Quick Fact: Beck advances myth that stimulus bill is not working
Glenn Beck advanced the conservative myth that no jobs have been created under the stimulus and baselessly claimed that its "intent to restore the economy ... [is] not working either." In fact, independent analyses of the stimulus, including those conducted by Moody's Economy.com and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, have estimated that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) increased employment by as many as 2.4 million jobs by the end of 2009 and added to real GDP growth in the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2009.
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.
Beck claims stimulus isn't helping to "restore the economy," no jobs "have been created"
Beck claims stimulus "not working" and no jobs have been created. During his February 17 Fox News show, Beck stated of the stimulus, "Can I ask you this question: Was there any intent to restore the economy in the first part? 'Cause that's not working either. Maybe it could be in the third part. I don't know." He later said that the ARRA "was not about creating jobs. None have been created."
Fact: White House, independent analysts agree stimulus has increased employment and GDP compared to non-stimulus baseline
White House economic advisers: "[T]he ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by 1½ to 2 million." In a quarterly report issued January 13, the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) estimated: "As of the fourth quarter of 2009, the CEA estimates that the ARRA has raised employment relative to the baseline by between 1½ and 2 million. The CEA estimates for both the effects on GDP and employment are similar to those of respected private forecasters and government agencies." From the CEA's quarterly report:
NY Times' Leonhardt: Independent analysts "estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that is ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs." From David Leonhardt's February 16 New York Times analysis:
Imagine if, one year ago, Congress had passed a stimulus bill that really worked.
Let's say this bill had started spending money within a matter of weeks and had rapidly helped the economy. Let's also imagine it was large enough to have had a huge impact on jobs -- employing something like two million people who would otherwise be unemployed right now.
If that had happened, what would the economy look like today?
Well, it would look almost exactly as it does now. Because those nice descriptions of the stimulus that I just gave aren't hypothetical. They are descriptions of the actual bill.
Just look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody's Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative.
CEA analysis -- in line with independent analyses -- reported "substantial positive impact on real GDP growth in the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2009." In its quarterly report issued January 13, the CEA stated the following: "The CEA estimates suggest that the Act contributed between 2 and 3 percentage points to real GDP growth in the second quarter; between 3 and 4 percentage points in the third quarter; and between 1½ and 3 percentage points in the fourth quarter. The estimates imply that as a result, it has raised the level of GDP at the end of 2009 by about 2 percent, relative to what otherwise would have been." The CEA noted that "private sector estimates" of the stimulus effects on GDP were "generally similar":
That must have been the latest talking point pushed.
That said. These are estimates NOT from the President, but from the very economic forecasting organizations that the country has been relying on for the last, I dunno, decade or so.
The Prez just reiterates them for his speeches to us.
And it's "cite" not "site"..as in "citation"
A good portion of the stimulus money still hasn't been spent, you fool.
The stimulus was a success because it stopped us from going into a second Great Depression worldwide.
It would have been a severe hit to our economy had we had that financial collapse. The costs would have been much greater than any cost to our economy from the stimulus package.
You act like had he not done it, we'd be exactly where we are today - but that's just not supported by the facts.
I was "restructured" Sept 15, 2008, the stimulus provided unemployment, at 1/3 my normal pay, for me since that time while I looked for work. I have only received my first 2 offers for work THIS WEEK!!!!Feb 19, 2010. The COBRA subsidy knocked my overpriced health insurance down from $1500 to $500, then the insurance company raised the premium to $1780 after my wife got sick!!!! bringing the subsidy up to $600.
I am not alone....
The man's popularity mystifies...
It seems as if the vast majority of these jobs created are temporary. What happens when the stimulus money stops coming? That's the point Beck was trying to make. The jobs created by this stimulus aren't the same type of jobs that the market would create on its own.
Based on what research/statistics/facts, Mags? Didn't think so...
"What happens when the stimulus money stops coming? That's the point Beck was trying to make."
Hardly. If he was trying to make a point he failed miserably, except in the eyes of the lockstep automoton ideologues who think he makes sense. My favorite is where he says "did I hear right?" and then proceeds to show that in fact, no, no he did NOT.
He's a stain.
