Ignoring experts, Matthews accuses Obama of misrepresentation in characterizing "relief" provisions as stimulus
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: On Morning Joe, Chris Matthews accused the Obama administration of not "honestly marketing" the recovery bill, in part because "unemployment extensions" included in the package are "relief," he said, not "recovery." But Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf has testified that transfers to persons, such as unemployment insurance and nutrition assistance, are effective tools to stimulate GDP growth and that the stimulative effect on GDP leads to job creation.
During the February 6 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Hardball host Chris Matthews accused the Obama administration of not "honestly marketing" the economic recovery legislation President Obama supports, in part because, according to Matthews, "unemployment extensions" included in the package are "relief," not "recovery." Matthews stated of Obama: "I think he's got to explain why each big chunk of this will get the economy moving again, and admit honestly that some of it is just relief; it is not recovery or reconstruction. Some of it is simply paying off people with real problems, like unemployment extension and health care for the unemployed. He ought to just say, this part is relief. This part is recovery. And this part is reconstruction. But he hasn't honestly marketed it and that's the problem, I think." In fact, as Media Matters for America documented, Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Elmendorf stated in January 27 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 -- chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, who was 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.
From the February 6 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
JOE SCARBOROUGH (host): Why did they let Nancy Pelosi and the group on the Hill draw up this bill? And they voted.
MATTHEWS: I don't know. Because Hillary Clinton made the opposite mistake. She tried to design it completely in a micromanaging sense, her health care bill, and everybody said, "No, you should have set some broad designs up and let [Rep. John] Dingell [D-MI] and [Rep. Jim] Cooper [D-TN] and those guys put it together -- and [former Rep. Dan] Rostenkowski [D-IL]." This time around, they said, "Do what you want, kids. Talk among yourselves, come up with something, and we'll sign it." I think that's -- and call anything you want stimulus.
SCARBOROUGH: Was that a bad mistake?
MATTHEWS: Oh, yeah, because everything is not stimulus. If everything is stimulus, then the guy rehabbing his office up at Merrill Lynch --
SCARBOROUGH: [former Merrill Lynch CEO John] Thain.
MATTHEWS: -- that's stimulus. Buying -- going out there buying jet streams, or those airplanes, Gulfstreams --
PAT BUCHANAN (MSNBC political analyst): Gulfstreams.
MATTHEWS: -- that's stimulus. If every dollar spent is good -- what you got to do is package it honestly. And part of it's relief, and part of it's recovery, and part of it's reconstruction.
SCARBOROUGH: But -- but --
MATTHEWS: They haven't honestly defined it.
SCARBOROUGH: Let's pass it up to Mika. Mika?
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Well, two questions -- one from me and then one from [New York Magazine contributing editor] John Heilemann: What's the rush? Why can't -- why -- why must this be done now? Heilemann, throw one in.
HEILEMANN: Chris, I want to know, you know, the -- Obama's going to go -- he's going to do a news conference next week on Monday. They're talking about an Oval Office address. Why has he not been out there earlier? Why has he not been taking this case in this way directly to the American people earlier on? It seems like they've let this debate kind of get way in front of them and now they're trying to catch up.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: I think he's failed as a communicator, John. And I think the -- it's such an irony for one of the great communicators since Reagan and Kennedy. If you -- if somebody came up to me and said, I want to sell you this car, and you couldn't see the wheels on the car, and you couldn't see the engine, you'd say, how does this thing work?
The trouble with the stimulus package is they keep calling it a stimulus package, but you can't see the stimulus. How does this work again? And he's never really explained how any big chunk of this thing is going to get the economy moving again. He's got to say, this part of it's going to get this thing going. This part is going to get that thing going. The tax cuts are going to get consumers buying stuff; the stores are going to be filled again. People are going to buy cars again, blah blah blah; this other part is going to have cops put on the street again, so they'll be safe shopping again, and neighborhoods will not empty out again.
I think he's got to explain why each big chunk of this will get the economy moving again, and admit honestly that some of it is just relief; it is not recovery or reconstruction. Some of it is simply paying off people with real problems, like unemployment extension and health care for the unemployed. He ought to just say, this part is relief.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: This part is recovery. And this part is reconstruction. But he hasn't honestly marketed it and that's the problem, I think.
BRZEZINSKI: OK. That's fair. [MSNBC political analyst Mike] Barnicle? Barnicle?
I think Matthews is onto something here. And if there's anyone with the appropriate perspective, it's Matthews.
I think he's basically saying "Hey - Obama has been negligent in his duties for not getting out there on the tv, radio, print, and explaining to the American people what this bill is really about".
