O'Reilly has to stop lieing about poverty

[WilliamTell]

Of course, let's also not forget that France's last request to Mr. Bush was for 1 more month for the inspectors to do their work and try to find the WMD that Mr. Bush insisted were there but the inspectors weren't finding.  Mr. Bush refused.

 

It goes both ways, the US requests France to join and France denies, so why should Bush listen to a country that's not even involved in the conflict?

[KipWellsFan]

It goes both ways, the US requests France to join and France denies, so why should Bush listen to a country that's not even involved in the conflict?

 

Huh?

[WilliamTell]

Huh?

 

Why should France have any say in the matter if they're not part of the conflict?

[KipWellsFan]

Why should France have any say in the matter if they're not part of the conflict?

 

What are we talking about here, didn't they ask for more inspector time before the conflict?

[WilliamTell]

Fact is France never would have gone in there.  When I brought up Russia and China earlier I meant why aren't you boycotting them because they are responsible for some messed up s*** as well.  What makes France more worth boycotting when Russia is anti-democratic and China is a human rights abuser and also anti-democratic.  Priorities seem all out of whack.

 

My priorites are not out of whack that's an opinion which I think the same of yours while I'm sure you don't think they are so let's cut that out. And I try my very best to only buy American products. It's hard since China has a lot of products here. And I do have 1 hat made from Russia.

[WilliamTell]

What are we talking about here, didn't they ask for more inspector time before the conflict?

 

The way Balta said it was it sounded like this was just recently so that's where I was going.

[KipWellsFan]

Okay back to the topic at hand, do you hate Bill O'Reilly's penchant for lying?

[WilliamTell]

Okay back to the topic at hand, do you hate Bill O'Reilly's penchant for lying?

 

If you show me more proof maybe. I know he goes overboard and stretches the truth, so I guess I'll say I don't hate it but don't like it.

[Balta1701]

If you show me more proof maybe. I know he goes overboard and stretches the truth, so I guess I'll say I don't hate it but don't like it.

Here's about 1/2 of a day's worth.

 

By the way, he also wished that Hurricane Katrina would have flooded the UN Building a few days ago.

O'Reilly used misleading statistics, fiscal falsehoods to defend Bush economic record

 

 

On the September 19 editions of both Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor and Westwood One's The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly offered misleading statistics and false assertions in response to former President Bill Clinton's recent criticism of the Bush administration's economic record. The following day, however, O'Reilly informed Radio Factor listeners that he had taken "Bill Clinton apart" the previous day. " just demonstrated with facts that what he was saying was just not true," O'Reilly stated. "It was simply not true." The following are five unfounded claims advanced by O'Reilly in defense of President Bush's fiscal policies.

 

O'Reilly again compared poverty rates at the midpoints of Clinton and Bush presidencies

 

During The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly aired a clip of Clinton's interview on the September 18 edition of ABC's This Week, in which Clinton argued that Republicans are not committed to reducing poverty. O'Reilly then informed his audience that the poverty rate in 1996 was higher than the poverty rate in 2004. While this assertion on its face is accurate, his comparison obscured the more relevant fact that the poverty rate declined every year of the Clinton presidency and has increased every year under the Bush presidency. During Clinton's tenure, the poverty rate fell from 15.1 percent in 1993 to a low of 11.3 percent in 2000; it has risen every year that Bush has been in office, from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.7 percent in 2004. Media Matters for America has previously documented (here and here) O'Reilly's use of this misleading comparison.

 

O'Reilly claimed that the tax rate under Clinton climbed higher than at any point since World War II

 

In a further attempt to bolster his case that the Clinton administration -- not the Bush White House -- has had a more detrimental effect on the economic well-being of Americans, O'Reilly claimed, "Under President Clinton, the tax rate climbed higher than at any time in history except in World War II." O'Reilly was apparently referring to the effects of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA), approved by Clinton early in his first term, which raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans. In 1992, the income tax rate for a married couple making more than $86,500 was 31 percent, which represented the highest tax rate at the time. The following year, however, OBRA instituted two new, upper-income tax brackets: a rate of 36 percent applied to couples making between $140,000 and $250,000 annually, and a rate of 39.6 percent applied to couples with an annual income of more than $250,000. But 39.6 percent is far from the highest income tax rate imposed by the federal government after World War II. The following are examples of the rates applied to equivalent income brackets during previous decades:

 

Year

 

 

Income Bracket

 

 

Tax Rate

 

1955

 

 

$44,000-$52,000

 

 

59%

 

1965

 

 

$52,000-$64,000

 

 

53%

 

1975

 

 

$88,000-$100,000

 

 

60%

 

1985

 

 

$169,020 and over

 

 

50%

 

