Swing and a miss: Bolling claims that millions of jobs are "nothing"
Fox News' Eric Bolling repeated the discredited claim that the stimulus has "done nothing to help the economy." In fact, economists agree that GDP and employment levels are significantly higher than they would have been without the 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.
Bolling pushes myth that the stimulus failed
Bolling: The stimulus has "done nothing to help the economy." During the September 1 edition of Fox & Friends, guest host Eric Bolling claimed that the stimulus has "done nothing to help the economy" and that "the economy is far worse than it was when we signed over $750 billion that turned into $862 billion." Bolling added, "Forget the other programs, it's literally trillions of dollars of economic stimulus that aren't working."
Independent and private analysts agree stimulus significantly raised GDP, employment
CEA: Recovery act raised GDP by at least 2.7 percent in the second quarter of 2010. In its fourth quarterly report on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) stated that "the ARRA has raised the level of GDP as of the second quarter of 2010, relative to what it otherwise would have been, by between 2.7 and 3.2 percent."
Independent analysts agree that recovery act significantly raised GDP. In its quarterly report, the CEA included figures from independent analyses that also credited the recovery act with increasing the GDP. Included in these figures is the estimate by the nonpartisan CBO, which estimated that the stimulus raised GDP "by between 1.7 percent and 4.5 percent." CEA included the following chart in its report:
CEA: Recovery act has raised employment "by between 2.5 and 3.6 million." In its fourth quarterly report on the ARRA, the CEA stated: "The CEA estimates that as of the second quarter of 2010, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.5 and 3.6 million. These estimates are broadly consistent with the direct recipient reporting data available for 2010:Q1."
Independent analysts agree that recovery act significantly raised employment. In its quarterly report, the CEA included figures from independent analyses that also credited the recovery act with increasing employment:
Economists say stimulus helped economic recovery
WSJ: 70 percent of economists surveyed said stimulus helped. The Wall Street Journal reported on March 12 that 38 of the 54 economists it surveyed "said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act boosted growth and mitigated job losses, while six said the legislation had a net negative effect."
ABC News: Most on panel of economists "think the economy would be worse" without the stimulus. ABC News reported on February 18 that "most" of the economists on its panel "think the economy would be worse today without the big aid package, which totaled $787 billion and was signed into law by President Obama on Feb. 17, 2009."
NABE: 83 percent say stimulus raised GDP. A February survey of 203 members of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE) found that "[e]ighty-three percent believe that GDP is currently higher than it would have been without the 2009 stimulus package (ARRA)."
USA Today: Surveyed economists said "stimulus package saved jobs." USA Today reported on January 25:
President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs -- but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists.
Unemployment would have hit 10.8% -- higher than December's 10% rate -- without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs.
Many economists say we need a second stimulus
Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz: "The U.S. Congress has to pass a second stimulus." In January comments before the Council on Foreign Relations, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz reportedly said that the "stimulus has made a difference" and that "[t]he U.S. Congress has to pass a second stimulus." An August 5 Bloomberg article reported that Stiglitz said it was "absolutely clear that you need a second round of stimulus."
Nobel laureate Robert Solow: There is "need for further stimulus, of serious magnitude." In an August 10 Daily Beast blog post, Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert M. Solow wrote that "our economy is limping along" and that "[i]t would be foolhardy to sit and wait for a spontaneous burst of consumer spending or business investment in a sluggish economy with high unemployment." Solow argued for "further stimulus, of serious magnitude."
Economists have been pushing for additional stimulus for more than a year. A July 13, 2009, post on The New York Times' Economix blog listed economists that supported additional stimulus spending, including Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, former CBO director Robert D. Reischauer, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research Dean Baker, Berkeley economist Brad DeLong, University of Oregon economics professor Mark Thoma, and Yale economics professor Robert Shiller.
Berkeley economist Laura Tyson: We need a second stimulus. In an August 28 New York Times op-ed headlined "Why we need a second stimulus," Laura Tyson, a Berkeley economist who served as chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration and is a current member of Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, wrote that there is "too little appreciation for how stimulus spending has helped stabilize the economy and how more of the right kind of government spending could boost job creation and economic growth."