I mean, really.... who else is suppose to do that stuff?
Good point, Neon. Matthews isn't as bad off as say, Hannity, who, after a year of intense media scrutiny of Barack Obama, still knew absolutely nothing about the man, but I still have to feel for him.
These hard-working journallettes sit around all day waiting for someody to send them the Cliff Notes to current events. How frustrating for them when that "On the Air" light goes on, and they have to tell their audience that nobody has spoon-fed the info to them, so the only topic will be "what don't we know?".
Cliff won't send his notes, because they ignore accurate summaries. They prefer to just, you know, blather off the top of their little heads, whatever they've "heard" about the bill.
What did they not know, and when did they not know it? everyday....
I think Matthews is onto something here.
Say what?
Exactly what is Matthews' point here, anyway? -- that we shouldn't have more unemployment relief? That it's somehow dishonest for Obama to pursue this goal, or that he has to run the gauntlet in order to get it in?
What perversity on the part of Matthews! Only a corrupt rich guy would gripe about unemployment money.
Agreed, it's very clear. I think Matthews is just trying to come up with things to say. Passage of this bill is not dependent on better "marketing" nor will happen if those opposed to the bill have it "explained" to them. Those opposed to getting this done are just scared of becoming irrelevant and they’re against its passage for purely political reasons.
Matthews isn't talking about marketing it to those opposed to voting on it, he is talking about marketing it to the American people.
The minority in the Congress who are opposed to this bill won't ever be convinced by the majority in this country (52% to 38%) who want it passed.
Obama disagrees, which is why he's taking his stimulus case to the American people, as he did last night. i'm sure he appreciates your advice nevertheless, but apparently would dismiss it as nonsense.
And what Obama is not doing by any sane stretch of the imagination, is "marketing" and since this thread is about Matthews and his off base economic talking points, I think he's just babbling to fill airtime, which I'm pretty convinced is a good thing, because it means he's capable of getting this stuff correct sometimes. As a sidebar, do you ever get sick of the trolling?
you made a incorrect observation, i corrected you. now you're insisting that Obama is not doing any marketing, which is of course ridiculous. Pumping up and promoting his bill is the very definition of selling it, or marketing it. once again you have no idea what you post, don't you get sick of that?
How the heck can you call "fear-mongering" (your words) "marketing"?
you don't think people can market fear? it's a strong motivator for some, and quite effective.
The Numbnuts Administration did it for 7 years.
no argument there
Are you just making this up as you go along, trying to stray further and further away from Mattthews to Obama? Do you now think Matthews is asserting that Obama needs to do a better job of "marketing" the end of the world to the American people? What the heck are you trying to get at?
if your ignorance would stop forcing endless corrections, you wouldn't be responsible for straying the conversation. yes, that is what I think Matthews is asserting. he may be right, we'll see what happens.
I think he's got to explain why each big chunk of this will get the economy moving again, and admit honestly that some of it is just relief; it is not recovery or reconstruction. Some of it is simply paying off people with real problems, like unemployment extension and health care for the unemployed. He ought to just say, this part is relief.
I see the problem now, you failed to read this item or listen to the audio.
Matthews is indeed saying that OBama needs to do a better job of marketing, perhaps it is you who should heed your own advice. AS for your end of the world to the American people nonsense in your earlier post, I ignored that as it's just idiotic hyperbole, something I've come to expect from you.
Oh, you ignored what I asked you about Mattews by saying "yes" to it. Ok then.
Matthews is indeed saying that OBama needs to do a better job of marketing
That was never in question.
I just sent Matthews an e-mail...
I think the Colonel made a great point above:
Today's topic for the cable channels: What don't we know today? And how can we get viewers to cling long enough to our stupidity so we can get some commercials on.
Here's a headline: Matthews Ignores Experts While Urging Obama To Market Stimulus Bill Like A Used Car
Oh, and since you now think that "fear-mongering" and "marketing" are one in the same, here's some advice:
"Drink Less Stupid Juice, Moron, The Effects May Be Irreversible"
and I thought your incredible cluelessness was limited just to politics, now I see it's quite pervasive, it's in the business arena too.
That's a compliment coming from someone who thinks Obama is "marketing" the irreversible collapse of the US economy to the American people.
Matthews isn't talking about marketing it to those opposed to voting on it, he is talking about marketing it to the American people.
yeah, right-- the 'people' can't get the idea of unemployment compensation, and need to be sold on it, right? On just what planet is this, besides right-wing republicanville?
better check the planet you're on, considering the poll numbers for the stimulus bill are dropping, Obama better market it better.
