Even more myths and falsehoods surrounding the economic recovery plan
Media Matters for America previously identified numerous myths and falsehoods advanced by the media in their coverage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As debate on the bill continues in Congress, other myths and falsehoods advanced by the media about the recovery package have risen to prominence. These myths and falsehoods include: the assertion that the bill will not stimulate the economy -- including the false assertion that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the bill will not stimulate the economy; that spending in the bill is not stimulus; that there is no reason for stimulus after an economic turnaround begins; that corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts would provide substantial stimulus; and that undocumented immigrants without Social Security numbers could receive the "Making Work Pay" tax credit provided in the bill.
1. The bill will not stimulate the economy
In a February 1 article, The Associated Press reported an assertion by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that the recovery bill will not stimulate the economy without noting that the CBO disagrees. ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson echoed this assertion during his February 3 interview with President Obama, stating: "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." Additionally, on the January 28 edition of his show, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh allowed Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) to falsely claim of the bill: "Even the Congressional Budget Office, controlled by the Democrats now, says it is not a stimulative bill." Fox News host Sean Hannity repeated this claim on the February 2 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity, asserting that the CBO "say[s] it's not a stimulus bill."
In fact, in analyzing the House version of the bill, H.R. 1, and the proposed Senate version, the CBO stated that it expects both measures to "have a noticeable impact on economic growth and employment in the next few years." Additionally, in his January 27 written testimony before the House Budget Committee, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said that H.R. 1 would "provide massive fiscal stimulus that includes a combination of government spending increases and revenue reductions." Elmendorf further stated: "In CBO's judgment, H.R. 1 would provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years relative to what would occur without any legislation."
2. Government spending in the bill is not stimulus
Several media figures, including CNN correspondent Carol Costello, CBS Evening News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, and ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson, have all uncritically reported or aired the Republican claim that, in Gibson's words, "it's a spending bill and not a stimulus," without noting that economists have said that government spending is stimulus. Indeed, in his January 27 testimony, Elmendorf explicitly refuted the suggestion that some of the spending provisions in the bill would not have a stimulative effect, stating: "[I]n our estimation -- and I think the estimation of most economists -- all of the increase in government spending and all of the reduction in tax revenue provides some stimulative effect. People are put to work, receive income, spend that on something else. That puts somebody else to work." Additionally, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has said, "[S]pending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple."
3. There is no reason for stimulus after a turnaround begins
In a January 28 Wall Street Journal article, reporter Naftali Bendavid uncritically reported congressional Republicans' criticism of the proposed economic stimulus bill on the grounds "that much of the money in the package wouldn't be spent until 2011 or later, when a recovery is likely to be already under way." CNBC anchor Melissa Francis and MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer repeated this criticism on the January 29 edition of MSNBC Live when Francis stated: "Only 64 percent of the money is going to be spent within the next 19 months," and Brewer replied, "And how do you justify that?" Francis responded: "How do you justify that is the real question." Limbaugh also suggested that stimulus would not be necessary after a turnaround begins in a January 29 Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he asserted that "[t]he average recession will last five to 11 months; the average recovery will last six years. Recessions will end on their own if they're left alone. What can make the recession worse is the wrong kind of government intervention." None mentioned the position of many economists that a stimulus package will be necessary even if the economy begins to turn around.
In his January 27 testimony, Elmendorf said that fiscal stimulus in 2011 or later would be effective in the current economic situation, in which economic output is projected to remain below its potential even after the beginning of the recovery. Elmendorf stated that unlike in ordinary "periods of economic weakness" that "are fairly short-lived," "CBO projects that economic output will remain significantly below its potential for several more years, so policies that provide stimulus for an extended period of time may be appropriate." From Elmendorf's testimony:
Timing. The economic effects of fiscal stimulus should occur during the period of economic weakness, all else being equal. When, as now, a recession is clearly already under way and aggregate demand is declining, it is better if stimulus affects spending quickly in order to mitigate further deterioration in the economy. Different types of policies may differ greatly in how quickly they can be implemented.
Because most periods of economic weakness are fairly short-lived, it is generally preferable that stimulus policies be short-lived. Currently, however, CBO projects that economic output will remain significantly below its potential for several more years, so policies that provide stimulus for an extended period of time may be appropriate. Indeed, a fiscal stimulus that ends before the economy has started to regain its footing runs the risk of exacerbating economic weakness when the stimulus ends.
