About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Noted economist Limbaugh says GDP is "not" growing, declares new GDP figure "phony," a "fake number"

October 29, 2009 12:59 pm ET

From the October 29 edition of Premiere Radio Network's The Rush Limbaugh Show:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by platanoman3029 (October 29, 2009 1:03 pm ET)
      3  
      who is the noted economist?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by all your eyes (October 29, 2009 1:07 pm ET)
      10  
      I listened to this segment during my lunch break. Limbaugh needs to take macroeconomics if he wants to talk about this, because he's wrong on a few counts. GDP does not consist only of consumption, investment, and government spending. Net exports also factor in.

      While increased government spending did have an impact on the GDP number, that is exactly what was intended when the stimulus was passed. The money filters through the economy, and it does boost consumer spending and business investment. We've seen automakers restart plants as a result of the $2 billion cars for clunkers program, for example. Those people then have paychecks to spend. That's how government stimulus works. The initial government spending STIMULATES economic growth in other sectors.

      Of course, Rush's audience isn't exactly full of people who are fluent in basic macroeconomic theory, so he gets away with these blatant misrepresentations of simple facts.

      The most basic fact is that the 3.5% annualized GDP growth is great news for the administration, and for the Democrats in congress who must face voters in a year's time. It represents concrete results in taming the Great Recession. It is proof that the Democrats had the right idea, and to send them packing now, in favor of the do-nothing Hooverites, would be a disaster. And most voters are smart enough to make that connection, no matter how much Rush and his ilk will obfuscate the data.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (October 29, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
        4  
        A recession is most often not a sign of some massive problems with our country's business model (although there are some ways that it could certainly be improved) but is rather a sign that spending and loaning has stopped - both personal spending and business spending and borrowing. In this one, banks scared people, people get scared, and businesses react, then people react, then businesses react, and it snowballs into a recession. With 10% unemployment (versus the 5% we normally have), that still means that 90% of our workers could have kept on spending like normal. But many of them got too scared to spend money.

        The Stimulus package artificially got spending going again, which helps negate those scared people not spending. And once that happens, people and businesses and banks stop being scared. It's a vicious circle.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by oldmaninblackforest (October 29, 2009 4:23 pm ET)
            4
          I certainly hope your right because it's going to cost my grandkids most of their life... 3.5% growth in the GDP isn't much for the 9.8%
          unemployment we still enjoy (and expect to go higher) note the BBC quote later in this thread.

          BTW - I find it interesting that certain portions of the US, like Black Forest CO (Colorado Springs) aren't suffering from 9.8% unemployment... Seems, and I don't know this for sure but the democratic enclaves like Michigan, California, NY and others are suffering the MOST.

          Again I wonder, but don't really know, if the liberal policies of those state and local governments (in bed with the unions) could have contributed. I will note that Colorado a recent "blue" state is beginning to show signs of deterioration after the democratic governor and legislature have taken over. I suspect Colorado will swing back to a "red" state in the next few years or go the way of California...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (October 29, 2009 4:46 pm ET)
            3  
            don't know this for sure but the democratic enclaves like Michigan, California, NY and others are suffering the MOST.

            Well, in case you missed it, most if not all red states are a net importer of tax revenue. Meaning, they get more in government spending then they pay in taxes. Also, the states with the highest rates of obesity, divorce, and teenage pregnancy are red states.

            So, by your thinking, Liberals/Democrats are more fiscally responsible, healthier eaters, more faithful to their spouses, and have the good sense to use birth control methods.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (October 29, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
            3  
            You are aware that Obama is not the cause of either the recession or the unemployment situation. For you to blame him or the democrats completely negates the last eight disastrous years.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by The New Pilgrims (October 29, 2009 1:35 pm ET)
      4  
      Noted economist Limbaugh says GDP is "not" growing, declares new GDP figure "phony," a "fake number"

      The good news is, Rush is growing.

      And whenever he takes those exotic island sex trips, Lil Rush is growing also.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by blueline99 (October 29, 2009 1:43 pm ET)
      5  
      Rush wants President Obama and Americans to fail... he truly is vanity...

      He believes satirical articles from a noted satirical website and even when told that it's fake, he knows it's true!

      But when the Commerce Dept says that the economy grew 3.5%, he doesn't believe it... he says it's phony.

