Kurtz highlights media's failure to report estimated jobs created by stimulus
February 21, 2010 1:17 pm ET
From the February 21 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
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.
As for politicians quitting, Simple Sarah shall lead them. Into a pit.
Employment Level (Jan. 2010) - 138,333,000
Unemployment Rate (Jan. 2009) - 7.7%
Unemployment Rate (Jan. 2010) - 9.7%
Average Weeks Unemployed (Jan. 2009) - 19.9
Average Weeks Unemployed (Jan. 2010) - 30.2
All this money we're spending and we still have a net loss of jobs. More Americans are without a job now than before the stimulus was passed. All that money, the billions and billions of dollars, being squandered away so Congress can pat themselves on the back.
Instead they could have eliminated the capital gains tax, drastically reduced taxes on businesses, froze all new spending, and froze all proposed tax hikes. It would not have cost a dime and would not have had any worse effects than the stimulus bill.
Or perhaps you can find some valid statistics that show how many real jobs are directly created each time taxes are cut.
All I know is that our government told us we needed this stimulus or else the country would collapse. Here we are. One year later. We have fewer jobs, higher unemployment, and longer unemployment time spans. The stimulus was like putting a bandage over a bullet wound. Our problems run deeper than the bandage can help. There's still the bullet inside our country festering our insides.
BTW, you might want to quit using Beckian analogies and euphemisms in your posts. It's a bit creepy when he uses them . . . it's even creepier when you do.
I must have made a valid point! He isn't even trying to refute it.
If you want to establish your point, then cite statistics from a neutral source. If you want to shut down the other side, cite sources associated with liberal policies. Showing that you are in agreement with other conservatives does not really advance the ball in your direction.
That's reality, not cynicism.
Use the statistics that best support your case but cite your source so their validity can be verified (or challenged).
As it is, you're just blowing smoke.
I will?? Don't make up things I will claim, please.
My point was to point out the flaw in your stats, that they don't necessarily paint a complete picture of the situation.
Use whatever sources you like. If there's a problem with the facts presented (Selective facts, facts unprofessionally gathered, etc.), it's the job of your critics to find the specific problem with the source. To my mind, it isn't good enough to simply say "That's from the Heritage Foundation!"
The dumb trolls are out tonight.
So why was 1/3 of the stimulus bill tax cuts? Did that stimulate creating jobs? Even on a large scale I need a compelling argument on how getting a few bucks a month would create massive jobs.
It is easy to see how putting money into roads or bridge work would create jobs. (suppliers of product, people to lay the tar and concrete, infrastructure to hire, plan and implement the jobs, even the signs made for the projects) I think that 1/3 of the stimulus plan was wasted on repuglican tax cuts, my lifestyle was not changed by them and I actually have repug people I know that denied they got a tax cut! (They are so worried about taxes but can't be bothered to know if their taxes get cut????)
Common sense tells you that putting money into actual things create jobs, not a few bucks a week in paychecks! I wish I paid less taxes, but I also want the snow plows out and good bridges for my family to drive over. The stimulus was a HUGE SUCCESS STORY and anyone denying that does not understand what happened!
Then it helped the economy, and you got some goods and services.
Its still what, $500?
How does anyone complain about that, lol.
This is my understanding of this - which might be flawed since I'm no expert, but here goes:
The point of the tax cuts has to do with consumerism. While your $20 per paycheck doesn't make much of a difference, it can make a difference when 95% of the working population gets extra bucks in their paychecks as well.
The extra money per paycheck means more money gets circulated through the economy because people have more money to spend. And that can lead to things like more jobs opening up in manufacturing and the service industry.
Now, I don't know quite how this works out, but I have heard economists say that tax breaks for the lower and middle classes helps the economy (including creating more jobs) more than giving tax breaks to the wealthy. Something about there being more spending happening with the lower classes than with the upper classes. Maybe it's because there's simply more of us.
Anyway, your extra $20 actually does help collectively - it's just not obvious, which I think is part of the problem.