O'Reilly asserted that the federal government will generate more tax revenue in 2005 than at any point in the Clinton presidency

 

After making the above claim about Clinton's tax rate, O'Reilly went on to state: "President Bush then came in and cut taxes for everyone. And guess what? Federal tax revenues will be more this year than at any time during the Clinton administration." In fact, as the table below shows, a historical comparison of total revenue proves that -- when adjusted for inflation -- the federal government generated more revenue during the last year of the Clinton administration than it is estimated to receive in fiscal year 2005:

 

Fiscal year

 

 

Federal tax receipts (millions)

 

 

In constant FY2000 dollars (millions)

 

2000

 

 

$2,025,200

 

 

$2,025,200

 

2005 (estimate)

 

 

$2,142,000

 

 

$1,878,070*

 

* This figure was adjusted for inflation using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator. Input was rounded to six significant digits.

 

O'Reilly claimed that Clinton "raised taxes every year"

 

On The Radio Factor, O'Reilly stated that during the Clinton presidency "taxes rose faster than any other time except World War II. Clinton raised taxes every year." But Clinton signed into law only one federal income tax increase -- OBRA in 1993. O'Reilly was apparently referring to the fact that the average tax burden -- equivalent to total revenue as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) -- increased every year under Clinton and has decreased steadily under Bush. But the average tax rate did not increase as a result of repeated tax increases. Rather, it rose because of the robust economic growth that the country experienced during Clinton's tenure, as an August 2003 Treasury Department fact sheet explained:

 

    Despite the higher tax rates, other economic fundamentals such as low inflation and low interest rates, an improved international picture with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the advent of a qualitatively and quantitatively new information technologies led to a strong economic performance throughout the 1990s. This, in turn, led to an extraordinary increase in the aggregate tax burden, with Federal taxes as a share of GDP reaching a postwar high of 20.8 percent in 2000.

 

O'Reilly stated that the income tax originated in the 20th century due to Karl Marx and "the rise of communism"

 

O'Reilly later informed Radio Factor listeners that the federal income tax did not exist "until the turn of the 20th century" and that Karl Marx and the "rise of communism" were to blame. O'Reilly was likely referring to the ratification in 1913 of the 16th Amendment establishing the constitutionality of an income tax on individuals. But the origin of the federal income tax can be traced back to the Civil War, according to the Internal Revenue Service:

 

    Its roots go back to the Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. The tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year.

 

From the September 19 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

 

    CLINTON [clip]: We concentrated tax cuts on lower-income working people, and benefits to low-income people to help them move from welfare to work. And we moved 100 times as many people out of poverty. We know what works. And we had a program that was drastically reducing poverty. And they got rid of it. So -- and they don't believe in it.

 

    O'REILLY: Believe in what? What is Mr. Clinton talking about? What program did Mr. Bush get rid of? We called Mr. Clinton's office all day, looking for an answer to that very simple question. We didn't get one. Stephanopoulos sat there like a mummy, challenging nothing. The whole thing's absurd. Again, here are the facts. Black homeownership is up 2 percent under President Bush. Poverty spending is significantly higher under Bush than it was under Clinton. Educational spending for poor school districts is higher under Bush. And the poverty rate stood at 13.7 percent halfway through Clinton's tenure. It is 12.7 percent halfway through Bush's two terms.

 

    This tax-cuts-for-the-rich business is also blatantly dishonest. It's a ruse for the secular left to institute their income redistribution scheme. Under President Clinton, the tax rate climbed higher than at any time in history except in World War II. President Bush then came in and cut taxes for everyone. And guess what? Federal tax revenues will be more this year than at any time during the Clinton administration.

 

From the September 19 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

 

    O'REILLY: Now here's the kicker -- you ready for the kicker? This is estimated federal tax receipts 2005, this year, the highest in history. The highest in history. This year, 2005, the federal government will receive more tax dollars than any other time in history. Got it? $2 trillion -- I can't even read the number, it's so high. It's amazing. It is absolutely amazing.

 

    Now, by percentage, it's 19 percent of income for all Americans, 19 percent. That's the average. Under Clinton he got it up to 23 percent. Clinton was -- remember, under Clinton taxes rose faster than any other time except World War II. Clinton raised taxes every single year. But tax receipts under Bush are more than Clinton, more. Why? Because the economy is expanding, and more corporations and individuals pay taxes.

 

    [...]

 

    Remember, if you're a citizen of Great Britain, you are a British subject. You're not a citizen; you're a subject. Here, you're a United States citizen. So the founding fathers clearly didn't want any imposition of religion and they didn't want the government to come to your house and take your stuff and give it to someone else. It was absolutely in stone clear that capitalism was going to rule the day, rule the day. If you made it, you kept it. And remember, there wasn't a federal income tax until the turn of the 20th century. If you made it, you kept it. No government intrusion. [President] Andrew Jackson didn't even want a bank, a central bank.

