing what media sources are saying. I'd say the most common manifestation of that is that he's claim the media were not reporting something when I'd heard it not only reported but emphasized. I also realized he was taking little snips out of context in order to misrepresent what people in the media said.

I think my position now is that, yes, you can hear some stuff on Rush Limbaugh that is true. But you should make sure to try to verify it with other sources before you believe it. And he does say an awful lot that is false and/or misleading.

How convenient of you to use a chart that didn't include Obama's 1st 2 years.

[JohnStOnge]

I think I still think the basic point if valid. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh you will hear things that can be validated by other sources. However, I have noted post Trump that he does make a lot of false statements. Like one I remember is one time there was a 2-point-something quarterly GDP growth estimate after Trump took office and Rush said that there hadn't ever been a quarter with over 2% growth during Obama. As soon as I heard him say it I knew it was false because I had been into the economic data stuff we talk about all the time. I knew that there was one Obama quarter with >5% and several others with >4% growth. I can't quickly find raw quarterly GDP growth figures again now but you can look at real GDP at https://www.statista.com/statistics/188 ... in-the-us/ and see that there were four Obama quarters with higher growth by that measure than anything so far during Trump. Anyway when I heard Rush say that I knew he was totally full of shit.

Another thing that happened is that the Trump thing caused me to start watching Fox News less while watching MSNBC and CNN more as well as listening to NPR. That made me realize that Rush was frequently mischaracterizing what media sources are saying. I'd say the most common manifestation of that is that he's claim the media were not reporting something when I'd heard it not only reported but emphasized. I also realized he was taking little snips out of context in order to misrepresent what people in the media said.

I think my position now is that, yes, you can hear some stuff on Rush Limbaugh that is true. But you should make sure to try to verify it with other sources before you believe it. And he does say an awful lot that is false and/or misleading.

How convenient of you to use a chart that didn't include Obama's 1st 2 years.

I was just looking for a chart showing that Limbaugh was wrong in saying that there was never a +2% quarter during Obama and that, actually, Obama had several quarters above 4% including one above 5%. The point is that Limbaugh makes false statements. Also, he makes them very confidently so that I can understand why a listener presumes them to be true. Probably happened to me a lot more with him before the Trump phenomenon caused me to start watching/listening to/reading mainstream media sources more and could compare what he says to what is actually being said among those media sources.

I will say that I always did shake my head with respect to him when it comes to science. Like I remember there was a thing way back when when he was saying the Ozone layer thing was a hoax and he'd bring Dixie Lee Ray on to talk about it. So I got some literature and data from NOAA on it came away confident that he and Dixie Lee Ray were full of shit.

[JohnStOnge]

I think I still think the basic point if valid. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh you will hear things that can be validated by other sources. However, I have noted post Trump that he does make a lot of false statements. Like one I remember is one time there was a 2-point-something quarterly GDP growth estimate after Trump took office and Rush said that there hadn't ever been a quarter with over 2% growth during Obama. As soon as I heard him say it I knew it was false because I had been into the economic data stuff we talk about all the time. I knew that there was one Obama quarter with >5% and several others with >4% growth. I can't quickly find raw quarterly GDP growth figures again now but you can look at real GDP at https://www.statista.com/statistics/188 ... in-the-us/ and see that there were four Obama quarters with higher growth by that measure than anything so far during Trump. Anyway when I heard Rush say that I knew he was totally full of shit.

Another thing that happened is that the Trump thing caused me to start watching Fox News less while watching MSNBC and CNN more as well as listening to NPR. That made me realize that Rush was frequently mischaracterizing what media sources are saying. I'd say the most common manifestation of that is that he's claim the media were not reporting something when I'd heard it not only reported but emphasized. I also realized he was taking little snips out of context in order to misrepresent what people in the media said.

I think my position now is that, yes, you can hear some stuff on Rush Limbaugh that is true. But you should make sure to try to verify it with other sources before you believe it. And he does say an awful lot that is false and/or misleading.

How convenient of you to use a chart that didn't include Obama's 1st 2 years.

Besides, what would be the point of showing the first two quarters of the Obama Administration? Everybody knows Obama took over when the worst recession in modern US history was going on. That recession ended in June, 2009. The second quarter of Obama's first term ended on June 30, 2009. So we already know that the first two quarters of the Obama Administration were almost entirely during the recession.

The difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama took over when things were bad. Very bad recession going on. Trump took over with the wind at his back. Things were moving in the right direction. Unemployment had been declining since 2010. The Stock Market had been in a bull market since 2009. Job creation had been humming along at around 200,000 per month on average since 2010 as well.

