Fundamentally flawed stimulus coverage
If there's one fact that should be made clear in every news report about the stimulus package working its way through Congress, it is this: Government spending is stimulative.
That's a basic principle of economics, and understanding it is essential to assessing any stimulus package. So it should be an underlying premise of the media's coverage of the stimulus debate. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case. Indeed, reporters routinely suggest that spending is not stimulative.
Economist Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, explains: "Spending that is not stimulus is like cash that is not money. Spending is stimulus, spending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple. ... Any reporter who does not understand this fact has no business reporting on the economy."
Unfortunately, many of the reporters who have shaped the stimulus debate don't seem to understand that.
ABC's Charles Gibson portrayed spending and stimulus as opposing concepts in a question to President Obama: "And as you know, there's a lot of people in the public, a lot of members of Congress who think this is pork-stuffed and that it really doesn't stimulate. A lot of people have said it's a spending bill and not a stimulus."
That formulation -- "it's a spending bill and not a stimulus" -- is complete nonsense; it's like saying, "This is a hot fudge sundae, not a dessert." But nonsensical as it is, it has also been quite common in recent news reports.
There's another problem with Gibson's formulation, though -- in describing the stimulus as a "spending bill," he ignores the fact that the bill contains tax cuts, too. Lots and lots of tax cuts. And those tax cuts, by the way, provide less stimulus than government spending on things like food stamps and extending unemployment benefits. It probably goes without saying that Gibson didn't ask if the bill would be more effective if the tax cuts were replaced by additional spending.
MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski, among others, has repeatedly suggested "welfare" provisions in the bill wouldn't stimulate the economy. This is the exact opposite of true; those provisions are among the most stimulative things the government can possibly do. There are some fairly obvious reasons why that is true, beginning with the fact that if you give a poor person $100 in food stamps, you can be pretty sure they're going to spend all $100 of it; but if you give a rich person $100 in tax cuts, they probably won't spend much of it at all.
But we needn't rely on logic and common sense to know that welfare spending is stimulative; economists study these things. One such economist is Mark Zandi of Moody's Economy.com, who served as an adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign. Zandi has produced a handy chart showing how much a variety of spending increases and tax cuts would stimulate the economy. According to Zandi, a dollar spent on increasing unemployment benefits yields $1.64 in increased gross domestic product, and a dollar spent on food stamps yields $1.73 in GDP.
As for tax cuts, Zandi says the most effective form is a payroll tax holiday. A one dollar reduction in federal revenues as a result of such a tax holiday would produce a $1.29 increase in GDP -- far less than the benefit realized from extending unemployment benefits, increasing food stamps, providing general aid to state governments, or spending on infrastructure.
Yet if you turn on MSNBC any given morning, you're likely to find Mika Brzezinski saying something like, "I want to look at the plan and how much of it is sort of welfare programs and how much are things that we know, either from history or because economic experts somehow know this, actually stimulates the economy." Or like this: "Does this plan add up to the definition of stimulus? I don't think it does. And I don't question the value of food stamps and helping low-income people pay for college. It just shouldn't be in this bill." Or this: "If you're gonna have welfare programs in this bill, call them welfare programs and pass them, but don't call them facets of the bill meant to stimulate the economy. I do feel like there's some old politics at play here."
There's old politics at play, all right -- the old politics of demonizing "welfare spending" without any regard for the simple truth that such spending not only helps those Americans who are struggling the most feed their families, it also does more to stimulate the economy than anything else you can think of.
What you probably won't see is Mika Brzezinski or Charles Gibson or any other TV reporter suggesting that the tax cuts in the bill are not stimulative and should be stripped -- even though they are less effective as stimulus than unemployment benefits and food stamps.
At this point, it becomes impossible to ignore the elephant in the room: Television anchors like Charles Gibson are not going to qualify for food stamps anytime soon. But they would certainly benefit greatly from some tax cut provisions that wouldn't do nearly as much to stimulate the economy.
(This is not the first time Gibson has shown himself to be badly out of touch on basic economic issues. During a Democratic presidential primary debate, Gibson challenged the candidates on their support for repealing President Bush's tax cuts for people making more than $200,000 a year by saying that a family in which both parents are schoolteachers would be hit by the repeal. Gibson's cluelessness was so apparent, the audience actually burst out laughing at him.)