#1. "Shovel-ready" projects produce buildings/infrastructure where people will work in the future (specialists, scientists, janitors, etc).
To me, that seems like a positive result.
#2. No construction projects have ever been permanent, so why expect it to change now?
#3. The Stimulus funds were meant to uphold/create Industries and commerce where there was none, or where it was lost/stymied. After inception into the economy, these industries will hopefully be self-sustaining. We shouldn't need another Stimulus if everything pans out well.
That said, naysayers will always be naysayers, but the fact is, the Stimulus is working. Facts vs. Opinions.
Obviously not as immediate as we'd like, but if you stare at an single egg long enough, you'll swear it took an 'eternity' to boil, when it was just a few minutes.
People like Beck not only stare at the egg, they keep trying to turn off the stove.
"Common sense."
your allegfed 'common sense' holds more water than the CBO and Moody's and the respective studies they've conducted?
NEXT!
So, give me facts.
There have been several construction jobs done with money from the Recovery Act that I have seen just on my commute into work over the last 6 months. They are private contractors that are performing the jobs. Do you understand that? Please, tell me you understand the basics of construction. They are doing government projects, but the construction workers work in the private sector. While the economy has been done they have been able to keep these men on the payroll by doing government projects.
As the economy picks back up and money gets a little bit cheaper (credit becomes more available) companies like the one I work for will go back to the construction jobs they had slated but have put off while the economy was down. Do you not understand something so simple and basic? Like I said, I am sure Beck does really understand it. He is simply playing a character for fools. Are you really so foolish you cannot see through that?
You just don't have a good grasp of the facts here.
BTW, we operated under Bush's budget until October 1, 2009. There really WERE no "Obamanomics" to speak of until October 1, 2009, when the 2010 budget kicked in.
Come back in a few years and we will see how Obama's economic model has worked. If you cannot see that, then you're just a partisan hack and a waste of time.
Please show us where the government is saying that.
Source
There are 3 options here.
1. A newly hired person was hired for a newly created position.
2. An existing employee didn't lose their income, although they may have changed responsibilities.
3. An existing position that would NOT have continued to have been staffed with a new person otherwise was filled with funding from the Recovery Act.
Of course it would. Why would it not?
"In other words, if your job was never in danger (with or without the stimulus) and your company receives stimulus money for it anyways, that counts as a job "saved or created"." - MagUtterlyConfused
What? Re-read your post. It does not even make sense. If money from the stimulus saved the job or created the job it would count as being saved by the stimulus. How is that confusing to you, but Beck's chalkboard jokes make complete sense? You are being purposefully obtuse. Or you are unable to think for yourself.
pathetic, not working.... FAILURE.... hmmm...
Yeah, the CBO and Moody's and other economic experts like IHS Global say that it IS working, but some guy who takes his screen name from the band that did the soundtrack for Mama Mia says it's not, and because he simply says "THAT'S a FACT", using really big capital letters, we should believe.
your math is as fatally flawed as your logic.
NEXT!
so now you're saying it's successful. And non-partisan economic entities are also saying it's a success.
"Sure, the stimulus was a success if you base it on the weak projection the White House put out at the very bottom."
that's not what Moody's and the CBO are basing is on. You are a blinders-wearing actual-fact-ignoring Beck-apologist ideologue, nothing more.
1. They that unemployment would not reach 8% with the stimulus. It reached 10%.
2. All these claims of success are based on estimates. These estimates include jobs that were never in danger of being lost to begin with. You don't think this skews the data at all?
3. Before the stimulus the CBO predicted GDP to be slightly less than $14 trillion. With the stimulus it came to slightly under $13.2 trillion.
Estimates do not mean success. Actual facts will be the indicator of success.
That is the most asinine statement I've ever read. Slightly under 14 trillion is what 13 and change? Slightly under 13.2 is what 13 and change? WTF are smolking?
2. All these claims of success are based on estimates. These estimates include jobs that were never in danger of being lost to begin with. You don't think this skews the data at all?