We were actually in an economic crisis when Obama took office. That was not the case, at all, when Trump took office.

[BDKJMU]

How convenient of you to use a chart that didn't include Obama's 1st 2 years.

Besides, what would be the point of showing the first two quarters of the Obama Administration? Everybody knows Obama took over when the worst recession in modern US history was going on. That recession ended in June, 2009. The second quarter of Obama's first term ended on June 30, 2009. So we already know that the first two quarters of the Obama Administration were almost entirely during the recession.

The difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama took over when things were bad. Very bad recession going on. Trump took over with the wind at his back. Things were moving in the right direction. Unemployment had been declining since 2010. The Stock Market had been in a bull market since 2009. Job creation had been humming along at around 200,000 per month on average since 2010 as well.

We were actually in an economic crisis when Obama took office. That was not the case, at all, when Trump took office.

You didn't show the 1st EIGHT quarters of the Obama admin.

The difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama had QE1, QE2, QE3. Obama had an 800+ billion stimulus package. Obama had NUMEROUS rate decreases. Yet, despite all that, Obama had the WORST post recession recovery ever.

Trump had none of that. Trump had no QE1/2/3. No economic stimulus bill. NUMEROUS rate hikes.

[CID1990]

Boy the internet is a bitch ain't it?

[AZGrizFan]

Besides, what would be the point of showing the first two quarters of the Obama Administration? Everybody knows Obama took over when the worst recession in modern US history was going on. That recession ended in June, 2009. The second quarter of Obama's first term ended on June 30, 2009. So we already know that the first two quarters of the Obama Administration were almost entirely during the recession.

The difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama took over when things were bad. Very bad recession going on. Trump took over with the wind at his back. Things were moving in the right direction. Unemployment had been declining since 2010. The Stock Market had been in a bull market since 2009. Job creation had been humming along at around 200,000 per month on average since 2010 as well.

We were actually in an economic crisis when Obama took office. That was not the case, at all, when Trump took office.

You didn't show the 1st EIGHT quarters of the Obama admin.

The difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama had QE1, QE2, QE3. Obama had an 800+ billion stimulus package. Obama had NUMEROUS rate decreases. Yet, despite all that, Obama had the WORST post recession recovery ever.

Trump had none of that. Trump had no QE1/2/3. No economic stimulus bill. NUMEROUS rate hikes.

You're pissing into the wind, BDK. He's already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt he's an economic imbecile.

[AZGrizFan]

How convenient of you to use a chart that didn't include Obama's 1st 2 years.

Besides, what would be the point of showing the first two quarters of the Obama Administration? Everybody knows Obama took over when the worst recession in modern US history was going on. That recession ended in June, 2009. The second quarter of Obama's first term ended on June 30, 2009. So we already know that the first two quarters of the Obama Administration were almost entirely during the recession.

The difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama took over when things were bad. Very bad recession going on. Trump took over with the wind at his back. Things were moving in the right direction. Unemployment had been declining since 2010. The Stock Market had been in a bull market since 2009. Job creation had been humming along at around 200,000 per month on average since 2010 as well.

We were actually in an economic crisis when Obama took office. That was not the case, at all, when Trump took office.

[93henfan]

From the Red State Rustler on Facebook...

Readers, some of you found my recent “windmill cancer” joke to be in poor taste. Honestly, I thought it was fairly mild, but I want you to know I’ve heard your criticism and I’m not too proud to admit when I’m wrong. So now I’d like to take a moment to apologize to Rush Limbaugh as he transitions from living being to bloated, rotting corpse.

The truth is, cancer isn’t funny, and lung cancer is a particularly nasty way to go. Although Mr. Limbaugh has made a career of twisting and torturing truth until it weeps and bleeds and pisses all over the floor of the dank basement that is his soul, and then sopping up this wet filth with a brown dishrag and wringing it into the gaping ear holes of his very intelligent, totally unbiased listeners, it’s important to remember that even our worst enemies deserve to be treated with compassion. So while it may be tempting to make flippant jokes about the delicious irony of an obnoxious, abusive, bigoted, detestable windbag getting cancer right down deep in the place where he gives birth to his lies, please, have some respect.

So don’t say things like, “I wish that sentient sack of pig vomit had three lungs so he could get 33 percent more cancer.” Sorry, not funny.