      At what point do you lose all credibility with your fans?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (October 29, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
        3  
        Facts? Limpballs don't need no steenkin' facts!!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by oldmaninblackforest (October 29, 2009 4:13 pm ET)
          5
        Wrong Rush wants NObama and his policies to fail so America can succeed.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (October 29, 2009 5:06 pm ET)
          2  
          No, Rush wants Mr. Obama to fail because he's afraid of losing his money machine if he succeeds. He cares NOTHING about this country, he cares ONLY for Rush Limbaugh.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mjh (October 29, 2009 6:19 pm ET)
            1  
            That, plus he STILL just can't believe "that little boy, that man-child" is actually the President . . .

            Report Abuse
    • Author by marco21 (October 29, 2009 1:44 pm ET)
      3  
      Too funny. Dour economic figures he believes in and embraces. Positive News = fakery.

      This guy is responsible for the party of Lincoln becoming the party Palin. Hope you're proud of your hero, GOPers.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wzwriter (October 29, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
      4  
      Noted economist Limbaugh says GDP is "not" growing, declares new GDP figure "phony," a "fake number"

      The biggest "fake number" of all is the 20 million liateners Rush claims for his radio pukefest.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by oldmaninblackforest (October 29, 2009 4:12 pm ET)
          4
        BBC Quote:

        'Distorted by stimulus'

        "It's good to have the economy growing again," said Brian Bethune, economist at IHS Global Insight.

        Comparison GDP figures

        "But we don't think that rate of growth is sustainable because it is distorted by all the government stimulus.

        "The challenge here is to get organic growth - growth that isn't helped by fiscal steroids."

        Analysts cautious about the slow nature of the US economic recovery point to the fact that the unemployment rate currently stands at 9.8%, and that the labour market traditionally lags behind any wider economic recovery.

        They also highlight the fact that the big car firms have already reported a sharp fall in September sales following the conclusion of the popular $3bn cash for clunkers scheme at the end of August.

        "You can say that the recession is over, but it sure won't feel like that," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Centre for Economic Policy Research.

        "There is a lot of downward momentum that isn't going to go."

        Report Abuse
        • Author by eweston8542983 (October 29, 2009 7:01 pm ET)
          2  
          Perhaps mitigated by stimulus might be better. As you say sorta, an economy that can continue to grow would be good. So what is corporate american doing to make this a viable economic future? You'd think a more fully employed american population would be something they'd be working hard for. Last heard the remaining oil companie's major expense was buying back their own stock. I don't understand how policies such as that will create any descernable increase in job numbers.

          Limbic really needs to see America suffer. In small part because he can't own part of a sports team. In large because we've rejected him at the poles to often in the last few years. We need to suffer till he's surfeited with our pain and, he feels ready to accept America's Rightful Ruler for Life.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by mikelartist (October 29, 2009 2:00 pm ET)
      4  
      He is still under the impression that no one can record and replay his idiotic blustering, archive it and dump it back over his liver-spotted head when he contradicts himself.

      This may actually be true for most of his regular listeners. In one jughead ear and out the other without slowing down.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by goshzilla (October 29, 2009 2:18 pm ET)
      2  
      Meanwhile at the doctor's office: "Rush you need to loose some weight, you gained 15 pounds in two weeks,"
      Report Abuse
      • Author by oldmaninblackforest (October 29, 2009 4:11 pm ET)
          4
        Actually MM persist in using a VERY old photo of Rush. Guess it goes to show how we spin stuff.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (October 29, 2009 5:07 pm ET)
          2  
          It doesn't matter if it is an old photo . . . Rush's weight has fluctuated up and down for years. Give him a few months . . . he'll be back to the look in this picture.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by blindmoose (October 29, 2009 2:37 pm ET)
      1  
      Phew. This is good news. I was waiting to hear Rush's take on this.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mistersnrub (October 29, 2009 2:40 pm ET)
      1  
      Why does Rush want America to fail?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by scubcap647 (October 29, 2009 3:54 pm ET)
        2  
        So he can convince people to go back to Reganomics. You know. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And he stands to gain behind his $400 million dollar contract.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by oldmaninblackforest (October 29, 2009 4:09 pm ET)
            4
          You must be one of the poor, jealous of hiw $400million dollar contract... pathetic... I don't know of any poor person employing ANYONE... I've certainly never worked for a poor person...You?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (October 29, 2009 4:18 pm ET)
            3  
            I've certainly never worked for a poor person

            I was once an employer of 4 people, and though I wasn't poor, I certainly wasn't making anthing close to $100,000 a year. And do you know why that was? Because I actually paid my employees well. How's that for a concept?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (October 29, 2009 5:09 pm ET)
            2  
            You do know that, under Reagan, the upper tier tax bracket was actually about 9.4% HIGHER than Obama's proposal, right? Obama is simply wanting to take the upper tier back to what it was before Bush and his rubber stamp Congress cut the taxes and decided to prosecute two very expensive military operations with no funding.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by oldmaninblackforest (October 29, 2009 4:10 pm ET)
          4
        Rush wants NObama and his policies to fail so America can succeed
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (October 29, 2009 5:11 pm ET)
          2  
          Nope . . . as I explained above. Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail so that HE can continue to succeed. Rush Limbaugh cares NOTHING about this country. Like all narcissists, Limbaugh cares ONLY about himself. Nothing else.