Oh really ? I think these two republicans would disagree with you:
– GOP Leadership Leads The Way In Hypocrisy: Although he regularly slams the stimulus as a waste while in DC, McConnell has returned to Kentucky to take credit for stimulus programs, even taking time to request more funds. ThinkProgress attended two job fairs held by Cantor, where we found dozens of employers able to hire directly because of the stimulus. Indeed, even Boehner’s office released a statement boasting that the stimulus will create “much needed jobs.”
– The Audacity Of Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds: Many opponents of the stimulus have been quite brazen with their ability to try to claim credit for the program. For instance, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) spent the morning of July 28th railing against the stimulus, yelling “Where’s the stimulus package? Where’s the jobs?” on the House floor. On the same day of his rant, Kingston’s office sent out multiple press releases bragging that he had secured hundreds of thousands in stimulus funds to hire additional police officers in his district. Other stimulus opponents, like Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) — who has called the stimulus a “trillion dollar debt bill” — have printed out jumbo-sized ceremonial stimulus checks to present to local communities to try to garner positive press.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/17/stimulus-hypocrisy-101/
Do you think it's fair to include jobs that were never in danger of being lost as a "saved or created" job?
What do you think about unemployment still being higher than before the stimulus was passed?
Why didn't the actual GDP reach anywhere near what the CBO projected it to be at according to this graph?
If the person was to be layed off, but then not due to stimulus funds, is that not the same as one person losing their job and another getting a job, due to the stimulus funds?
You're just wrong on this, and misinformed.
The stimulus was absolutely necessary, and was too small given how bad the economy actually tanked in late 2008.
And how much of the stimulus money went to creating these jobs? It breaks it down on this website. It breaks it down into three categories. Let's take the smallest amount of those three categories and divide it by the largest estimate of jobs created. You get $93,333 per job. That's incredibly wasteful even under the ideal numbers I took.
Sometimes new jobs get created via stimulus, filled by a new employee.
Sometimes existing employees fill a new position.
Sometimes new employees fill an existing position.
What part of this is hard to understand?
And as I ALSO already explained, NOT ALL OF THE STIMULUS MONEY WENT TOWARDS JOB CREATION.
And, in addition, any job created doesn't JUST benefit that job holder!!! That job holder pays sales taxes to local communities. That job holder buys gas and groceries and pays rent and pays income taxes and that person's redistributed income helps pay other people's gas bills and property taxes, etc.
Your blinders view of this income is very typical of your ill-educated and politically partisan view.
Exactly, which is why it is not accurate but totally dishonest to take the lowest of the categories and divide that figure to come up with cost per/job. You don't have the numbers to figure it out so your figure is bogus. But while your trying to pull some other BS out your butt, try adding the revenue from:
"...And, in addition, any job created doesn't JUST benefit that job holder!!! That job holder pays sales taxes to local communities. That job holder buys gas and groceries and pays rent and pays income taxes and that person's redistributed income helps pay other people's gas bills and property taxes, etc..."---DD
Don't you think to be accurate and fair these things should be counted? It is undeniable that we needed a stimulus to hold off another Great Depression unless you are arguing that the economy was fine when Obama took office?
That I completely agree with you on. I am not very computer savvy as it is, but these threads get very confusing and hard to follow for me.
I know that. I haven't been able to find a concrete number that says "x" amount of dollars went directly to job creation.
All I'm arguing as that the stimulus isn't as successful - if at all - as our government is claiming. And this isn't even getting in to the comparison between the cost and benefits of the program.
There are job POSITIONS that would not have been FILLED had the stimulus not been around. The requirement for a person was there, but they didn't have the money to PAY to fill that position.
This is not rocket science.
And no, you aren't just arguing that the stimulus isn't as successful as the gov't is complaining. You're lying in an effort to back up your false allegation that the stimulus has been as successful as the gov't is saying it has been.
You have more trouble putting your muddled thoughts into coherent posts, or perhaps you just can't. Work on that or don't bother posting here.
So I see the point of looking at the fact that jobs created or saved stimulate the economy by not only benefitting form the labor used but that person then uses his/her wages to support others as no man is an island. It's all interconnected. Not a far fetched concept nor one not supported by many economist. Infact I argue th8is is a far more beneficial way to stimulate the economy. And of course if you refering to me or anything I used in my post...you know I'am not going anywhere right?