Refrain from comments such as “Why oh why couldn’t he have gotten cancer in a part of his body he doesn’t use, like his heart?” Not cool.

I don’t want to hear stuff like “I wish there were ten stages of cancer and I wish he had stage ten.” Uncalled for.

Under no circumstances should anyone post things like “I wonder if it’s possible to sponsor a community walk in support of lung cancer? I mean literally in support of the actual cancer cells.” That’s over the line, folks.

As we all know, a cancer diagnosis completely absolves a man of a lifetime of viciousness and immorality. So I want to be clear: In no way do I wish I could drop everything and take a job as a gravedigger at the cemetery that will soon hold his decaying remains just so I could have the opportunity to be the man to throw the last shovelful of dirt onto his cold grave and then dance on top of it while taking long swigs from a bottle of Blanton’s and cackling with glee until dawn.

I apologize to anyone I offended.

Actually, if he had a third lung, it would be 50% more cancer, not 33%.

That guy sucks at math.

[Ibanez]

I think I still think the basic point if valid. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh you will hear things that can be validated by other sources. However, I have noted post Trump that he does make a lot of false statements. Like one I remember is one time there was a 2-point-something quarterly GDP growth estimate after Trump took office and Rush said that there hadn't ever been a quarter with over 2% growth during Obama. As soon as I heard him say it I knew it was false because I had been into the economic data stuff we talk about all the time. I knew that there was one Obama quarter with >5% and several others with >4% growth. I can't quickly find raw quarterly GDP growth figures again now but you can look at real GDP at https://www.statista.com/statistics/188 ... in-the-us/ and see that there were four Obama quarters with higher growth by that measure than anything so far during Trump. Anyway when I heard Rush say that I knew he was totally full of shit.

Another thing that happened is that the Trump thing caused me to start watching Fox News less while watching MSNBC and CNN more as well as listening to NPR. That made me realize that Rush was frequently mischaracterizing what media sources are saying. I'd say the most common manifestation of that is that he's claim the media were not reporting something when I'd heard it not only reported but emphasized. I also realized he was taking little snips out of context in order to misrepresent what people in the media said.

I think my position now is that, yes, you can hear some stuff on Rush Limbaugh that is true. But you should make sure to try to verify it with other sources before you believe it. And he does say an awful lot that is false and/or misleading.

How convenient of you to use a chart that didn't include Obama's 1st 2 years.

It’s cherry pickin’ season.

[UNI88]

How convenient of you to use a chart that didn't include Obama's 1st 2 years.

Besides, what would be the point of showing the first two quarters of the Obama Administration? Everybody knows Obama took over when the worst recession in modern US history was going on. That recession ended in June, 2009. The second quarter of Obama's first term ended on June 30, 2009. So we already know that the first two quarters of the Obama Administration were almost entirely during the recession.

The difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama took over when things were bad. Very bad recession going on. Trump took over with the wind at his back. Things were moving in the right direction. Unemployment had been declining since 2010. The Stock Market had been in a bull market since 2009. Job creation had been humming along at around 200,000 per month on average since 2010 as well.

We were actually in an economic crisis when Obama took office. That was not the case, at all, when Trump took office.

The flip side of your logic is that Obama took over when things were at rock bottom and had nowhere to go but up. A blind squirrel could have found that acorn and led the country on an upswing. Trump took over when things were going well and kept them going against the changing economic conditions and the odds.

[AZGrizFan]

Besides, what would be the point of showing the first two quarters of the Obama Administration? Everybody knows Obama took over when the worst recession in modern US history was going on. That recession ended in June, 2009. The second quarter of Obama's first term ended on June 30, 2009. So we already know that the first two quarters of the Obama Administration were almost entirely during the recession.

The difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama took over when things were bad. Very bad recession going on. Trump took over with the wind at his back. Things were moving in the right direction. Unemployment had been declining since 2010. The Stock Market had been in a bull market since 2009. Job creation had been humming along at around 200,000 per month on average since 2010 as well.

We were actually in an economic crisis when Obama took office. That was not the case, at all, when Trump took office.

The flip side of your logic is that Obama took over when things were at rock bottom and had nowhere to go but up. A blind squirrel could have found that acorn and led the country on an upswing. Trump took over when things were going well and kept them going against the changing economic conditions and the odds.

No, no, no. The two administrations are experiencing the exact same conditions. Exactly. No difference. The same. Totally the same.