Likewise, in a January 27 blog post, New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman wrote:
It's not a problem if some or even most of the stimulus arrives after the official recession, as determined by the NBER, is over. Why? Because in modern recessions, unemployment keeps rising long after the NBER has determined, based on things like industrial production, that the recession proper is over. [emphasis in original]
4. Corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts would provide substantial stimulus
In his January 29 Wall Street Journal op-ed criticizing the economic recovery plan and offering his own suggestions to stimulate the economy, Limbaugh advocated "cut[ting] the U.S. corporate tax rate ... in half" and "[s]uspend[ing] the capital gains tax for a year to incentivize new investment, after which it would be reimposed at 10%." During the January 29 edition of MSNBC Live, CNBC host Erin Burnett said that there were "interesting ideas" in Limbaugh's op-ed and his advocacy of "cutting the corporate tax" and "slashing capital gains" taxes were "serious things to say." However, many economists do not view corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts as particularly "serious" or effective methods for stimulating the economy.
According to a January 2008 CBO report, "Options for Responding to Short-Term Economic Weakness," "a reduction in the corporate tax rate" is "not a particularly cost-effective method of stimulating business spending" because "[i]ncreasing the after-tax income of businesses typically does not create an incentive for them to spend more on labor or to produce more, because production depends on the ability to sell output." Indeed, Mark Zandi, chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com who was reportedly a McCain campaign economic adviser, included in 2008 written congressional testimony a table stating that every dollar spent through a "Cut in [the] Corporate Tax Rate" produces a GDP increase of only $0.30 -- the third least-efficient provision of the 13 he studied.
In the table included with his testimony, Zandi lists only "Accelerated Depreciation" and "Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent" as having a lower "Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck" than a "Cut in Corporate Tax Rate":
Additionally, in a January 23 report, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) research fellow Chye-Ching Huang wrote that "[n]umerous government and independent studies agree that corporate tax rate cuts provide relatively little 'bang-for-the-buck' as stimulus." Huang also wrote:
Cutting corporate tax rates on a temporary basis, as some have suggested, could even discourage investment. Cutting tax rates reduces the value of deductions that companies claim when they invest, make other purchases, pay wages, or depreciate equipment; for example, a $1,000 deduction is worth $350 at the current 35 percent corporate tax rate but would be worth only $250 at a 25 percent rate. If tax rates were cut on a temporary basis, companies would have an incentive to delay investments until the rate returned to 35 percent and deductions regained their lost value.
A permanent corporate rate cut would not have this disincentive effect. But neither would it provide timely stimulus, because it would provide no incentive for businesses to speed up investments. Firms could keep investments on the timeline already planned -- or even delay investments until the economy recovered -- and still get the benefits of the rate cut. Furthermore, a permanent rate cut, if deficit financed, would worsen the long-run budget outlook, which could hurt the economy over the long term.
Regarding the capital gains tax rate, according to a 2003 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report: "A capital gains tax cut appears the least likely of any permanent tax cut to stimulate the economy in the short run; a temporary capital gains tax cut is unlikely to provide any stimulus." Indeed, CRS stated under the heading of "Effects on the Economy" of "Permanent Tax Cuts" that "[t]here are reasons to expect that capital gains tax cuts would have the smallest stimulative effect on the economy of virtually any fiscal stimulus option."
Additionally, in a January 15 CBPP report, Huang and executive director Robert Greenstein wrote that "a capital gains tax cut is unlikely to release new resources that consumers would quickly spend":
Any windfall that taxpayers receive from a capital gains tax cut is unlikely to be spent quickly. The main beneficiaries of capital gains tax cuts would be high-income taxpayers, who own the vast majority of assets. For example, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has estimated that 98 percent of the benefit of temporarily cutting the capital gains rate in half would flow to the top 20 percent of households; 75 percent of the benefit would flow just to the top 1 percent of households.
The fact that capital gains tax cuts go mostly to high-income households makes them very poor stimulus, since high-income households are much more likely than low-income households to save rather than spend a significant portion of any new resources they receive. To boost consumer spending, stimulus resources should be directed at those who will spend these funds quickly. [emphasis in original]
5. Undocumented immigrants without Social Security numbers would be eligible for the "Making Work Pay" tax credit
On January 29, the Drudge Report's largest headline read "HILL REPUBLICAN: STIMULUS GIVES CASH TO ILLEGALS" and linked to an AP article that reported, based on a single anonymous source, that "[t]he $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants, a top Republican congressional official asserted Thursday. The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don't have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks." The Drudge Report did not remove the headline until roughly four hours after a revised version of the AP article made it clear that the claim made by the "top Republican official" was, in fact, false. Subsequently, several media figures and outlets repeated the false claim from the earlier AP article.