So far, the news media's coverage of the stimulus debate has consisted largely of repeating false Republican spin and pontificating about which side has been making their arguments more successfully (all the while ignoring the media's own role in aiding the GOP.)
The bright side is that if reporters care about informing the public, it's pretty easy to do -- they just have to start basing their reports on the true premise that government spending is effective stimulus, rather than on the false premise that it isn't. Everything else flows easily from there; for example, asking Republicans why they want to lard up the bill with less-stimulative tax cuts rather than unemployment benefits.
Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.
The economy needs money, and the money needs to come from a source. But not even most democrats know what that source is.
Like the huge plasma core in the center of the sun, our economy has an energy reserve of incomprehensible size, in the form of the deep pockets of the super rich. Our economic core has swelled over the past 30 years so that it is now as huge as it was in the '20s. If we just chisel a couple inches into its surface, we will release light and heat sufficient to illuminate the whole country.
We hardly ever try raising taxes on the rich. But every time we do, it works like a magic wand. Even the rich themselves get richer.
i watched nbc news this evening and they were pretty top heavy on the republicans in the senate and them spewing their talking points. and matt lauer had newt gingrich on the today show this morning, unopposed, for several minutes. the excuse used to be that there were more republicans on because they were in power. what's the excuse now.
Republicans still run news corporations.
I don't think it matters who runs them. Most of these guys are doing what they think is in the best interest of the corporation. Everything else becomes secondary.
I don't think it matters who runs them. Most of these guys are doing what they think is in the best interest of the corporation. Everything else becomes secondary.
It's all about money. During Bush's era, they were able to hoard the nation's wealth and resources and now they fear it’s coming to an end.
It's all about money. During Bush's era, they were able to hoard the nation's wealth and resources and now they fear it’s coming to an end.
First thing out of the gate this morning Lester Holt had Joe Scarborough on the Weekend Today show. I love the way Joe has of telling people how it really is because after all "when he was in Congress..." He does have a way of putting out completely slanted information and analysis while telling us he is just a neutral analyst...completely bi-partisan. Would Joe "lie"? Anyway, after he finished putting just his spin on everything happening with the stimulus bill (no suspense here...Obama and the Dems look seriously bad) I realized Lester Holt had no counter interview nor even his own questions about what was said. Joe Scarborough was put out there as the top journalistic source on what was happening. It happens all the time. He's no authority! He's a talk show partisan hack, but by God they pay him so he's going to be their authority.
Don't even get me started on Mika. She's so bad I can't watch at all anymore even when I want to see people like Paul Krugman. I've never seen such an incredible sycophant and such a tiny brain. It's beyond me why people don't flood MSNBC with complaints. The sad part is, if you get up in the morning wanting intelligent news and commentary, there is absolutely NO place to go.
that's the thing. i really have no problem with both sides, in fact i want to hear both sides, because i don't give knee jerk support to anything. but i have seen one sidedness on the today show many times. matt had the traitor karl rove on a couple months ago by himself and matt was just gushing. come back anytime, karl...we don't see enough of you.
If there's one fact that should be made clear in every news report about the stimulus package working its way through Congress, it is this: Government spending is stimulative.
No, but we all know that government spending is bad bad bad ! Ronald Reagan told us that.
Maybe I should start listening to his radio show. Surely he must be better than that one guy in San Francisco...
You're too late, he's dead. And his myth's on life support.
So those are "best of" segments that they air on Air America then? Awww dratphooey...
I guess you're both joking? Ron Reagan has an Air America show; and he's a liberal. He happens to be Ronald Reagan's son. Guess the "morning in America" talking his dad did stimulated Ron to think for himself.
I am a registered nurse. I have complex, chronic medical problems which have landed me in the hospital 26 times since March 2006. In November 2008, I had been hospitalized twice by 11//15/08. Due to my conditions being unstable, I initiated the FMLA so I could get my conditions under control. I have exhausted the 12 weeks of iunpaid leave. My conditons are still unstable plus I am scheduled for orthopedic surgery in a week My company has a policy that if an employee does not return from FMLA leave, the employee is automatically terminated but eligible re-hire if there is a position open (not necessarily the one you had).