This is, without doubt, my favorite quote from this article. Bolling claims that millions of jobs are nothing. Let's take the middle of the two numbers, and just say the stimulus created an additional 3 million jobs. That means that Obama created more jobs during one year in office than Dumbya did in all eight years. Bolling is right about one thing: the number of jobs that Bush created was insignificant! These idiots wrecked the economy once. Why are we still listening to them again?!
However, I am trying to look for a reliable source of information on how the economy is being affected, and it would appear that Fox and CNN have fallen short. MMFA also cites the WSJ for their pathetic 6-9 month old assessment of the economy, but I do vaguely remember them calling the wsj out as misinformers. Hypocrites.
Do you also think the U.S. is a "White Nation" ? A "Female nation"?
Have fun at the beach but be careful about swallowing too much salt water. Remember how it affected you last time - you were barely coherent with your post-beach posts.
And your second paragraph? Totally unintelligible. You need to stop drinking or stop posting.
But I DID understand that you demonstrate the binary thinking that so many rightwingers are afflicted with when you can't understand that the Wall Street Journal might be GOOD at some things and BAD at other things, or even good at some things on one occasion and bad at that same thing another time! Just because MMFA recognizes a reliable source on one issue on one occasion and also notes that the same source was in error on another occasion doesn't make them hypocrites.
But it DOES make YOU a doofus when you fail to understand this simple concept!!! And it makes you a returning troll with a new screen name, afflicted with the same fatal flaws as you used to have.
1) What religion do you think I am?
2) Where in the Constitution does it say that Christianity is the religion of this country? (I'd start my search with the First Amendment, if I were you)
As MMFA covered earlier today on another article, the CBO says that stimulus will cost $814 million, not $862 million.
And this rightwing false meme that unless the economy is in perfect shape right now, no good could have been done by the stimulus is baffling. They pretend that they can't understand how any good could have been done if we still have high unemployment.
This is a typical rightwing technique - they ignore what the economy would have looked like without the stimulus! How they can ignore it and keep a straight face is what baffles me.
In any event, unless jobs start to recover pretty soon, what with all this stimulus money spent, the economy will continue to sputter. Period. How long are we supposed to wait? Because I'd say you have only a couple months until November when a very restless electorate is about to throw the Democrats out. I am not so much agreeing that will do much good, but that is what's going to happen.
So rather than try and puff up this economy with these pep talks, this administration and its unwavering backers better figure how to jump start it pretty fast before we inch toward that cliff, again.
There is much peace and understanding to be had. No need to say hurtful things to one another. Perhaps to you right On seems to be misinformed, but you are only hurting your argument with your vicious attacks.
Pride is an abomination, DellDolly.
Peace be with you.
Executive Excess 2010: CEO Pay and the Great Recession - The 17th annual executive compensation survey looks at how CEOs laid off thousands while raking in millions.
Oh, and you are just derailing the thread with this obsession of yours.
Please don't feed this troll.
The number of thumbs down he got are similar to the number of thumbs down that other rightwing troll posters got on this thread. So, there's NO evidence of ANY personal attack thumbs down solely directed at a poster rather than what he posted!
When I get them and other posters saying similar things DON'T get them, then it's a clear sign of personal animus. This is really a pretty simple concept, RightOn - do you REALLY want to assert that it's beyond your capacity to understand it? REALLY?
You REALLY want to pretend that you don't understand how some thumbs down are clearly aimed at the message and others are clearly aimed at the messenger? You want to pretend that you're THAT stupid?
Troll.
Idiot right wingnuts? I don't think so!
Democrats unlikely to repeal tax cuts for the rich:
However, a small but growing number of moderate Democrats are balking at boosting taxes on the rich. Many face electorates that recoil at the mention of any tax increase. Some represent areas that are loaded with wealthier taxpayers. Further, some incumbent senators who don't face voters this fall are reluctant to increase taxes on anyone while the economy remains sluggish.