In fact, the recovery bill specifically precludes from eligibility for the Making Work Pay tax credit of $500 per individual and $1,000 per family "any individual unless the requirements of section 32(c)(1)(E) are met with respect to such individual." Section 32(c)(1)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code, which specifies requirements for individuals to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit, states:
(E) Identification number requirement
No credit shall be allowed under this section to an eligible individual who does not include on the return of tax for the taxable year --
(i) such individual's taxpayer identification number, and
(ii) if the individual is married (within the meaning of section 7703), the taxpayer identification number of such individual's spouse.
The law defines "taxpayer identification number" as used in 32(c)(1)(E) as "a social security number issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration":
(m) Identification numbers
Solely for purposes of subsections (c)(1)(E) and (c)(3)(D), a taxpayer identification number means a social security number issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration (other than a social security number issued pursuant to clause (II) (or that portion of clause (III) that relates to clause (II)) of section 205(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act).
Therefore, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act bars anyone without "a social security number issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration" from eligibility for Making Work Pay tax credits.
Previous media myths and falsehoods identified by Media Matters include the following:
6. CBO analysis found the majority of stimulus won't take effect for a year and a half
Several media outlets and figures, including The Washington Post, CNN White House correspondent Ed Henry, and NBC senior White House correspondent Chuck Todd, have falsely suggested that a partial CBO analysis of the economic recovery plan -- reported by the Associated Press on January 20 -- was in fact a full analysis of the bill and falsely suggested that in that analysis, the CBO found that, in the words of the Post, "the majority of the money in the Democratic plan would not get spent within the first year and a half." In fact, the CBO report the AP highlighted initially conducted only a partial analysis and therefore did not reach a conclusion with respect to "the majority of the money" in the bill. Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag -- who formerly headed the CBO -- stated in a January 22 letter that the analysis addressed only "a component of the economic recovery proposal" and "did not address the overall package." CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf also wrote in a January 26 blog post that the "preliminary estimate that has been widely cited addressed only the budgetary impacts of an earlier version of the provisions contained in Division A, at the request of the House Committee on Appropriations."
The CBO subsequently released its "Cost Estimate" of H.R. 1, an analysis of the entire recovery plan as introduced in the House of Representatives, and concluded that 64 percent of the package would be spent by the end of the fiscal year 2010: "Combining the spending and revenue effects of H.R. 1, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $169 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $356 billion in 2010, by $174 billion in 2011, and by $816 billion over the 2009-2019 period."
7. Food stamps, unemployment payments are not stimulus
On the January 27 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull, host Campbell Brown and CNN chief business correspondent Ali Velshi repeatedly claimed that provisions in the economic recovery bill that extend food stamps and unemployment insurance payments are, in Velshi's words, "not stimulus." But the same day, Elmendorf stated in congressional testimony: "Transfers to persons (for example, unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance) would also have a significant impact on GDP. Because a large amount of such spending can occur quickly, transfers would have a significant impact on GDP by early 2010." Additionally, in 2008 congressional testimony, Mark Zandi -- the chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, who was reportedly a McCain campaign economic adviser -- stated that "extending food stamps are [sic] the most effective ways to prime the economy's pump" and cited extending food stamps and unemployment insurance payments as having a greater "Fiscal Economic Bank for the Buck" than any other potential stimulus provision he analyzed, including temporary and permanent tax cuts.
8. The New Deal did not lower unemployment
During Fox News' coverage of Obama's January 20 inauguration, anchor Chris Wallace falsely claimed that "unemployment in 1937, 1938 was higher than it was in 1933." Wallace's assertion followed statements by numerous conservative media figures, who have responded to Obama's proposals for large-scale stimulus spending by denouncing Roosevelt's New Deal policies as ineffective or damaging. In fact, unemployment fell every year from 1933 until 1938, and 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. In advancing the claim, some, including Washington Post columnist George Will and syndicated columnist Mona Charen, have cherry-picked data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) -- which, at the time, counted those employed by the New Deal's emergency work programs as unemployed -- to assert that the New Deal failed to reduce unemployment. After World War II, the BLS ceased counting those in work-relief programs as unemployed. But even without including "emergency" public employment under the New Deal, the unemployment rate in 1937 and 1938 did not surpass the 1933 unemployment rate, as Wallace claimed.