So I am, as of this moment, jobless and terminated from my salaried position of 80k as Directror of Nursing. I have not received income from my job since 11/15/08. I have short term disabilty with a 30day elimination period. It pays only 50% of my regular salary. My STD did not kick in till 1/13/09. By then, late fees ate up 15% of the benefit. My medical conditions require specialized equipment and food. I have found it necessary to seek emergency assistance with my utilities and food supply. I applied for food stamps and was approved. I had acut-off notice on utilities costing greater than $600.00. I was able to get assistance to pay the bill 100%. Is this WELFARE? No,it is emergency assistance for a productive individual who is struggling during this economic downturn. I will spend 100% of the food stamps at my local grocer and the state asssistance for the utilities has been spent 100% with the utility company. THIS IS NOT WELFARE BUT SPENDING THAT IS STIMULATIVE!
The stimulus is 58% spending and 42% tax cuts according to news reports. Republicans are rendered virtually meaningless in Washington by the voting public and there are still tax cuts to the tune of 42% of the bill in the plan.
Unbelievable...change we can believe in???
Where is the outrage from the left?
There's plenty of outrage at news organization for parroting discredited GOP talking points.
There's plenty of outrage at news organization for parroting discredited GOP talking points.
except the republicans are not virtually meaningless in the senate, because the democrats don't have a 60 seat majority. so the republicans keep filibustering up and down votes.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, not exactly the most liberal Democrat, spoke out against the bill for being too laden with tax cuts on the Senate floor on Friday. But I had to watch CSPAN to know that.
It looks like they've got the votes to pass the bill. Republican Senators Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter have said they'll support the bill. Good for them.
There are still a few honorable Republicans.
Yeah Worrier,
The Cons want to make as big a stink as possible. That way, if it doesn't bring about a significant recovery--and quickly--they can wag their finger and say, "see, I told you so. It's a failure." Please vote for us!!
When it comes voting time, they'll melt like the conservative poosies they are.
"Good" is relative. One or all of them suggested removing all the funding for food stamps as the way to attract the Republican vote. It must truely make Republican's ill to think of giving food to the poor even if it is the most effective stimulous dollar spent.
I know what you mean. I think the political realities on the ground in Maine and Pennsylvania had more to do with the three Republican votes than anything else. And except for Gregg of NH, who's going to be the Secretary of Commerce, there are no other Republicans from the Northeast in the Senate.
I guess I'm just trying to be generous in my praise of what happens from this point on, forgetting their sins of the past.
Snow, Collins are from where? The House does not have NE Rs but there are a couple in the Senate.
Both Snowe and Collins are both from Maine. They, Gregg from New Hampshire and Specter from Pennsylvania are the only Republicans in the Senate from the Northeast.
You have to go south to North Carolina for the next Republican or west to Ohio.
I mis-interpreted what you wrote above, missed the And in front of Gregg (my bad).
How's the arm doing?
It's coming along great. Still can't do much with it but I am able to type as well as before the injury, which isn't saying much. Thanks for asking Oscar.
When are we as a Nation, going to stop playing the blame game? We seem to place blame on someone else when things go wrong or don’t go our way, even if “We the People” are the root cause of something gone wrong. We want to blame Government, our elected Officials or somebody else for anything amiss. When are “We the People” of this Great Nation, going to take responsibility for our own actions?
Sir Isaac Newton’s third law says, “For every action there is a reaction.” This statement applies to more than mere physics; it also applies to the current economic crisis we face today. Newton, born January 4, 1643, discovered not only a physics law, he also discovered what plaques our Great Nations Governing system today.
John McCain said, “Our economic fundamentals are sound”, and many ridiculed him as the economy slipped further downward. The difference of opinion depends on what the word “fundamentals” really means. Because The People of this Nation have become dependant on blaming someone else for the consequences of their own actions; they have lost sight of the sound fundamentals this Nation is built upon.
We as a Nation are presently concentrating on creating jobs. Just weeks ago were trying to bail out banks, a few weeks before that were trying to save home owners from foreclosure and so forth. The Nation has been trying to fix things in a backwards order. This is where Newton’s third law comes into play and where our Governments intervention adversely affects this law.
Regardless of your party affiliation or political beliefs, We The People over the course of time have elected Officials to run our Government. They have created policies that they felt where in our best interests. This combination of policies or “Actions” implemented over time by our Elected Officials eventually cause a “Reaction”.
The problems we face today are not Bush’s fault, nor are they Clinton’s, Bush 1 or Reagan’s, not even Carter’s. You can’t even blame it on George Washington. The Government, run by Elected Officials Elected by The People, doesn’t understand the economic crisis at hand; as a result the Government took the “Wrong Action” when it took “Action” to save the home owners from foreclosure with out understanding the “Fundamentals” of the economy. It didn’t understand earlier “Actions” from many administrations to help people own homes combined with “Actions” by past and present elected officials to make home ownership available to all, would have the following “Reaction”.