 

    So, what's happened in the country? Well, what happened was that with the rise of communism in the '20s, Karl Marx and all these people, and the Soviet Union, and a lot of people got onto the socialistic bandwagon, and they're still there. Western Europe is a socialist area now. That's why [German Chancellor Gerhard] Schroeder got booted out [in elections on September 18]. They can't -- they cannot grow the economy with all the pension and entitlements they pay; they can't grow it. Not enough money coming in.

 

From the September 20 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

 

    O'REILLY: We did a segment last night, and I just took Bill Clinton apart -- I hope you saw it on The Factor -- for what he said to George Stephanopoulos about the economy and poor people. And I just demonstrated with facts that what he was saying was just not true. It was simply not true.

[Balta1701]

Why should France have any say in the matter if they're not part of the conflict?

Why should the U.S. have any say in the matter if the U.S. can't prove the reasons its giving to justify the war?

[KipWellsFan]

more of his lying about poverty from before

 

    CALLER: Hi, Bill.

 

    O'REILLY: Larry.

 

    CALLER: Let's see, poverty is up since Bush took office.

 

    O'REILLY: That's not true.

 

    CALLER: It is true.

 

    O'REILLY: I have the stats right here, Larry.

 

    CALLER: I just looked at the figures. Gun crime is up since George Bush took office.

 

    O'REILLY: All right, Larry, hold it, hold it, hold it. Let's deal with one at a time. The only fair comparison is halfway through Clinton's term, halfway through Bush's term, OK? That's the only fair comparison. You gotta go real time.

 

    CALLER: Bill, I --

 

    O'REILLY: Poverty is down, Larry, one full percent in real time from 1996, halfway through Clinton, 2004, halfway through Bush. That is the truth, Larry, and if you're not willing to acknowledge that's the truth, this conversation is over.

 

    CALLER: Bill, I just finished taking a look at the poverty chart. And in Bill Clinton's years, every year poverty fell. So far in George Bush, every year he has gone up. Those are the facts.

 

    O'REILLY: The facts are halfway through. The poverty under Bush is down 1 percent. That's the fact and the only accurate measuring stick. You wanna know why, Larry? Because of 9-11, that's why. That's the only accurate measuring stick. When Clinton took office, he was coming off a Bush the Elder recession. So he came into a situation that he turned around, and things got better poverty-wise, but it took him time. It took him time. So, halfway through his eight years, he was at -- what's the numbers? -- 13.7, OK, 13.7. Bush comes in, he gets hit on 9-11, which wipes out, wobbles the economy. All right? Halfway through, he's at 12.7. Larry, you can use statistics to do and prove anything. You've gotta get a fair measure. We gave you the fairest measure -- halfway through both terms, both men had to deal with circumstances. Clinton, a Bush the Elder recession; Bush, 9-11 attack.

 

But I think we can safely establish some rules for the road here. An extremist is someone who rejects facts and holds on to opinions no matter what.

 

Bill that would make you an extremist, and that's a memo.

 

if you're listening to that kind [Air America] of nonsense for anything other than just entertainment value -- but if you're believing what they say, you're an extremist.

 

 

http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.ht...%20O'Reilly

 

So much fun with Bill

Edited September 22, 2005 by KipWellsFan

[WilliamTell]

OK I'll read them.

[KipWellsFan]

O'REILLY: We did a segment last night, and I just took Bill Clinton apart -- I hope you saw it on The Factor -- for what he said to George Stephanopoulos about the economy and poor people. And I just demonstrated with facts that what he was saying was just not true. It was simply not true.

 

:headshake

 

How can he live with himself? The money has gone to his head.

Edited September 22, 2005 by KipWellsFan

[Balance]

If you show me more proof maybe. I know he goes overboard and stretches the truth, so I guess I'll say I don't hate it but don't like it.

I know how much you Republicans love Al Franken, but if you're looking for countless examples of Bill O'Liely -- excuse me, O'Reilly lying, read Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Every O'Reilly lie Franken points out is dutifully researched and cited in the book. Quite an entertaining read.

[Balta1701]

A few more fun ones from today...

 

On both the September 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor and that day's broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Bill O'Reilly offered misleading data to praise the post-war rehabilitation of the Iraqi oil industry. Calling Iraqi oil exports "one success story in Iraq that hasn't been told" O'Reilly stated that Iraqi oil production was at "98 percent of capacity." But his assertion that Iraq is pumping close to capacity ignores the larger issue that the capacity level -- the total volume the nation is capable of producing -- has decreased from pre-war levels, a decline that has steepened in the first six months of 2005.