I was responding to the mess that is DellDollySue, not you. If you feel like you are being "peed" on by those more financially well off than you are and that you are somehow entitled to their "income" being redistributed to you, fine.
Just don't complain when the gravy train runs dry, because why would they have incentive to work, spend, invest, grow their business, expand, hire, develop and create if they are forced to give more of it to those who haven't earned it? I wouldn't.
Oh now I'm not going to take this increase in wealth because I might have to give some away in taxes. Or I might have to hire a new employee and pay them some of my increased wealth.
Oh Please. That is such B.S.
But also thanks for showing us how that personal animus makes you try to blame ME for YOUR poor reading comprehension skills.
You make no point, you provide no examples, simply spittle and bluster, as usual.
As far as your your bogus biased graph from the Heritage foundation it proves nothing. It wasn't as high as the CBO projected over 10 yrs. the Heritage foundation says. Read key word "projection" and what it included a 10 yr. study? WTF!
As far as jobs being saved almost every state was llay8ing off teachers,fireman,cutting hours of state employees. The stimulus saved alot of the these jobs.
But WTF am I talking to someone on another thread tried to convince people we had not heard what Glenn had said. Get your head out of his butt breath some fresh air. Get off the computer like I'am about to do and read a book.
This just means the recession was worse than expected.
"All these claims of success are based on estimates. These estimates include jobs that were never in danger of being lost to begin with. You don't think this skews the data at all?"
How do you KNOW the jobs were never in danger?
&&
"Before the stimulus the CBO predicted GDP to be slightly less than $14 trillion. With the stimulus it came to slightly under $13.2 trillion. "
When were these CBO projections made?
But I think I've got your logic - estimates are bad, but predictions are good?
Got it.
When did these new ways of counting take effect?
"No clue. Heritage listed the sources, though. Follow those and you'll find out."
I'm not the one using it as the basis of my arguement. You go find out and let me know if it is still relevant.
The data from the graph was taken from various sources dated February 3rd, 2010
Now you tell me, after all this, that we shouldn't be at least questioning our government's proclamation of the success of the stimulus.
Well then anything that MMFA sources is biased too then because they have their own agenda. We all have our own agenda and can't trust anybody.
However, your graph is dated Feb 3, I was asking about the CBO projections IN the graph. If the projections are from, say December 2008, they are not worth much.
"Now you tell me, after all this, that we shouldn't be at least questioning our government's proclamation of the success of the stimulus."
We should ALWAYS question our government's proclamations. Not just when we don't like the party in power. We should have questioned Tax cuts for the rich, WMD's in Iraq and an unfunded perscription benefit.
Seems to me they are both based on faulty data.
However, it cannot be argued, in my opinion, that the stimulus has not worked. It clearly has created jobs. That is pretty obvious. All of the same right-wing politicians that were screaming it would not create one job are now taking credit for jobs it created in their districts. I don't see how that can be denied.
and the facts are (now take your fingers out of your ears, stop saying 'NYAH NYAH NYAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU!' and listen) that the CBO, IHS Global and Moody's, who just might know more than you do about matters economic, all say it's a success.
That's an acual fact.
I've explained this twice above.
If I'm wrong or I'm looking at something incorrectly then tell me. Don't insult me. Don't call me names. Just tell me where I am wrong with the data I'm looking at.
As much as I hate the concept, I don't really know what choice we had a year ago. If the government had done nothing, unemployment might be at 13% or something, and can you imagine the Becks of the world then, the worst economy blah blah ever would have been there meme. And private enterprise just didn't have that kind of money to invest in an economy headed off the cliff.
I agree that the WH may be spinning it more than it's worth or more than it's done, but other side saying it has had no effect are not being genuine either. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle. And I agree that private investment and private sector jobs are far more preferable, I think Obama was backed into a corner and had little choice.
Let's hope things improve, for everyone, and we get a reign on spending. The sooner the better.
Now whether you believe Heritage's ideas would work or not is up to you. They certainly wouldn't have hurt if done in conjunction with a smaller version of the stimulus bill.
What the-?!