The normal flow of people to buy homes was suddenly increased, creating mass migration toward home ownership. This is equivalent to a media fear that there is going to be a shortage of something and the public rushes out to stock up, thus leaving the store shelves immediately empty. The builders, in order to keep up, ramp up production building new homes. They build so many homes that there is a surplus and start to slow down or stop building all together, waiting for the demand to catch up.
This slow down of building new homes causes people to be laid off. This causes the suppliers to start laying off people, which in turn causes the manufactures to start laying off workers and so on. These lay offs then trigger mortgage foreclosures and the spiral downward begins, only to cause the following “Wrong Action”.
We The People then demanded our Government, run by Elected Officials elected by The People, to take “Action” to prevent mortgage foreclosure. While the Government tries to take “Action” to ward off the foreclosures, the banks get into trouble as a “Reaction” to the original “Action” that started the whole thing.
McCain was right, the fundamentals are sound. We are just suffering “The consequences of the reaction to the wrong action” by Government intervention. We The People should have saved the jobs FIRST, as the jobless can’t make the mortgage payment in order to keep the banks afloat.
"Any reporter who does not understand this fact has no business reporting on the economy."
Unfortunately, many of the reporters who have shaped the stimulus debate don't seem to understand that."
First statement..... absolutely 150% true!.... and then some!
Second statement..... Probably true for some of these so-called journalists.... but I have a feeling that many of these people do actually get it... but they are more interested in keeping their paymasters happy than doing what is right for all of America! Reporting the truth with a sprinkle of facts mixed in!
End post
Now.... thinking aloud here....
I know this is a dangerous thought I'm about to toss out here.... but what if Obama temporarily nationalized the media? Or another way of looking at it.... buy all the parts of what is considered the national media and 'buy' it from the corporations?
Not for more than say.... a week or two.... and not for the government to run it... but to take it out of the hands of the multinationals that get government contracts which in turns forces the media to suck up to the bigger fish...
Very little, if any of the media is independent from profit motives of others... and that would be the entire point of the exercise... removing profit from our news would be the most American thing we can do.... would it not?
The media has nothing to do with profit. A for-profit company wouldn't compete with Fox by blowing off the majority and offering Bush dead-enders a soggy alternative.
(Or maybe it would. Automakers are still advertising nothing but behemoths.)
Obama should attack the media in every speech. They're a greater obstructing threat than the republicans, and they'll bash him dishonestly whether he plays nice with them or not. In fact, the media essentialy IS the republican party. They have nothing else.
It could be fear, though. Change is coming to all forms of media and maybe under the table the Repubs offer the communication companies the sleazy threats or deals to keep a status quo. But you are right in one aspect that nobody understands, why would a news channel or show who wants ratings and profits continue to kowtow to BushieCo politics when the majority rejected it wholeheartedly? Why even give lip service to the chronies of such a abject admin failure?
I think President Obama should change the language he uses when talking about this bill..........Call it a "Jobs Bill" and sock it to the jackasses like John McCain screeching about his freaking tax cuts.
They pretend that they are giving tax cuts to the middle class! What a joke. If you have no job you darn sure are not going to be worried about paying taxes!
It's a JOBS Bill fools and we need it now! Next on the agenda should be a return of manufacturing jobs to the US. If you want to sell it here, it should be made here. Frankly, I am tired of cheap foreign made garbage that either poisons us or falls apart after a few uses.
gov't spending can be stimulative, but it is not always. everytime the gov't spends a dollar it has to take that dollar from someone, either by taxes or borrowing. so when it puts it back in the system, if it does not generate more than a dollar's worth of gdp, the economy suffers.
only three more years and 50 weeks with this bozo pretending he knows what he's doing. we should impeach him now.
Stop with your lies already, in the absence government action, in the climate of conservative intellectual paralysis, the GDP is currently dwindling to nothing. The banks don't have money to lend, so the private sector can't boost the economy. The Fed has reduced interest rates to near zero, so monetary policy falls flat. Tax cuts won't help the 600,000 people who lost their job in January or the 3.6 million who have lost their job since 2007.
Republicans are stupid enough to jump out of a plane without a parachute with their do nothing attitude.