          Rush Limbaugh is a radio DJ with a big mouth who says the things that you want to hear. He's laughing at you.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by ScienceBuff (October 29, 2009 3:57 pm ET)
      2  
      It's funny that conservatives who claimed that the anemic levels of GDP growth during WPE Bush's terms represented a booming economy. Now we see numbers that put most of those years to shame, derived using the exact same methods, and all they can do is make vague suggestions that they're contrived.

      Your desperation is showing.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by oldmaninblackforest (October 29, 2009 4:06 pm ET)
          4
        No desperation here, employ the 9.8% of the population that ARE desperate and we'll talk. The bush economy grew WITHOUT throwing 800Billion at it... Yup money you grand kids will pay back...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (October 29, 2009 4:21 pm ET)
          3  
          The bush economy grew WITHOUT throwing 800Billion at it.

          Uh, no, the Bush economy grew on the house of cards built on credit and then the bill came due when Wall Street collapsed. Obama avoided a full-blown depression. I know this only happened several months ago, but you really must pay better attention.

          And for the record, the Bush economy resulted in negative net job growth, the first time that's EVER happened in the history of the US of A.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by ScienceBuff (October 29, 2009 4:21 pm ET)
          1  
          It was the WPE Bush economy that was plunging into recession and would have been much worse without the stimulus funds. A deeper recession or even depression would have created greater deficits along with a panoply of other economic woes. The quicker turnaround that the stimulus helped provide will put us into healthier growth patterns earlier which help reduce governmental deficits.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (October 29, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
          2  
          Really? It "grew"????? What dimension are you living in?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mjh (October 29, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
          1  
          "The bush economy grew WITHOUT throwing 800Billion at it... Yup money you grand kids will pay back..." -- blackforestcake



          The Halliburton economy also grew WITH Bush throwing two wars costing $12 BILLION/month at it . . . Yup, that's also money your grandkids will pay back . . .

          Report Abuse
        • Author by mjh (October 29, 2009 6:37 pm ET)
          1  
          Yeah, the Bush economy grew, all right . . . it grew so much the stock market suffered its BIGGEST EVER one day drop [777 points] in Sep. 2008 -- followed by the LARGEST {up to that time} gov't bailout of Wall St. . .

          Swing and a miss . . .
          Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (October 29, 2009 6:44 pm ET)
        2  
        "It's funny that conservatives who claimed that the anemic levels of GDP growth during WPE Bush's terms represented a booming economy." -- ScienceBuff



        It sure is. I remember Kneel Craputo used to practically have an on-air orgasm whenever the Dow poked over 9000 in the last days of the Bush administration . . .

        Report Abuse
    • Author by oldmaninblackforest (October 29, 2009 4:03 pm ET)
        4
      A paragraph lifted out of the BBC:
      "'Distorted by stimulus'

      "It's good to have the economy growing again," said Brian Bethune, economist at IHS Global Insight.

      Comparison GDP figures

      "But we don't think that rate of growth is sustainable because it is distorted by all the government stimulus.

      "The challenge here is to get organic growth - growth that isn't helped by fiscal steroids."

      Analysts cautious about the slow nature of the US economic recovery point to the fact that the unemployment rate currently stands at 9.8%, and that the labour market traditionally lags behind any wider economic recovery.

      They also highlight the fact that the big car firms have already reported a sharp fall in September sales following the conclusion of the popular $3bn cash for clunkers scheme at the end of August.

      "You can say that the recession is over, but it sure won't feel like that," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Centre for Economic Policy Research.

      "There is a lot of downward momentum that isn't going to go."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Alone in Texas (October 29, 2009 4:33 pm ET)
      1  
      Economist, climatologist, sociologist, mind reader, doctor…… - a renaissance man. I wish that I knew as much as Rush, and without ever studying any of these subjects. One thing does not make sense though; if higher education equals liberalism, does not all this learning and free thinking make him a liberal??????
      Report Abuse