 

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) -- a statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy -- Iraq's maximum capacity is currently 1.9 million barrels per day. Current production is meeting this capacity, averaging about 1.9 million barrels per day from January to June 2005. What O'Reilly neglected to mention is that Iraq's pre-war capacity was much higher: Iraq's oil production reached its historic high of 3.7 million barrels per day in 1979 and averaged 2.52 million barrels a day in January and February of 2003. Although current Iraqi oil production is near capacity, it is far from achieving pre-invasion levels, much less meeting Vice President Dick Cheney's April 9, 2003, boast that production might reach 3 million barrels a day by the end of that year. An EIA analysis of Iraq's energy outlook stated: "Most analysts believe that there will be no major additions to Iraqi production capacity for 2-3 years."

 

In addition, Iraqi oil production has actually declined since 2004. In April and September of 2004, production reached a post-invasion high of 2.3 million barrels a day. No month in 2005 has surpassed 1.9 million barrels a day.

 

From a September 21 interview with businessman Donald Trump on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

 

    TRUMP: Let me tell you something: If it all fell apart, we wouldn't be charged any more, believe me. If that whole mess fell apart, we wouldn't be charged more. And what about Iraq? What's happening with the Iraqi oil? We're spending $400 billion --

 

    O'REILLY: It's now up to about 98 percent of capacity. That's one success story in Iraq that hasn't been told; they are pumping the oil out.

 

From the September 21 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

 

    O'REILLY: Well, it's not a bad question. He's tried to explain it, but has not really sold it, so that people like you understand it. But it's 68 percent of the country that doesn't understand if you pull out of that place, another terrorist state arises from the ashes then allies themself with Iran and Syria, and you've got a catastrophe. Right now we've got a -- basically it's a standoff, with the United States and Iraq making progress. For example, the Iraqi oil now is being pumped out about 100 percent of what it was before with the war. That's a huge, huge factor in that country, because revenue comes in.

 

On his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly falsely asserted that "the Republicans don't have control of the judicial branch." In fact, Republican appointees to the federal judiciary outnumber judges appointed by Democratic presidents: Republican presidents have appointed a majority of the currently active federal judges, including six of the eight current Supreme Court justices and majorities on 10 of the 13 federal courts of appeals. According to a database maintained by the progressive, nonprofit Alliance for Justice, Republican appointees occupy 99 of the 167 currently filled appellate judgeships (59 percent). They also occupy 449 of the 815 currently filled circuit and district court seats (55 percent).

 

On his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) "doesn't have any power anymore." Attacking Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, O'Reilly said that Dean has "no GOP equivalent." He then continued, "I guess Tom DeLay might be the closest, but he doesn't have any power anymore."

 

From the September 20 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

 

    O'REILLY: Now, I don't have anything personally against Bill Clinton. I thought he did a pretty decent job managing the economy. I thought he was a disaster in foreign policy, and I think that a lot of his soft terrorism programs led to 9-11. I do believe that in my heart. But in managing the economy, he did a pretty damned good job. See, I'm not a Clinton-hater at all.

 

    But the mail that I get -- anti-Clinton -- is just as vicious as the anti-Bush stuff that I hear. It just -- look, most of these people who have this kind of emotion invested in their political points of view have some kind of emotional damage. There's a reason why they hate Bush with a passion. I mean, Bush is a nice guy. Clinton's a nice guy. I mean, you talk to them one-on-one, they're not bad guys. So why do you hate them personally? Why? That's on you.

 

    So people are bringing their neurosis to the table. Whether they're insecure about their intellect, you know, I don't really have time to delve into it. Once I see a Howard Dean -- and there is no GOP equivalent of Howard Dean. I guess Tom DeLay might be the closest, but he doesn't have any power anymore. Once I see Howard Dean out there viciously attacking people personally, I just say this guy doesn't deserve to be where he is, and he's shaming the Democratic Party.

[WilliamTell]

I know how much you Republicans love Al Franken, but if you're looking for countless examples of Bill O'Liely -- excuse me, O'Reilly lying, read Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.  Every O'Reilly lie Franken points out is dutifully researched and cited in the book.  Quite an entertaining read.

 

I'm a Republican and I don't mind reading Al Franken, in fact I have a book of him.

[KipWellsFan]

I heard about that on Lionel last night.

 

This dude is a broken record.

 

Ugh and again last night he said anyone who slanders isn't allowed on the O'Reilly Factor?!?! And then had an e-mail from some whacko saying that she agreed with Glick that Bush orchestrated 9/11. For f*** sakes Glick never said Bush orchestrated 9/11. Why do lies and hate top the ratings!?!?!!? f***!

[Rex Kickass]

Why do lies and hate top the ratings!?!?!!? f***!

 

Truth and love is so last Thursday.