Your tax cuts lost. This last election, the choice was very clear. The choice was between the old conservative ways or the new progressive philosophy. The Progressives won.
It is very simple. We need to get people back to work and government action, not tax cuts, is going to accomplish that.
If only we had done what you're suggesting 8 years ago. We might not be in the mess were in today.
We may have had someone watching the store and done the truly American thing and raised taxes as we pi$$ed away our treasure into the desert wind.
Bless your peace loving soul, worrierking. That murderous, torture sensualist, Cheney would not have been be a good steward of our American values. Here is a man who moved his personal assets to Dubai when he read the tea leaves of our economic future. Here is man who championed spying on you. Here is a man whose White House counsel helped usurp disproportionate power for the Executive branch, thereby eeking a rotten cavity in our Constitutional government of coequal distribution of power.
An incipient dictator, that Cheney.
Cheney would have been an authoritarian nightmare.
Oh man, I forgot what the consequences of impeaching young George would have meant. We'd probably all be hiding out on Tatooine if Dick the Merciless had ascended to the throne.
Here, I bought a drink for you. I'm pretty sure you'll like it...
-- If there's one fact that should be made clear...it is this: Government spending is stimulative. -- Foser
Not so fast Foser...with the simplistic and partisan spin. Your argument only serves to highlight the long debated difference between liberals who advocate bigger government with more spending...and the conservatives who advocate smaller government with less spending...so you can lower the facade of being the only truth teller...not all govt spending is stimulative.
Nor are all tax cuts stimulative.
While I would prefer the empasis to be more focused on immediate tax cuts...I can live with the 60/40 split currently proposed, particularly if the entire stimulus spending proposal was cut in half. But there is absolutely zero chance of that happening as our lame elected representatives rush to throw money around...with very limited debate and study.
We rushed into the last $750B bailout because we were told we had to act immediately and that has turned out poorly. There is no reason to repeat that mistake.
Ridiculous.
Your Republican tax cut fetish has drained government surpluses into unprecedented deficits. You people failed to create broad prosperity. Why you think you should be taken seriously is God's own private mystery.
This bill is targeted to put people to work, get money to the people on Main St who really need help, not Wall St bankers who really need another 24 million dollar bonus.
Your cautious attitude stupid. Every penny will open to public study and debate. The good plans will continue and the bad ones will be discarded.
Now take your, "go to hell, America" Republican attitude and get out of the way of recovery.
And if you wanted more ignorant Republican economics, you should have voted for McCain instead of wasting your sacred right on some smarmy write in vote.
Don't conservatives see the connection between Bush's 1.3 TRILLION dollar tax cut bill ,the 1 TRILLION dollar war spending and the OBVIOUS result on the national debt,the deficit and the collapse of the US ECONOMY.. 800 BILLION for Wall Street and finally a plan to help poor and out of work Americans is just TOOOOOO MUCH!!!!!! What Hypocrisy!!Even the Old John McCain called it irresponsible to cut taxes while at war!!!! I guess Sarah Palin ,Joe the Plumber/Economist,Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich have some better ideas they are working on!!!
You got to the heart of the Republican philosophy; inequality. And you identified the heart and soul of the Republican Party; Limbaugh, Palin and Joe the Plumber.
And they have a year to come up with something.
You're not holding your breath are you? Because the likelihood of that group of inveterate ideologues ever bending to meet the public halfway is pretty slim.
I think Foser should modify the statement to: "Government spending inside of the U.S. is stimulative."
Tax cuts are not stimulative at all when they're targeted to corporations and wealthy people. Giving tax cuts to people who don't need it creates massive deficits.
Using Foser's logic, if $1 in food stamps yields $1.73 in GDP, the best stimulus is food stamps for all of us! Crank up income taxes to a 50% level to pay for it--that's what Foser, Krugman and their ilk sound like.
And why isn't the government doing much laying off? Shouldn't they fall in line with the economy? As money passes from the people to government, then back to the people there is a huge overhead taken out.
Tax cuts stimulate the economy by providing incentive for people to create/expand business, which in turn causes more people to be hired to accomplish that business growth.
And over half the public wants tax cuts now.
Great. Create more unemployment. The only statistic that i use is the one from november 4, 2008. The majority of the people didn't choose tax cuts, they chose Obama.
It's un-American and borderline treasonous to send men to war and allow another generation to pay for it. If you chose war, you should damned well be willing to pay for it. No more tax cuts until we're out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Amen to that.
