Morning Joe crew distorts New Deal unemployment figures in continued assault on recovery plan
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.
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski continued their assault on the economic recovery package, misrepresenting New Deal unemployment figures to argue that government spending does not boost employment.
During the February 3 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough and co-host Mika Brzezinski continued their assault on the economic recovery package, misrepresenting New Deal unemployment figures to argue that government spending does not boost employment. Echoing false statements by numerous conservative media figures, who have responded to President Obama's proposals for large-scale stimulus spending by denouncing President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies as ineffective or damaging, Brzezinski said of the recovery bill: "This bill -- I think we're going to have the same unemployment in three or four years, just like the New Deal." In addition, Scarborough cherry-picked unemployment data to claim that unemployment was at "20 percent" in 1938, a conservative tactic used to ignore the downward trend in unemployment that occurred under the New Deal.
Contrary to Brzezinski's suggestion that unemployment did not improve during the first "three or four years" of the New Deal, as Media Matters for America has noted, unemployment fell every year from 1933 through 1937. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) -- which did not count those in work-relief programs as employed -- the unemployment rate in 1933 was 24.9 percent, which fell each subsequent year -- 21.7 percent in 1934, 20.1 percent in 1935, 17 percent in 1936, and 14.3 percent in 1937 -- until 1938 when it rose to 19 percent.
Scarborough later said: "Unemployment dropped, and then, guess what? When [then-Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau] went five years later, back to Congress, they still had 20 percent unemployment." However, in addition to ignoring the decline in the unemployment rate from 1933 to 1937, and the fact that the rate was higher in 1933 than 1938, Scarborough's claim that "they still had 20 percent unemployment" in 1938 ignored employment figures that included government jobs created by New Deal programs. His figure echoed BLS data pegging the unemployment rate for 1938 at 19 percent. After World War II, BLS ceased counting those in work-relief programs as unemployed, as noted by economist Gene Smiley in a 1983 Journal of Economic History article. Media Matters has documented other conservative media figures and outlets cherry-picking unemployment figures to assert that the New Deal failed to reduce unemployment.
Further, according to several prominent economists, the unemployment rate rose in 1938 not because New Deal stimulus spending failed but, rather, because Roosevelt did not go far enough in pursuing those policies and because his attempts to balance the budget hindered recovery. Even though unemployment did rise in 1938, it did not surpass the 1933 unemployment rate.
As Media Matters has documented, in recent weeks, Morning Joe has launched baseless attacks on the economic recovery plan, including repeated false claims that welfare programs and nutrition assistance do not stimulate the economy.
From the February 3 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
HAROLD FORD JR. (Democratic Leadership Council chairman): One of the reasons that America's economy has not totally found itself in the toilet over the last few years is that exports have been up because of the -- the global economy has grown. We've now seen an incredible slowdown there. Housing demand is so depressed. There's so -- there are a few pieces to this. It's much -- I hope neither of these happen. I hope we spend a trillion dollars right.
SERWER: You can't --
FORD: You and I are on the same page.
BRZEZINSKI: But, Joe, I don't think --
SERWER: You can't choose between a deficit and unemployment. I'll take a deficit.
BRZEZINSKI: But, Andy, this bill --
SERWER: I'll take a deficit every time.
BRZEZINSKI: -- I think we're going to have the same unemployment --
SERWER: Every time.
BRZEZINSKI: -- in three or four years --
SCARBOROUGH: My point --
BRZEZINSKI: -- just like the New Deal.
SERWER: Well --
SCARBOROUGH: The problem is, Andy, that --
SERWER: -- and what would be worse than that?
SCARBOROUGH: My concern is: I've got no problem with deficit spending.
SERWER: All right.
SCARBOROUGH: I'm not Herbert Hoover here. Deficit spending's fine if we want to engage in deficit spending. My problem is that everything is happening so quickly. We're up to $12 trillion. We're going to start running trillion-dollar deficits.
SERWER: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: Andy, historically, it took us 204 years to get a hundred -- to get a trillion-dollar debt.
SERWER: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: Now, we are burning through a trillion dollars every year for the next three, four, five years, and the impact on that could be shattering --
SERWER: Well, you've got to look at that --
SCARBOROUGH: -- to this economy.