[kalm]

Besides, what would be the point of showing the first two quarters of the Obama Administration? Everybody knows Obama took over when the worst recession in modern US history was going on. That recession ended in June, 2009. The second quarter of Obama's first term ended on June 30, 2009. So we already know that the first two quarters of the Obama Administration were almost entirely during the recession.

The difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama took over when things were bad. Very bad recession going on. Trump took over with the wind at his back. Things were moving in the right direction. Unemployment had been declining since 2010. The Stock Market had been in a bull market since 2009. Job creation had been humming along at around 200,000 per month on average since 2010 as well.

We were actually in an economic crisis when Obama took office. That was not the case, at all, when Trump took office.

The flip side of your logic is that Obama took over when things were at rock bottom and had nowhere to go but up. A blind squirrel could have found that acorn and led the country on an upswing. Trump took over when things were going well and kept them going against the changing economic conditions and the odds.

Wait...I thought you once said it took years for policy to have an effect?

Obama’s success was clearly the result of GWB policies put into place from 2000-2004. Trump is now riding the coattails of Obama’s 1st term economics.

Or something like that?

[UNI88]

The flip side of your logic is that Obama took over when things were at rock bottom and had nowhere to go but up. A blind squirrel could have found that acorn and led the country on an upswing. Trump took over when things were going well and kept them going against the changing economic conditions and the odds.

Wait...I thought you once said it took years for policy to have an effect?

Obama’s success was clearly the result of GWB policies put into place from 2000-2004. Trump is now riding the coattails of Obama’s 1st term economics.

Or something like that?

I did say that. I made that argument in support of many of Reagan's tax cuts and the positive impact they had on innovation and the economy which led to much of the success we experienced under Clinton. Clinton's policies did help contribute to that success as well. If only we could return to the halcyon days when deficits mattered.

And thank you for pointing out the flaw in my argument while completely overlooking the flaw in JSO's argument that I was pointing out. Would you please tell him that he owes me an apology?

[AZGrizFan]

The flip side of your logic is that Obama took over when things were at rock bottom and had nowhere to go but up. A blind squirrel could have found that acorn and led the country on an upswing. Trump took over when things were going well and kept them going against the changing economic conditions and the odds.

Wait...I thought you once said it took years for policy to have an effect?

Obama’s success was clearly the result of GWB policies put into place from 2000-2004. Trump is now riding the coattails of Obama’s 1st term economics.

Or something like that?

I would agree that MOST policy decisions take years to have a material effect. Some, however, do not. QE, for example, has a very quick effect. Tax cuts, regulatory relief, etc. have a much quicker impact than some other policy decisions or program implementations. Fed rate moves have a slower impact (which is why they try to "predict" economic movement and force a "soft landing").

Hell, the market was so certain a Trump victory was going to be good for business that it exploded literally overnight upon his election. Didn't even wait until he was sworn in.

[kalm]

Wait...I thought you once said it took years for policy to have an effect?

Obama’s success was clearly the result of GWB policies put into place from 2000-2004. Trump is now riding the coattails of Obama’s 1st term economics.

Or something like that?

I did say that. I made that argument in support of many of Reagan's tax cuts and the positive impact they had on innovation and the economy which led to much of the success we experienced under Clinton. Clinton's policies did help contribute to that success as well. If only we could return to the halcyon days when deficits mattered.

And thank you for pointing out the flaw in my argument while completely overlooking the flaw in JSO's argument that I was pointing out. Would you please tell him that he owes me an apology?

Therefore Carter must have been the 2nd greatest economic president of all time, trailing only GWB!

[UNI88]

I did say that. I made that argument in support of many of Reagan's tax cuts and the positive impact they had on innovation and the economy which led to much of the success we experienced under Clinton. Clinton's policies did help contribute to that success as well. If only we could return to the halcyon days when deficits mattered.

And thank you for pointing out the flaw in my argument while completely overlooking the flaw in JSO's argument that I was pointing out. Would you please tell him that he owes me an apology?

Blah, blah, blah!

Did you say something? I'm still waiting for you to tell JSO that he owes me an apology.

And AZ's right. You should probably spend more time listening to the people that really understand economics rather than someone who read an article and is overly reliant on statistics alone.

[JohnStOnge]

Besides, what would be the point of showing the first two quarters of the Obama Administration? Everybody knows Obama took over when the worst recession in modern US history was going on. That recession ended in June, 2009. The second quarter of Obama's first term ended on June 30, 2009. So we already know that the first two quarters of the Obama Administration were almost entirely during the recession.

The difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama took over when things were bad. Very bad recession going on. Trump took over with the wind at his back. Things were moving in the right direction. Unemployment had been declining since 2010. The Stock Market had been in a bull market since 2009. Job creation had been humming along at around 200,000 per month on average since 2010 as well.

We were actually in an economic crisis when Obama took office. That was not the case, at all, when Trump took office.

You didn't show the 1st EIGHT quarters of the Obama admin.

The difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama had QE1, QE2, QE3. Obama had an 800+ billion stimulus package. Obama had NUMEROUS rate decreases. Yet, despite all that, Obama had the WORST post recession recovery ever.

Trump had none of that. Trump had no QE1/2/3. No economic stimulus bill. NUMEROUS rate hikes.

He's had three rate decreases during 2019 and growth slowed. But that's not really relevant to the point I was making. The point is that Rush Limbaugh matter-of-factly told his listeners (one of which was me driving down the highway) that there was never +2% quarterly GDP growth during the Obama Administration. The statement was false. WAY false.

[kalm]

Blah, blah, blah!

Did you say something? I'm still waiting for you to tell JSO that he owes me an apology.

And AZ's right. You should probably spend more time listening to the people that really understand economics rather than someone who read an article and is overly reliant on statistics alone.

I didn’t feel you needed help pointing out JSO’s flaw and I don’t necessarily disagree with your take (despite easily shooting holes in it). Hope that makes you feel better.

Please point me to someone who really understands economics and supports Trump’s policies. I’m all ears. But keep in mind there’s more to economics than GDP, Wall Street performance, and short term gain.

[UNI88]

Did you say something? I'm still waiting for you to tell JSO that he owes me an apology.

And AZ's right. You should probably spend more time listening to the people that really understand economics rather than someone who read an article and is overly reliant on statistics alone.

I didn’t feel you needed help pointing out JSO’s flaw and I don’t necessarily disagree with your take (despite easily shooting holes in it). Hope that makes you feel better.

Please point me to someone who really understands economics and supports Trump’s policies. I’m all ears. But keep in mind there’s more to economics than GDP, Wall Street performance, and short term gain.

No problem. I'm just having fun with you for telling us we need to apologize to JSO for his myopic use of statistics to show that Trump hasn't accomplished anything.

I have a decent understanding of economics (even though a college minor & valedictorian of my MBA class might not be quite as good as whatever award JSO got for some presentation) and I support some but not all of Trump's policies. Economics is an inexact science and people who understand economics will cover the gamut in regard to supporting Trump's policies. JSO wants to treat economics like it's an exact science and use statistics to show what he wants them to show while ignoring the many variables that impact the economy that don't support his predetermined conclusion.

Yes, there is more to economics than GDP, Wall Street performance and short term gain. Have you read any of my posts about CEO pay and corporate boards?

[Chizzang]

Hey is Rush Limbaugh dead yet..?
Somebody ping me when he drops dead

[kalm]

I didn’t feel you needed help pointing out JSO’s flaw and I don’t necessarily disagree with your take (despite easily shooting holes in it). Hope that makes you feel better.

Please point me to someone who really understands economics and supports Trump’s policies. I’m all ears. But keep in mind there’s more to economics than GDP, Wall Street performance, and short term gain.

No problem. I'm just having fun with you for telling us we need to apologize to JSO for his myopic use of statistics to show that Trump hasn't accomplished anything.

I have a decent understanding of economics (even though a college minor & valedictorian of my MBA class might not be quite as good as whatever award JSO got for some presentation) and I support some but not all of Trump's policies. Economics is an inexact science and people who understand economics will cover the gamut in regard to supporting Trump's policies. JSO wants to treat economics like it's an exact science and use statistics to show what he wants them to show while ignoring the many variables that impact the economy that don't support his predetermined conclusion.

Yes, there is more to economics than GDP, Wall Street performance and short term gain. Have you read any of my posts about CEO pay and corporate boards?

So we’ve been sort of arguing the same point all along?

I have a Rec degree and barely passed the Open to Buy Budget part of my PGA testing.

But I’m still willing to learn!

[Pwns]

In all seriousness though, if this is the worst stuff you can dig up from an infotainer you probably just need to let it go.

The "Barack the Magic Negro" production was hilarious, and he was 100% right about Donovan McNabb being overrated.

[89Hen]

I don't think he should have been given this medal, but Obama set the bar pretty low giving these out like candy.

[Skjellyfetti]

but Obama

[UNI88]

but Obama

Let's focus on what your side is doing now and not talk about anything that my side did in the past.