When people get $400 all at once, they don't spend it all - in many cases, they don't spend any of it. When they get $13 a paycheck, they spend all of it - it is so little that one person doesn't really think about saving it, but when you add up that millions of people got $13 extra, it's a ton of money going into the economy to keep the dry cleaners in business, which means that the dry cleaner's owner can go to the restaurant down the road, which means that the restaurant owner can keep their kid in private school, which means that a private school teacher can buy groceries the next week, which means that a high school kid who works at that grocery store can buy a used car, etc, etc.
But, overall, tax cuts aren't as stimulating to the economy as many other things. It's only because the Republicans wanted them in the stimulus bill that they were put in there. Of course, nowadays Republicans will say that they had no input into the stimulus bill - because Obama already KNEW what they wanted, and he put the things in there without them having to amend his bill!
I guess they wanted Obama to come to floor of the House with a bill that had no tax cuts, so that the Republicans could ask for them to be inserted, and he agree to it.
1.6 to 1.8M have jobs because of it. My construction buddies have jobs because of it. That's reality. But like I said before it doesn't matter to people who couldn't care less about their fellow Americans.
Two things - When the stimulus passed the unemployment rate was 8.1 percent so obviously the assessment was off. Second, that assessment came from someone looking at figures gather by the Bush administration. I'm not sure why they used those figures without verifying them first.
Conservatives only seem to care about themselves. Everyone else is irrelevant to them. Why else would someone support cutting social programs in a time when people need them the most.?
All liberals agree with that statement and that's why we support vastly raising the minimum wages, empowering unions, universal health care, fair trade, etc.
Prove it.
Just go down this list and see for yourself.
You stated, "The vast majority of the rich in this country started out poor."
You were asked to "prove it".
Then you immediately cited Bill Gates.
Bill Gates came from an upper middle class family. A lawyer and a bank board member.
Bill Gates did not "start out poor".
Now: let the backpedaling continue....
Just because you were born to an upper-middle class family doesn't mean you can't ever be poor.
You stated, "The vast majority of the rich in this country started out poor."
Bill Gates came from an upper middle class family: a lawyer and a bank board member.
Bill Gates did not "start out poor".
I'll try again.
The vast majority of rich Americans did not inherit their wealth but instead received it from hard work, ingenuity, and a bit of luck.
Do you disagree with that statement?
You're typical of the wingnut bunch. Cornered, they're as slimy as snails.
Granted
So what?
Your task is to substantiate your claim that the "vast majority of the rich in this country started out poor."
You have not made this case.
But that was not your claim. You asserted, "The vast majority of the rich in this country started out poor."
Gates was born into upper middle class circumstances. This example does not prove your claim. Besides it is only one example. How do you propose we get to analysis of the "vast majority"?
My claim is very hard to prove I do admit. Especially since all of us our just sitting at a computer and have no real resources to verify it. I can only say that I have never met a wealthy individual who has inherited their wealth. Oh they exist. I can only speak from my experience though. Every single wealthy person I've ever encountered was so because of the choices they made, not their parents or the government.
You're kidding, right? I'm sure there are studies and surveys one could find on line if one wanted to appy himself and invest in a little hard work. Failing that, one should not make a claim just because it feels right to him. That's bogus.
A better example would be Hewlett Packard, started in a garage...
Are you ACTUALLY so dense as to believe that the "vast majority of Americans" are rich because they built themselves up from poor backgrounds, invented something, saved their dimes, invested, and made themselves rich? Nobody could be that stupid.
Have you been putting us on all this time?
The vast majority of people who are born poor die poor. The vast majority of people born into the middle class die in the middle class- though it's getting harder, and many find themselves slipping into a lower rung on the socioeconomic scale. The vast majority of people who are born rich die rich, because they inherit golden parachutes and other "safety nets" built into the system to protect their wealth.
You are absolutely unbelievable. Come on, admit you were joking, and have been joking all along.
The point is that the rich are rich because of the decision they made and not some government program or inheritance.
I never mentioned their families. You did. I said the vast majority of the rich started out poor. While I should have probably been clearer and said that they didn't just inherit their wealth, I never said they ALL grew up in poor families.
MagCynic would be proud, and use him as an example of a Poor Boy who Made Good.