SERWER: -- relative to GDP, right? I mean, relative to how big we are. So this --
SCARBOROUGH: Relative to -- yeah. Relative to GDP --
SERWER: But I just think we don't --
SCARBOROUGH: It's going to go to World War II levels.
SERWER: Well, listen, you know, we don't have a choice, though. I mean, we've got -- we have to do it.
SCARBOROUGH: But we could do it wisely.
SERWER: And we've got to do it with some sense, yeah, but, I mean --
SCARBOROUGH: We could do it wisely.
SERWER: -- you can't just sit here and debate this until the fall --
BRZEZINSKI: We could wait a month or two.
SERWER: -- right?
SCARBOROUGH: Andy --
SERWER: Well, that's true.
SCARBOROUGH: But --
BRZEZINSKI: We could wait --
SCARBOROUGH: -- fools --
BRZEZINSKI: -- we don't need to rush this through like the Wall Street bailout --
SERWER: Yeah, well, that is --
BRZEZINSKI: -- and just --
SERWER: -- totally uncharted territory, the TARP.
BRZEZINSKI: Well --
SERWER: I mean, that I agree. And, you know, I don't think anyone knows what's going on. But, here, we know --
SCARBOROUGH: But -- OK. Hold on. Hold on. Let me stop you --
SERWER: -- that the stimulus helps the economy.
SCARBOROUGH: Let me stop you right there.
SERWER: It's going to be tax cuts; it's going to be spending.
SCARBOROUGH: We don't know that.
SERWER: It's blocking and tackling.
SCARBOROUGH: You just -- you just said something -- I wish it were blocking and tackling -- you say we know the stimulus will help the economy. You had [Henry] Morgenthau, FDR's own, you know, best friend --
SERWER: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: -- his secretary of Treasury, going to the Democrats in 1938, after they'd been in power for four years, saying we've failed. The stimulus package --
BRZEZINSKI: Didn't work.
SCARBOROUGH: -- hasn't worked. And he -- this -- his own words.
SERWER: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: That's his own words. He said the only thing it's done is strapped us with a greater debt.
BRZEZINSKI: Deficit.
SCARBOROUGH: Deficit. You have --
SERWER: The unemployment rate did drop before World War II.
SCARBOROUGH: And -- no.
SERWER: It did.
SCARBOROUGH: Unemployment dropped --
SERWER: It did.
SCARBOROUGH: -- and then, guess what?
BRZEZINSKI: Dipped.
SCARBOROUGH: When --
SERWER: What?
SCARBOROUGH: When he went five years later, back to Congress --
SERWER: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: -- they still had 20 percent unemployment.
BRZEZINSKI: That's right.
SERWER: But it --
SCARBOROUGH: It took a dip in '38.
SERWER: Yeah, but it -- right, but it'd gone to 33, and then it went down to 14 right before World War II.
SCARBOROUGH: And then --
SERWER: I mean, it's still -- that's still crazy.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, you're talking the 1940s.
SERWER: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: You're talking '41 --
SERWER: Right.
SCARBOROUGH: -- I'm talking --
SERWER: Right. You know, but, again --
SCARBOROUGH: So --
SERWER: -- I don't know what we could have done instead of that, though.
SCARBOROUGH: You also have --
SERWER: What should we have done instead --
SCARBOROUGH: You also have Obama's --
SERWER: -- in the 1930s.
SCARBOROUGH: -- the chairwoman of his economic council, who wrote a book in 1994 saying stimulus plans don't work.
SERWER: But then, what should we do?
SCARBOROUGH: It's not blocking and tackling. I think what we need to do is we need to borrow the best from both sides. I think we need to borrow from Republicans, who say there's no reason why our corporations should have the highest tax rates in the world. That does not make us competitive globally.
BRZEZINSKI: Get them hiring people again.
SCARBOROUGH: I think we should use some stimulus spending on the Democratic side, the best of those ideas. I think we should talk to Al Gore about a new grid that transforms -- I would like to see this bill --
BRZEZINSKI: And that will take a few months at least.
SCARBOROUGH: -- have a transformative effect on our economy.

















Where would we be?
We'd be in jail because people like Mornin' Joe and his girl would have ratted us out to the Gestapo. And that couple in Jersey who named their baby Adolph Hitler would be considered patriots, along with Herr Scarborough and Fraulein Brezinski.