Additionally, contrary to the January 7 claim of Fox News' Brit Hume that "everybody agrees ... that the New Deal failed," Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has written that the New Deal produced "long-run achievements" that "remain the bedrock of our nation's economic stability" and that Roosevelt's short-term successes were constrained because "he was eager to return to conservative budget principles."
9. Fiscal stimulus in Japan failed during the "lost decade" of the 1990s
On the January 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity joined the ranks of media figures who have cited Japanese fiscal policy in the 1990s in arguing against a large scale-stimulus plan to combat the current recession in the United States. Hannity claimed that "the Japanese economy was suffering, in the '90s, they had eight separate stimulus packages that created, in their history, massive debt. It was unprecedented. And it didn't work." However, as Media Matters documented, according to prominent economists, economic conditions were improving in Japan before the Japanese government temporarily abandoned fiscal stimulus policies in an attempt to reduce the deficit. And Krugman, for one, points to Japan's fiscal stimulus packages as having "probably prevented a weak economy from plunging into an actual depression."
Additionally, Adam Posen, deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote in his September 1998 book, Restoring Japan's Economic Growth, that "the 1995 stimulus package ... did result in solid growth in 1996, demonstrating that fiscal policy does work when it is tried. As on earlier occasions in the 1990s, however, the positive response to fiscal stimulus was undercut by fiscal contraction in 1996 and 1997." Posen also testified before the U.S. House of Representatives that the Japanese government "way overstated the amount of fiscal stimulus in which they actually engaged." Other economists and media accounts of Japan's policies agree with Posen that the positive effects of the mid-decade stimulus packages in Japan were curtailed by attempts to scale back spending and increase taxes.
10. The economic recovery bill would amount to spending more than $200K per job created
Numerous media figures, including David Brooks, Larry Kudlow, Brit Hume, and George Stephanopoulos, have asserted that the proposed economic recovery bill would amount to spending at least $217,000 for every job created, echoing a January 15 "Stimulus Quick Facts" press release issued by the Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee. The release stated that "President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save 3 million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $42,000 a year." But by calculating the per-job cost by dividing the estimated total cost of the recovery bill by the estimated number of jobs created -- and thus suggesting that the sole purpose of that package is to create jobs -- these media figures ignored other tangible benefits stemming from the package, such as infrastructure improvements and investments in education, health, and public safety.
Moreover, economists, including Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Dean Baker and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, have presented another criticism of the claim. In a January 24 post on The American Prospect's Beat the Press blog, Baker wrote: "The Republicans have become fond of saying that President Obama's stimulus package will cost $275,000 for every job created. The media have been typically derelict in simply reporting this number without making any assessment to evaluate it -- as though readers in their spare time are supposed to determine whether it is accurate or not." Baker continued:
Okay, let's do the reporters' work for them. First, where do the Republicans get this number? They divide the the $825 billion cost of the stimulus by 3 million jobs that President Obama had originally pledged.
Their arithmetic is right but both numbers are wrong. First, the projections from the Obama team is that their package will create 4 million jobs, not 3 million. Furthermore, it is important to note that this over 2 years, not one year.
The cost is also wrong, or at least misleading. If we assume that the stimulus will work as planned, then it will boost GDP by approximately 1.5 times the amount of spending or $620 billion a year. If GDP rises by this amount, then it will translate into roughly $155 billion a year in higher taxes/lower spending than if we didn't do the stimulus. This is money that should be subtracted from the cost to the taxpayers.
So, if net out the increased revenue from the growth generated by the stimulus we end up with a 2-year cost of $515 billion which will generate roughly 8 million job-years. That comes to about $65k per job year, less than one-fourth of the Republicans' number.
Similarly, in his January 25 New York Times column, Krugman wrote, "As the debate over President Obama's economic stimulus plan gets under way, one thing is certain: many of the plan's opponents aren't arguing in good faith. ... The true cost per job of the Obama plan will probably be closer to $100,000 than $275,000 -- and the net cost will be as little as $60,000 once you take into account the fact that a stronger economy means higher tax receipts."