Quick tip- the next step is to lash out at your critics for using your own words. I suggest "stop nitpicking." That's a good one- kind of dog-eared, but still useful.
I'll call your Bill Gates and raise you the 3 or 4 heirs to the Sam Walton fortune who are in the top 10 richest people in America.
Pretty straightforward to me. You didn't say that the vast majority didn't inherit their wealth. You didn't say they started in the middle class. You said they started out poor. Already, you are changing your argument, and then complaining because we noticed.
Want to start over?
And just you never mind his original "vast majority" claim.
It's really not fair- you never see outlandish, unsupported and unsupportable claims called out on Hannity's site, or O'Reilly's, or on their shows for that matter.
"This is a bad place, George"- Lennie Small.
It would be interesting to see some studies on this. Can you cite any?
Of course things like talent, ingenuity, hard luck, and luck are important determinants. Being born into relatively priveliged circumstances is also significant, is it not?
But better than our speculation would be objective surveys. Got any?
Really??? That seems unlikely.
How do you know this to be true?
It was that in early January when they were crafting the stimulus bill, they didn't have the final numbers from the last quarter of 2008 yet. They knew it was bad - they didn't know HOW BAD yet. When they knew it was bad, they made predictions based upon the preliminary numbers they had. They needed to get the initial money into the economy as soon as possible, so they didn't delay the stimulus once they discovered that Q4 was worse than predicted. Since it was so bad, the stimulus should have been bigger, and even more focused on job creation and saving jobs than it was.
There are four sources of information that you should take into account when measuring the success of the Stimulus Bill.
1. The claims of the Obama Administration and the data that they have put on the table. You should probably be somewhat skeptic of that. It would be wise to go through their data to find areas where they were being optimistic or distorting facts (You have not disputed any of their data - You are either too lazy to analyze it or have reached the conclusion that their claims are a good estimate)
2. The GOP claims and the data they have presented. They have presented some unsubstantiated talking points. Some GOP governors have signed applications for stimulus money claiming that their project proposals would create jobs. Arnold Schwarzenegger claims that the Stimulus Bill directly has created or saved 150,000 jobs in California
3. Claims made by Economists and experts. These guys seem to be very much in line with the Administration on this issue.
4. The CBO. I hate to bring you the 'bad' news here, but you know what? They agree with the Administration too.
I would add common sense as the 'fifth element'. If you put money into construction of a road, bridge or dam, it leads to jobs being created or saved. I consider that an undisputable fact. Some would claim that tax cuts create jobs - I'd like to see some data to back that up. I have my doubts.
So let me add it all up for you. We have substantiated data backing up a claim of somewhere between 1 and 2 Mio jobs having been created or saved as a result of the Stimulus Bill versus some unsubstantiated GOP talking points, that are being disputed even by GOP representatives themselves. And you went with the latter?
And the most important thing is that the idea of the Stimulus Package was to create growth. It has. The traditional way to measure growth is to look at the GDP. It has gone up dramatically. All experts gives the credit for this to the Stimulus Bill.
Moron.
Don't use the term "moron". Sarah Palin will think you're talking about her retarded son.
I will repeat, you made a stupid, stupid, stupid statement.
I'd suggest that you educated yourself and quit reading partisan bull that just supports what you already believe.
By the way, do you ever notice how often people feel it necessary to ridicule and insult me? I mean I'm just some guy on the internet and they feel so passionately about their cause that they have to insult a complete stranger. Compare that to the number of times I insult somebody. Hmmm. Interesting. I wonder what that means.
And you know this . . . how?
I think that qualifies as a government program.
How about a universal health system so poor kids don't die young but rather have a chance to grow up and maybe get rich or even (shock horror) contribute to human learning - like Stephen Hawking who was diagnosed with motor neurone disease at the young age of 21 and has only survived because of the British National Health Service.
Private enterprise aims for private benefit. Public enterprise aims for public benefit.
Economy with 2 million fewer jobs is worse than an economy with those 2 million jobs.
1 + 1 = 2
2 > 1
I don't know how much simpler it can be made.
Please, more funding for education - this poster is a perfect example of the need for it.
