Streams

Financial Fact-Checking

Monday, March 02, 2009

Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact, fact-checks some of the debate on the economy.

Guests:

Bill Adair

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.

Comments [15]

Joon from nyc

You are doing a great job with that promise keeper page!!!!!!!

Mar. 02 2009 12:09 PM
Amy from Manhattan

McCain didn't "promise" to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years; in response to a questioner at a town hall-type campaign event who was concerned that he'd heard someone say troops might be there for 50 (I think--I'm less sure of the question than of the answer) years, McCain said, "Why not? Why not a hundred?" Still not very in touch w/what people wanted to hear, though.

Mar. 02 2009 11:45 AM
Chicago Listener

Lance from Manhattan [9], some investment funds are waiving minimums and maintenance fees if you set up monthly deposits, in one case, just a hundred bucks a month.

[[I wish I had cashed out of the market 18 months ago.]]

i think in 18 months a lot of people will be saying "i wish i had bought in at 7,000."

Mar. 02 2009 11:42 AM
josh from brooklyn

re: bobby jindal, the "katrina" governor is belittling national emergency disaster spending? dumb-o-meter = high

Mar. 02 2009 11:28 AM
RJ from brooklyn

One thing I'd love for Bill Adair to comment on:

The use of the term "historical" or "greatest in history"--whether "increases" "changes" etc. Each time someone announces and expenditure they use these terms, most often without any context. Are they the greatest as comparison of overall budget? of the economy as a whole? compared to the world's economy overall?

This applies to any use of these terms in monetary discussions (and many others as well). The "highest" Dow--what does that mean in terms of genuine history-related trade measures? These terms are great for headlines, for of-the-moment-urgency-sounding events, but doesn't give the community a real understanding of what has occurred.

Mar. 02 2009 11:28 AM
Leo from Queens

Jindal doesn't 'go a little bit too far' as your guest claims. He totally derails by lying. He is claiming there is a pork project in the bill to build a line between Las Vegas and Disneyland. This money was a general pool of money for rapid rail project - and MOST of it is going for the California line and for the Northeast and the Chicago corridor - Which are needed as we modernize our economy. Jindal was lying!

Mar. 02 2009 11:28 AM
Lance from Manhattan

Chicago listener[1], yeah, it would be great to be able to buy now at these lower prices. But who has the extra cash lying around?
I wish I had cashed out of the market 18 months ago....

Mar. 02 2009 11:21 AM
ericf

If Treasury's plans involve buying a lot stock could low stock prices be helpful?

Mar. 02 2009 11:16 AM
SuzanneNYC from Upper West Side

Hey Brian! We're surprised at Obama's change agenda? Who is WE, kimosabe? It seems to me it's THEY -- the main stream media and talk show gasbags. And, of course, Republicans. The rest of us are overjoyed that finally someone is doing something real.

Mar. 02 2009 11:15 AM
Lance from Manhattan

Brian keeps referring to the Obama promise that tax cuts will be coming for those earning under $250,000.
Actually, that's HOUSEHOLDS earning $250,000, not individuals.

Mar. 02 2009 11:15 AM
Tamar from Cape Cod

Obama used a stat in his faux state-of-the-union that I've been curious about. He said health care costs led to one bankruptcy every 30 seconds. Can that possibly be true?
Thanks!

Mar. 02 2009 11:11 AM
superf88

Rush and his followers are attempting to criticize Obama's economic policies by calling him a "socialist."

Aren't socialists -- China -- our creditors? The winners?

Mar. 02 2009 11:08 AM
Not so rich from Chappaqua

I just wanted to add that we work twelve to sixteen hour days and that I have a second job. Counting proprty taxes, we pay about 45%of our net income in taxes. When Obama calls me "rich," I get a migraine.

Mar. 02 2009 11:06 AM
Not so rich from Chappaqua

I would appreciate a fact check regarding where most people with family net incomes of $250,000 to $400,000 live, and the cost-of-living in those areas. I think that the heaviest burden of the proposed tax increases will fall, not on the rich, but on urban professionals in areas where, like NYC, the cost-of-living far exceeds the national average.

For example, the cost-of-living in NY is 2.5 times that average, so that a family making $250,000 in NYC would have the spending power of an average family earning $100,000. Why should we be labeled "rich" and, due to the inequities resulting from the higher cost of lviing, be forced to pay higher taxes than everyone else?

Mar. 02 2009 11:04 AM
Chicago Listener

While its unsettling that the Dow has dropped below 7,000, losing half its value, shouldn't we be looking at this as a time of opportunity? The value of my 401K is way down, but I have the same number of shares. When the market comes back, so will my value. In the meantime, I feel like I should be buying shares at a bargain. Buy low, sell high, right???

Mar. 02 2009 10:58 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.