11. $4.19 billion of stimulus "would go to" ACORN
On January 27, the San Francisco Chronicle reported the false claim -- which the Chronicle attributed to the group Americans for Limited Government -- that $4.19 billion of the economic recovery plan "would go to the liberal housing activist group ACORN." Later the same day, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh repeated the claim: "[I]n the Obama stimulus package, $4.19 billion is going to ACORN. Obama's community organizing -- you -- would somebody tell me what the stimulus is in that?" Limbaugh continued: "Oh, it's not called 'ACORN,' it's called 'neighborhood stabilization programs.' Now, would somebody explain to me what in the name of Sam Hill ... $4.19 billion to a voter-fraud organization has to do with stimulus?"
In fact, the bill contains no language mentioning ACORN. The false claim is based on a misrepresentation of a provision that would appropriate $4,190,000,000 "for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008." The provision requires that money will be distributed through competitive processes. It states that "not less than $3,440,000,000 shall be allocated by a competition" to "States, units of general local government, and nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities." It also provides that "up to $750,000,000 shall be awarded by competition to nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities to provide community stabilization assistance."
The Chronicle's report and Limbaugh's comments echo material released by House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) office. A January 26 "fast facts" release claimed of the stimulus bill: "The legislation could open billions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which has been accused of voter fraud, is reportedly under federal investigation; and played a key role in the housing meltdown." A January 23 release to which the January 26 document links stated that "the Democrats' bill makes groups like ACORN eligible for a $4.19 billion pot of money for 'neighborhood stabilization activities.' "
12. Robert Reich proposed excluding white males from recovery plan
On January 22 and January 23, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity falsely asserted or suggested that former Labor Secretary and Obama economic adviser Robert Reich, speaking at a congressional forum, proposed that jobs created by the economic recovery package should exclude white males. In fact, while addressing concerns from women's advocacy groups and others about the composition of the proposed stimulus, Reich said then and has repeatedly stated that he favors a stimulus plan that "includ[es] women and minorities, and the long-term unemployed" in addition to skilled professionals and white male construction workers, not one that is limited to women and minorities.
During the forum, Reich stated that the jobs created should not "simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers." Reich continued: "I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that the money does go to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals."
Great headline on Drudge right now.
let Obama have his stimulus bill, but for mmfa to act like any opposition to it is just furthering myths and falsehoods is asinine. There is plenty of debate of how our economy will react to this bill down the road, nobody, least of all liberal mmfa and it's leftwing advocating, knows for sure. if mmfa wants to silence the debate by calling those who disagree pushing myths and falsehoods, go ahead, the rest of us know better.
MMFA isn't saying "any opposition to it is just furthering myths and falsehoods." Just the opposition based on myths and falsehoods.
Why does it anger you that they point out this stuff? Because the neo-con fact obscuring can't go on unchallenged anymore?
Sorry you are wrong. MM is only showing the false statement and then proving that it is false.
MMfA is only trying to shut down debate based on false premises. Believe it or not, there is plenty of rational debate amongst all of us scary libs over the details of the plan as well as reasonable objections on the right that have been silenced by the much louder lies to which media is giving far too much credibility and exposure.
I had quite an interesting day today. See, there's this food shelter in Austin where I, being unemployed, can go to once a month and get a free weeks worth of groceries for my family. It really helps offset my monthly costs by freeing up money I would have spent on groceries to spend on other necessities like my utilities and water and gas. So I try to help back, I volunteer every Thursday to unload the latest shipment, restock the shelves, and then help bag and load groceries for the other unfortunate people that come there for help.
Now, why do I mention this? Because around 10 this morning the christian clergyman who runs the shop called us in to have a prayer. The prayer? He prayed for Obama's plan to fail because if it succeeds, the plan would be paid for by the Chinese again. Aparently, they only need another 900 billion in debt to call the US on the bill. When we can't pay, they are gonna use that debt to force the US to turn into a communist nation under their control. I kid you not.
I totally blame conservative talk radio for fueling rampant speculation that allows otherwise well meaning people as these to come to ignorant conclusions. Y'all should be proud of yourselves for taking advantage of your religious base like that.
If only a "faith-based" economy would work. Praying for failure - how can that be christian?
It's about as christian as suggesting that tax cuts for business will create jobs. I didn't lose my job because I was an underperformer, I lost my job because Michael Dell used his tax cuts to pay for his plan to outsource all his manufacturing to China. And quite frankly, I'm just a little peeved that Democrats aren't picking up on that message and broadcasting it with the same zell as republicans spread lies.
There are examples around that work much better than this one. Unfortunately, the adherents tend to stay in the background and let their actions speak rather than their words, whereas in this case, the leader is allowing his words to speak much louder than his actions.