None of this helps in an environment of little or no demand. All the money would be pocketed by those who frankly don't need it.
What are you relying on to make that statement?
A suggestion: try using original sources instead of biased bullsh*t designed to support pre-determined talking points and actions.
Oh, anyone want to get bios for the The 400 Richest Americans 2009 from Forbes? Tops include the Waltons (inherited) as 4-7
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001201_Capital_gains_tax.pdf
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/cg0306.pdf
They won't really benefit from any decrease in capital gains taxes - a few dollars.
And that's the relevant info - that despite the fact that lots of middle income people have SOME capital gains, they aren't the ones who really have ANY reason to push for a decrease!
Typical wingnut to crop what would seemingly make your point, but leave out the part that disputes it.
The author used the average capitals gains figure to claim "it constitutes a substantial portion of income for the average taxpayer." It's like someone averaging of the incomes of me and Bill Gates and then concluding we're both rich.
Then a clever, capable person will track down the original government figure and present them. They'll still support your point, won't they?
When you cut taxes it increases the debt.
Hmmm. Looks like tax cuts for the wealthy and freezing government spending didn't work out too well. Guess that when no-one is buying, one of the jobs of the federal government is to step up to the plate and start putting people to work, by building bridges, roads, schools, etc.
If your revenue drops, and you cut taxes, you end up with even loss money on hand to fix problems like the collapse of the housing bubble, itself brought on by deregulation passed by 'conservatives'. What kills the Faux Cons is that the stimulus is actually working, and if it had been all spending and NO tax cuts, it would've been even more effective. Sadly, including the tax cuts was done to appease the Republicans who still insist that they have been shut out of all policy discussions, even while getting almost everything they wanted, aside from Obama's resignation. Health care? Dead. Single option? Dead. Afghanistan? Well, Obama finally got around to increasing the troop levels that Dubya never managed, but I hardly count that a good thing.
Here's hoping that reconciliation gives us back the single payer option, and brings on the final meltdown of the now fringe Republican party, at least until they can find strong and sensible leadership. Letting AM shock jocks make your policy is a laughably stupid idea, but one that they can't seem to let go of.
I agree, bring on single payer so we can kick the democrat party to the curb.... bring it on...
Name ONE tax cut, just one... bye, bye bho, another failure just like jimmy carter... haha , funny thing is all you gotta do is look around to know the truth... proof positive... pathetic...
how's the hopey changey doing for ya? haha ROFLMAO haha
Who is the democrat party? Do you realize that the majority of people want a public option, and would probably favor a single payer? Bring it on biatch!!!!!
Hopey changey is going good for me.
"We've NEVER had tax cuts for the wealthy...."
I would have bet anything that "the vast majority of rich people were born poor" would have been the Dumbest Comment of the Day. And I would have lost.
Let the teabagger claim whatever it wants, while conveniently ignoring the fact that Reagan cut taxes very sharply his first year in office. So sharply, in fact, that he raised them each of the subsequent seven years. Let it ignore the fact that the job situation is turning around. Heck, let it ignore all of reality. Then, watch the surprise when it realizes it is trying to live in the castle in the air it has constructed. It'll have a Wile E. Coyote moment, hanging in midair, and then plummet like Icarus.
Oh, right- because if you did, it would blow up your entire "argument."
We were in free fall when Obama came into office. The free fall has stopped, and all signs suggest that we have turned the corner and are on the way to recovery. No thanks to the Republicans, who tried to stop the stimulus package at every turn, and continue to complain about it, even as they pose with huge checks and take credit for the jobs it is creating back home.
Way to fail again. You never let us down.
Didn't Bush do half the things you mentioned that you think will fix the economy? And look where that got them after 8 years of tax cuts to the rich. It didn't work then what makes you think it's going to work now?
It has been the tax cuts that added a great deal to the U.S. deficit after all.
The stimulus is a short-term add to the deficit while tax cuts are every year long-term additions. The plan is that the deficit will continue to rise in the short-term but once the economy recovers, like it is showing signs of doing, then they plan to reduce the deficit in the long-term.
I'm no economist, but I'm willing to bet neither are you.