OK. That may very well even be true. But, that is quite a switch for the right-wing. In one year they have gone from declaring that the stimulus will make us all into socialist Venezuelans and would not create one job to arging about exactly how many millions of jobs it has created so far.
I would say in the minds of most voters, that would be a success for Obama and a HUGE failure for his political enemies on the right. Don't you think for the next few election cycles all the charlatan right-wingers that delcared the stimulus an abject failure while touting its successes in their own district will continue to be exposed?
1. The estimate of being able to keep unemployment below 8% with this stimulus package was made BEFORE they had all the numbers from Q4, 2008. They were having to craft the stimulus package BEFORE they had those final numbers because some action was desperately needed as soon as possible. Had they known the depth of the problem fully, they would have done two things - not said that this plan they ended up voting on would keep unemployment below 8%, and it's likely they would pushed an even bigger stimulus bill.
It's worse for the economy to have high unemployment than it is to have larger deficits due to a stimulus package to save/create jobs.
"Before the stimulus the CBO predicted GDP to be slightly less than $14 trillion. With the stimulus it came to slightly under $13.2 trillion. "
As I pointed out to you earlier what is slightly less than 14tril. ? Could it be 13 tril and change? What is slightly less than 13.2 tril? 13 tril and change. These are projections with room for error and alot can change and the difference you are talking about given the room for error is miniscule. Again what the graph fails to show is the methodology that was used to put together their analysis. Missing that we can't tell if they twisted numbers or not. Being that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank that was against the stimulus from the outset we can reasonably assume that they would have no interest in showing the stimulus to be successful in other words it was a biased study. You want to prove your point use a more objective independent study . LOL
Now you shills want to come and ask those who are suffering jobs losses and cuts in social services from an economy that was destroyed by greed and mismanagement to suffer some more and wait patiently while enough of them die off through attrition and war while those who destroyed the country...Wall St. and the banks start -up again? We always make the sacrifices this country is more than just the coroporations and banks. Tired of being used as cannon fodder in your wars,and tired of having to tighten our belts while bigwigs eat cavier and sip champaign and take home big bonuses. This country will be equitable for all or it will be for none. That was the situation Obama faced,we were driving off a cliff that would have taken the whole world with us. A world wide Great Depression the last one created a world war destroying millions of lives and wealth that culminated in over 1/6 of the world going communist. The stimulus was an attempt to prevent another castrophe from which we really would not recover.
Not to nit-pick here, but ABBA did not "do" the music for the movie. The music was here long before the movie was made. It's the other way around ... the producer/director, etc. opted to buy the rights to include the music as part of the movie sountrack.
It's some mocking comment about Barack Obama that he thought was clever.
Thanks. Please keep digging that hole you've put yourself in. You used to have some credibility here. You have none now. You're roundly mocked by everyone. Please, keep it up. And continue lashing out the way you do when your shallowness gets exposed. I just love it.
Twice.
But please, keep it up. Keep on digging that hole. Keep proving to anyone who reads these posts that you're a paid troll who isn't able to accomplish what you want to accomplish when the tricks of your trade are exposed for all to see. We all understand how frustrating it is for you.
Too bad, so sad.
It's some mocking comment about Barack Obama that he thought was clever.
Oh! I thought it was
Another
Braindead
Beck
Admirer
Just sayin'
trust me, I'm aware. i was just looking to have some fun with a lousy screen name. (not that mine is anything great!)
Thankfully most people are not stupid enough to fall for it. As Republican gather for their annual summit, it's now quite obvious that Beck is a part of the party's continued attempt to disassociate themselves from Bush-Cheney after endorsing their failed policies for years. Lets not forget they stood by as Bush-Cheney lied to the American people and send thousands of troops to their deaths, stole elections, and funneled corporate-backed soft money.
Then the correspondent's report emphasized the opposition to the stimulus, showing a conservative economist ranting about it (I forget who).
Folks, Brian Williams and David Gregory are both repubs pushing the repub agenda as far as they can sneakily get away with and still appear to the less informed as being unbiased. You see evidence of this over and over.
Agreed. They're both mouthpieces for the current administration. Did you catch Williams' bedside interview with the dear leader a few months ago?