Wow, another bigot to add to the list. I've volunteered at the local shelter some in the past and have never heard the person in charge even mention politics in a prayer, but I know there are those who do. Unfortunately, there are bigots that use religion to further an agenda that is not (in this case) centered on the Scriptures I read and try to adhere to. There is more than conservative talk radio involved here, but Shamity, RashL, Michael the Dolt, etal bear a great deal of blame for this type of conduct.
I'll stick to misguided and ignorant because the food pantry is well meaning. But you're right, talk radio prays on these types to use the pulpit to spew their misguided lies. And they say the dems use illegal immigrants...
better choice of words in retrospect, but us old timers tend to call 'um as we sees 'um. This guy is a misguided and ignorant bigot.
Snoop, I can't tell you how disappointing, disconcerting and downright depressing your story of the Christian clergyman is. I, too, sometimes meet people who by all appearances are good, decent people...and then they start talking. It amazes me the level of ignorance and gullibility that exists out there...people who would believe e-mails eminating from strangers about the most ridiculous things, for example. Intelligence can be measured in many different ways, but it just makes you wonder if some inherent stupidity among Americans is being exposed. I don't know... I'm not expecting everyone to share my political views, but the stupidity out there is staggering.
Did he also pray for the Republicans and their attempt at "Taliban-like insurgency"?
...but for mmfa to act like any opposition to it is just furthering myths and falsehoods is asinine.
Strawman alert #1.
if mmfa wants to silence the debate by calling those who disagree pushing myths and falsehoods, go ahead, the rest of us know better.
Strawman alert #2.
I think that a strawman arguement needs to be defined to jamesb. Apparently, he doesn't know what it is. If he did, his entire post of two points wouldn't have consisted entirely of strawman arguments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
There is no problem with debate about the stimulus bill. There is a problem with debate based on lies. There is a huge difference between the two.
So, how do we get this info to the misinformed?
Once again the right wing continues to spread lies. The media seems so happy to hop on board and project it as the truth. But I don't think this will work. These right wing hacks have been talking about tax cuts for the rich. More tax cuts for the corporations (rich) and even more tax cuts on capital gains (rich). They lost that argument in November. But hey when the economy turns around they will all have to deal with more losses as their party becomes less and less important. I'm actually happy that the right wing hasn't changed a bit in two years we can pick up 1 more seat in the senate. That will end the right wing being able to get in our way.
I would link this story to my conservative friends, but their brains are not wired to withstand so much substance and truth, and I'm against torture.
You're right...it's a complete waste of time trying to open the eyes of our conservative friends to the gross misrepresentations they are constantly fed. A question I frequently ask them is How would you know that FOX is lying to you if the only information you receive is from FOX? I like to think that I get my information from a variety of sources, including a foundation of reading history and legitmate investigative journalism, other than just television and radio...but many people don't. I like to think I can discern liberal spin as well. In my fantasy world I would love to see an expose' of the magnitude of lies, distortions, and misinformation that is dumped on the uninformed public by FOX and others. But who could do such an expose'? The so-called MSM? Hardly...as the MSM is often so lazy and incompetent and, perhaps more significantly, the MSM would open itself up to criticism of its own shortcomings. Nevertheless, what I see as the greatest problem in America today is the gross misinformation that is let loose every single day by FOX and others, combined with an ever-increaing nastiness and hatred towards anyone or anything deemed liberal. This is a mean, divided country and we will never solve our problems in the current state of divisiveness. And it's all because of ignorance. And, unfortunately, there are elements of the Republican Party that encourage and take advantage of that ignorance.
I think you nailed it, Irony.
So... BO says that if the "recovery and reinvestment plan" isn't passed a bad situation will become dramatically worse, crisis could turn into catastrophe for families and businesses. That sounds like he's spreading fear, however, my guess is the left will say it's just a prediction. Every time in history the capital gains tax has been lowered the result was dramatic increase in revenues for the government. Here's some tax incentives for businesses to stay here: eliminate corporate income tax. Sounds silly? What do they do now? The look for loopholes; they lobby OUR representatives for more; they absolutely pay nothing out of their pockets for taxes -- they add it on to the cost of doing business and raise the price of their product. When is the last time you went to a poor person for a job? Workers are there for the business, not the other way around. This bill has over $450,000.000 to build a new structure for the laughable Department of Homeland Security. $199 million for "General budget stabilization." What the hell is that?!? $90 billion going to increase the federal share of Medicaid payments and an additional $79 billion to help states avoid cutbacks in education and other services. Separately, $43 billion will go for transportation improvements; General Electric gets $300,000,000 to give rebates to people who buy energy efficient appliances that GE sells. Look, no one is saying these aren't necessary things, but they're NOT going to create jobs! It's just more spending! A lot of the bill are pent-up projects the Democrats have put off because of W. I think it's curious when GWB wins with 51% of the vote and the headlines read COUNTRY DIVIDED and then Obama wins with 52% and the headlines read COUNTRY UNITED. (Deport the illegals and we'll have billions more money in the coffers.... billions. Calling the illegals uncocumented is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist.)