Public opinion polls matter little when Congress faces big vote:
A majority, 56 percent, thinks a country should not be allowed to attack another unless it is actually attacked first. When applied to the United States, a greater percentage of respondents still rejected the notion of “pre-emptive war” (44 percent) than those who supported it (43 percent).
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/oct2002/poll-o08.shtml
Members of Congress who are opposed to the Stimulus Bill will not be swayed by polls nor will they turn around indirectly through "marketing". The GOP opposition is purely political and ideological. Doing what's right by the American people matters not to them.
you're so confused on politics it's amazing. first off, to be opposed to something for ideological reasons is commendable, so for you to lump that in with political would be ridiculous for most, but not for you. And if you don't think fingers in the wind politicians aren't swayed by public opinion and polling, you are even more of touch with reality than I thought. go back to asking stupid questions and posting non-sequiter nonsense, it serves you better.
Putting one's party's interest above the people's interest is not comendable. And your constant reliance on insults is very telling.
So... Is he worse during the morning or at night?
What time of day are your questions least rhetorical?
These conservatives keep trying to twist reality with regard to citizens' givebacks, like tax credits and unemployment insurance and food stamps.
People who live paycheck to paycheck will immediately stimulate the economy with their spending of their unemployment extensions, and if they know those benefits are going to be extended, they're more likely to spend more money today in the earlier months of their unemployment payments!
I think the biggest problem is that a lot of these "journalists" are not doing any analysis on their own, so they're swallowing the GOP talking points and passing them along as if they're facts.
The coverage I've seen on CNN seems to be a little better than what I've seen on MSNBC (except for Maddow and Olbermann). Those idiots on Morning Joe are pathetic. Their partisanship on this issue is transparent as hell.
Frankly, I don't know WHAT is or is not in the so-called "Stimulus" package. I am getting pretty tired of having to click every "blue" word in every blog, every on-line newspaper and magazine just to get some handle on it. The President HAS to get on every television program and explain, in detail, what this package is designed to do. How do we separate the pork from the workable items? One of the biggest jokes is Amtrak. Amtrak? It has always been an embarrassment. I am trusting the Dems to have a vision that I can't enjoy.
How much money is going to Amtrak Maddogg?
About 1 tenth of 1 percent of entire Stimulus package? Republicans are using frivolous arguments to attack the Stimulus, but in the end, they might find that their conservative party has become frivolous-- or maybe, irrelevant.
1/10 of 1% of $800 Billion is like $800 Million, right? Doesn't seem like much from a percentage standpoint, but $800 Million seems like a lot of money, everywhere except WA DC. How many jobs will that create/save?
3200, yes three thousand two hundred.
Poor baby is getting tired of having to read about the stimulus package. Because you seem to be incapable of understanding english, the Stimulus Package is designed to "Stimulate the economy". To get our economy moving and get people working by "spending money". If you can't figure out more for yourself, you're hopeless. Oh yeah, Amtrak is only an "embarrassment" to clueless righties.
I think Chris Matthews leaned a little more left after the popularity of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow began to soar. But, he's still pretty old guard, in terms of the "talking head" show stuff. Ultimately, I think the problem is, since all these media pundits are millionaires, they are naturally going to be inclined to the Republican agenda of income and capital gains tax cuts. Pure self-interest, really. The phone-cam kids have started "out" these moguls for being the corporate shills they truly are.
Seriously, MSNBC is unreal these days. The country is falling apart and shedding jobs left and right and all MSNBC does is find Republicans to go on their air and bitch about Democrats and Obama's stimulus plan -- as if the right wing policies of the last 30 years which began under Reagan haven't put us in this economic position.
Obama will go over the head of Congress to sell the Stimulus package directly to the American people. Conservatives will rant and rave about how he's acting like the "Messiah" again, and never you damn mind that this is exactly what they constantly praise THEIR Messiah, Ronald Reagan, for doing.
Thank you for your kind sumation of the current GOPL talking points. Trust me on this, we're very much aware of them.
Though your a bit slow on the impeachment call. There were at least fifty sites up calling for it just a day or two after the election.
the cbo says the stimulus bill, so-called, will make matters worse. so why are you supporting it? the cbo is non partisan
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/
tax cuts worked for kennedy, reagan, and bush,
Revisionist history rears its ugly head once again.
are you truly that ignorant?
Yah I don't understand. You gave him the proper talking points. That should be the end of it.
What went wrong? The warrenty on your Juju Master expire? Whats the world coming to if just anyone can dare to question the neocon way of truthiness?