Apparently Morning Joe is MSNBC's official conduit for Republican talking points.
Which reminds me. How come we never hear about the bias in Joe's program, since he was a former Republican Congressional member and all? Seems as though lots of people like to remind us that Matthews worked for democrats, so therein lies, that he MUST be a democrat (he's not). Joe, on the other hand, was an elected official of the republican party. And here, I thought MSNBC was the "liberal" equivalent to FoxNews (it's not even close folks).
The problem isn't just Morning Joe.... MSNBC as an operation has usurped FOX NEWS in terms of their ferocious regurgitation of Republican talking points.
Tho the scuttlebut out of MSNBC is that no one wanted to work with her. She's apparently quite the nightmare. If Joe didn't take her, word is that she would have been out the door.
" If Joe didn't take her, word is that she would have been out the door." So that's a bad thing?
Occasionally, if you look very closely, you might see one wedged between two or three familiar-looking partisan hacks with microphones. If you're in doubt of which one it is, just wait for a lull in the conversation, and an immediate crescendo of repetitive right-wing talking points completely unconnected to what was just said. The guy speaking right before that lull is probably your expert.
Paul Krugman comes to mind.
These dipsticks were also reporting, as fact, a rumor that Obama had been disrespectful to General Petraeus in their meeting yesterday. I seriously doubt the truth of this new Republican talking point.
I'm guessing they're referring to this. It seems Petraus is trying to dictate policy to Obama and block troop withdrawals from Iraq. The associated media (propaganda) campaign is already underway, I see.
Petraueus and the others were all put in place by the Bushies after other commanders were removed who disagreed with the policy. So naturally, they want to deceive both the Iraqis and U.S. citizens.
I wonder how long history will have to repeat itself before the world stage is ready for a new play.
I'm pretty sure that if OBama wanted to disrespect the General, he could do that. Why? I'm pretty sure the chain of command ends with, Obama. That being said, I highly doubt that Obama would be disrespectful of General Patraeus, he's got a lot more class than that.
I really wanted to like this show, Morning Joe, but I can barely bring myself to watch it...it's an amateurish disaster that tries too hard to be entertaining instead of concentrating on getting things right, IMO. Sometimes watching the give and take between Joe and Mika I feel as though I'm watching a re-reun of Sonny and Cher. There's Joe acting the part of the impish scamp...with Mika shooting him disapproving looks. But we know, deep down, she loves the big lug. What is this bull sheitz??? If a news show is going to interject levity and be successful it. first and foremost, must deliver the goods...news, politics and analysis. The problem is that the hosts, Joe and Mika, are at best mediocre...even on a good day. With 24/7 cable news shows I just think there aren't enough bright, talented people to go around. I'd say pull the plug on this show but can you imagine what might replace it?
Three hour Scobbie Do marathons?
You almost get the feeling that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow must be losing their minds on not being able to call out their co-workers for basically being morons on their shows...
If the Morning Joe crew were on any other station... this collection of twits would be the WPITW several times over by now...
I know that KO and RM need to play nice and act friendly with them... but seriously... it has to be for them having to deal with the crazy family member that you want to yell at but can't for the sake of the kids!
And its certainly not just the Morning Joe crew from MSNBC that are just as nutty.
I agree. Rachel and Keith's two-hour block is like an island of sanity in a sea of Right Wing bullsh*t. I know they're liberals, but that makes them unique in the world of overpaid cable news pundits.
Chris Matthews will occasionally take a stand for real journalism, but he's all over the place, and tends to latch onto trivial matters and run them into the ground.
I agree, too, but I like Matthews less than you do. I think of him as a potential journalist--he sometimes does actual reporting, but usually wanders around aimlessly focusing on random things that matter very little. It's almost like he's learning what to do.
Hey Joe-Remember Lori Klausutis? I've got a 'New Deal' for you. It's called a plea bargain. Or you could continue to take your chances and join this illustrious group of your colleagues.
Morning Joe: "I'm fine with deficit spending"
DEFICIT SPENDING IS WHAT HAS GOTTEN US INTO THIS MESS! Wake up and smell the coffee, neocons and liberals! You can't spend yourself out of debt.