Be my guest if you want to live on food stamps.
"Tax cuts stimulate the economy by providing incentive for people to create/expand business"
I know this is just the internet, but I seriously can't believe that I still have to read this. What will it take to force people to GLANCE AT REALITY before advancing a thought?
It is the most obvious thing in the world that we JUST GOT DONE cutting taxes. It is the most obvious thing in the world that incentive for business growth since then has been NONEXISTENT. How are you able to keep "theorizing" like this? How are you so thick and stupid? Look out your friggin' window. Glance at a frickin' bar graph or something.
If America can't figure THIS out, then it is positively too stupid for democracy. If we ever elect another republican president, who then proceeds to try supply-side "theory" YET AGAIN, I'm leaving.
As Lewis Black put it, "At some point, Democrats and Republicans are going to have to get together and decide just what the f*** reality is...".
So, the Dems are trying to govern based on reality...why do we hear crickets on the Republican side when it comes to our nation's economic reality?
Wrong. Included in Foser's logic is that food stamp extensions have such a positive effect because they are going to poor people. Your logic is ill.
Well, they're going to get them. But it's not going to be as stimulative as the rest of the bill. As for "providing incentive," you'd have to be nuts to think, "Well, I was going to lay off all my nonessential workers because my company's customers are decreasing and I can't get credit. But now that I might be getting a TAX CUT, well, by golly, let's hire!"
Try again with something that makes sense. I know you conservatives have something worthwhile to contribute. You'll find your inner smart guy if you just keep looking!
Even if you paid 50% in income tax, it would still be cheaper than trying to pay for a full coverage family healthcare plan.
And you have the audacity to call yourselves the family values Party.
Get out of the way.
We have got to hang in tight for a while. The right wing, super capitalists are not going to let go without a fight. I am confident that Obama has the smarts and the b*lls to pull it off, but he needs the continued grass roots support of the people. The tax cut mantra is a lie that gets repeated over and over. Keep putting pressure on the MSM with calls, emails, etc. Write letters to your local papers. The right wing scum must be repudiated with reality and facts. THE FIGHT HAS JUST BEGUN!
BTW, anyone who thinks I'm a left wing welfare grabbing socialist, sorry, I am a well to do, business owning moderate Republican, who has seen his party sold out to the modern version of robber barons. This conflict is not partisan, but ideological. Take American back from the Uber capitalists and let's return to a balance of capitalism and social responsibility.
The central thing to understand aboutt most "reporters" is that they tend to be lazy. Mostly, in a radio station they read the newspaper (tabloids only!). And in most newspaper newsrooms they grab whatever is on top of the pile of PR crap in the fax machine.
SO.....They have talk radio on in the office and in their cars.....and the low-brow rightwing swill they hear on their radios finds its way into their "reporting".
Low-brow rightwing swill radio has the power of a tsunami in creating a meme that rolls over the country and drowns sanity out in a torrent of crude rightwing lies.
That is why the Fairness Doctrine is so threatening to the radio gargoyles.
I say fine....no Fairness Doctrine.....BUT.....The first instance of political lying should be punsihable by a substantial fine. The second instance of overt lying should be a ten-fold fine. And the THIRD instance of political lying must be punishable by a prison sentence of not less than life imprisonment, as due punishment for corrupting the lives of every American citizen.
Do the above and it will fix the currently abysmal non-ethics of low-brow, rightwing, talk radio instantly.
And to paraphrase the right wing gargoyles...."What do they have to worry about unless they are lying".
Now in reality....what they are worried about is the fact that limbaugh, hannity, beck, etc...(and all the little local lowlifes trying to be the next fat national rat) depend on rightwing lies as the red meat they toss out to the troglodytes who comprise a reliable listenership for their sordid crap radio.
not a snowball's chance in hell.
These reporters would not recognize truth, if it hit them in the face. They live for the spin, especially the negative spin
These reporters would not recognize truth, if it hit them in the face. They live for the spin, especially the negative spin
Government Spending on poorly thought out programs is a waste taxpayers money. The TARP did nothing and wasted 78 billion dollars because of poor policy. The problem isn't in the idea it is in the package. Economic growth goes through natural down swings. In our history economic growth slows with larger size Government and rapid growth periods are associated with reduction in the size of Government. I say quit bailing out poorly managed businesses, programs and policies and let the economy fix it self.