How can you say that construction and infrastructure improvement projects won't create jobs? Everything from architects, material suppliers, construction workers on down... How can you say that helping states avoid cut backs will not save jobs? How can you say that the stimulus won't pump money into the economy? Time does not permit me to go further, but I notice you make no mention of the $9 billion dollars a month being spent on a war in Iraq. Is that helping our economy?
Irony, I'd like to sit with you and watch Fox, MSNBC and whatever else network spins stuff and exchange observations. Regardless.... I didn't say that the infrastructure doesn't need work. So many things need 'fixed' but not with the tax money of me, you, and those that follow. For all those that don't know, Reagan spent us into dire circumstance with the national debt, racking up huge numbers, and so it's been for every year since except for one year when Bill Clinton signed an actual balanced budget. I'm not sure if it was realized but it looked good on paper. There is no way in ours or our children's lifetime that we will get it paid off but we will see if further erode the value of the dollar vs. other world currencies. Then China, Malaysia, and other countries' goods will be cheaper and better than ours on an even bigger scale than it is now. Money will continue to flow out of the US contributing more devaluation of our currency. The trillion for the first bail out that Bush signed? Where did that come from? THE GOVERNMENT PRINTED IT, THAT'S ALL.
The money supply was doubled when Bush was in office, some of the fall out was the expoential rise in oil prices accounting for 40% of the increase in price. No, the 'stimulus' packages being touted by GWB and BHO will only delay the inevitable. The inevitable is that the government will be bankrupted, and they will take us down with them. They're starting already with state-sponsored businesses -- the very definition of socialism. Helping states avoid cut-backs only delays the problem. Soon they will have to work like we do when we fall into debt -- WE CUT EXPENSES AND WORK TO PAY THE DEBT.
The 'stimulus' will create some tasks for some people to do paid by tax dollars, and they'll manage to pay back 10% of it in taxes. But those jobs will go away once the stimulus money gets spent and then they'll be out of work and we'll be more and more in debt. Look at California, Irony. It's proof personified that a state cannot tax and spend it's way into prosperity -- and we can't afford to support people here illegally. (Calling them "undocumented" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist.") America is the one country in the world that comes to everyone else's aid but we will no longer be able to if we keep going in the direction we're going. And the $9,000,000,000 a month for the war in indeed helping our economy as has every war in our history. In fact, we have had a war at the very least every 10 years, and 20 at the most between wars. Eisenhower coined the phrase "military-industrial complex." That it is.... that it is...
Spotless Records for Peanut Co. Indicate Newspaper Libel Abetting Domestic Terror
(Obama has not picked a new head for the bumbling monstrosity of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Economic recovery blighted with the looks of another domestic terror scam striking into the heart of the nation's food supply, media full of falsehoods and still holding its end up for magoo.)
-The New York times cautious about tracking down the rumor mongers, won’t identify them, finds university fixture to invent fallacy of plant’s procedural documentation system (NYT, 2/5/09, B10 “Peanut Plant Says Audits Declared It In Top Shape, Andrew Martin).
The tampering game played with food products isn’t just a Chinese-U.K. Cadbury problem, just in the news coincidentally was a search of the building where the Tylenol extortionist (never charged with the tainting) was holed up. The scare transformed the packaging of over the counter medicines, hygiene and food products (A17, ibid).
Tylenol the name brand also was a blip on last years news radar, rising with the conclusion of Amerithrax. The government produced a never before heard of suspect’s name, said they just croaked in a psychiatric lockup from a Tylenol product, and rapidly put all the blame on him posthumously in a hearing closed to both the public and the press. Meanwhile Stephen J. Hatfil and legal team has been putting the press on trial in federal court for repeating what Ashcroft and anonymous government sources confided to a USA Today reporter, attempting to fine the woman into divulging her sources so the Bush Administration could hold a witch hunt into their own ranks. It has that Dickensonian injustice to it by all appearances, but apparently all things could be gotten away with under the unconscionable wavers of the unitary oaf, and have since been vouchsafed to the bi-partisan pin-down beleaguering the Obama Administration.
One theory is that the government’s black ops may have contracted with the drug manufacturer to manufacture and package a subterfuge killing instrument disguised exactly like their regular line of pain relief product in every detail, save the lethal milligrams of cyanide put into the pill molds. It would be used for extermination purposes of interest to perhaps the intelligence community, and have the highest probability of success in certain circumstances (coercive psychiatric gulags) along with duping any care giver or ward attendant, as another measure of shedding attribution. That program’s initial coming to fruition might have sparked dissent from within a cell of insiders losing patience with the police state’s growing penchant for brutal, dictatorial tactics–resulting in a measure of dissent to publically humiliate the program by crossing over inventory at the same plant prior to shipment to some random destination.
Blame in the peanut salmonella scare is now shifting to private, independent inspectors, who no less have to certify by state accreditation standards to contract as an assistive service to regulators over the foods industry. The State of Georgia isn’t given any mention in Andrew Martin’s story. The reporter’s whole emphasis is to characterize the inspectors as “private” and make sure that is the operative smear of reckless, capitalist autonomy or incompetence. Martin consults a Kansas State University associate professor of food safety to rule a determination on “the fallacy of independent audits”–I think we can read the ‘independent’ part of their fallacy.
Another problem is a dichotomy in where salmonella outbreaks typically occur, on uncooked foods such as leafy produce tainted with cattle yard runoff into farming irrigation, and raw meat products the consumer left to cook thoroughly by instructions required on packaging labels per the item and its weight. Peanut butter canning requires high heat and machinery that would demand constant and rigorous steam cleaning after every production run. Whether or not salmonella can even survive their highest batch temperature is an important question for investigators. They should also carefully screen all personnel in the packaging end of production, maintenance and any outside contracted work or human physical presence in their factory for whatever purpose, building a labeled timeline of its occurrence.
The packaging manufacturers are also up for investigation and personnel review. They make the containers the food product goes into, usually the blow-molded polyethylene plastics operations and injection molded polyvinyl plastics, even where the foiled composite sheet is cut into rounds for the very tamper proof seal supposed to protect and form the last barrier of resistance to contamination glued over the jar opening before the lid is screwed on. Same goes for the candy bar and cookie people, they have their packaging engineering and fabrication processes to unravel in their unique ways. Lets examine the scope of industrial forensics for a change instead of leaving it all to the incompetent mush of newspaper libel’s reporters and their ignorant editors.
What better way to plant a salmonella tainting that through a Trojan horse packaging support industry’s third party waltz through the door? Materials are input, peanut products are output, and besides peanuts and water, all the food ingredients, there are all kinds of other things input making direct contact with the food during assembly.
Hopefully the Fibonaccis at the FIB will put on their CBS thinking caps and think it through...that is...unless they’re still committed to being part of the problem, as they were on the morning of 9-11. They may be of the belief they are tainting the swill unto the goy multitude for Israel, as lunatic lockstep as those people have become in their reactive brand of jihad, or skinhead American separatism’s “level # actions”, and who those traitors work for and are controlled by, upholding their vainglory in a monarchio-fascist racial, ethnic purism (A1, ibid)–the model for the Sunday funnies’ “Prince Valiant”, all Aribert Heim needs is a pageboy, a hiked skirt, and a little rouge on the cheeks, then he’d be ready to fraternize with sailors.
Who was President Obama’s choice to take over at the FBI anyway...? Did the transition team miss a slot? And if the domestic terrorist, quasi-governmental insurgent in America can’t frighten with food taintings, will they go back to their accustomed resorts of arranging for the blowing away of the kiddies in the schools? It’s something underneath the handsomeness of the Cro-Magnon skull that doesn’t know what is going too far, playing doctor the way Aribert did then, or poaching the public’s offspring by hook or by crook right now.
obama has some good points. it might hurt the economy, but too late, right?!
the cbo says the bill will just make things worse. i don't think i can stand three more years and 50 weeks of obama.
he is so over the top, saying if we don't pass this dog we will be in a recession forever. what a jerk.
Where in the world did you get such a statement from the CBO? It is exactly the opposite of what they have said.
You are welcome to call Obama a jerk when he starts an unprovoked war like you know who.