The rich (i.e. “job creators”) are getting richer, their profits are higher, their taxes are low and they’re unlikely to go up any time soon. The perfect supply-sider, trickle-down recipe for "job creation" (and I keep putting that in quotes for a reason).
How long are we supposed to wait?
The fact is that the only thing delaying investment is consumer confidence, not vague fears of government actions. When consumers start spending again the recovery will swing into a higher gear. That's when jobs will return, lagging factor that it is.
It's not pretty, and confidence suffers. People hold on to what they have.
That's not going to go over very well with the more progressive thinkers.
I say since the stimulus was such a success the first time, we do it right this time and have another gazillion bazillion dollar stimulus package and solve all our problems just like that.
If you listen to the conservatives around here, the reasons we are in a sluggish recovery is because the stimulus has failed, setting aside the fact that we were losing 700,000 jobs per month before the the stimulus passed.
Now I know people like Sue blame everything, including the kitchen sink, on the right wing media - but reality is reality. Companies are nervous, so they are more cautious, with everything, including any capital they have to spend and invest.
Yours is a good example of that.
They're looking for workers who are desperate enough to take any job at any wage, which China has in abundance. They feel no loyalty or allegiance whatsoever to the American worker and are completely ignorant of the residual effects of a strong middle class.
Government regulation is not the reason American workers cannot compete with dirt-cheap overseas labor.
It's your article.
"China is one of the most attractive and profitable countries in the world to be operate a bank."
Now how could that be? Could it be because overhead is so insanely cheap? Need a building? No problem, you can get one for next to nothing because construction workers aren't paid squat. Need workers to fill your positions? No problem, there's literally millions of people in this country desperate enough to work for practically nothing!
Apparently, the US should be striving to be more like China because it's such a corporate paradise.
It's because of people like YOU and Wesley to try to look at the cost of healthcare after healthcare reform, for example, without acknowledging the cost of it BEFORE HCR. Or who look at the unemployment rate without, at the SAME time, talking about what the rate would look like WITHOUT the stimulus. Looking at things in isolation so as to benefit the conservative agenda is what MMFA is all about, doofus.
More nonsense.
We aren't "riddled with debt". Yes, debt is a problem, but it's not at a level currently that should cause much concern at all right now. Yes, it's something that needs to be addressed soon, but it's really not the terrible thing that the rightwing media has been trying to make it out to be.
Entitlement reform is necessary, but it's not this terrible thing either, and again, isn't even close to a justification for restricting spending right now.
And Healthcare reform will make healthcare cost LESS in the future than it would have. Looking at ONLY the absolute estimated future cost, and failing to compare that to the estimated future cost of doing nothing different, is dishonest and lying by omission. But lying is what a paid troll is GOOD at, isn't it?
And yeah, we CAN expect CEO's to do what's best for their companies, rather than what's best for their political futures, and spending money to help prime the pump would be best for their companies!!
Sue, I stopped reading your clueless drivel after that whopper above. Your credibility doesn't fit on the head of pin.
Thanks for that concession. It's what we've all known for a long time - your side CAN'T win with the facts - that's why you rely upon lies, distortions and omission of relevant info, because you can't succeed otherwise!
And when you can't succeed, you resort to making a baseless personal attack, as usual.
With money being so cheap to borrow right now, borrowing more of it really isn't a big issue. We had very necessary deficit spending that was going on and that continues to go on. Right now we can't afford to reduce government spending one bit! It will hurt the economy if we do!
This is not rocket science. It's indisputable - that's why you didn't even TRY.
You don't understand economics, you don't understand business, you don't understand private sector vs government jobs, you only understand what MMfA feeds you and how to attack and hurl expletives.
Give up Sue, you are headed for a meltdown, don't say I didn't warn you.
I clearly understand economics MUCH better than you do. I also have wiped the floor with you in arguments about how to run businesses and how to figure out their profits and their income. I have beaten you at every possible argument, and it frustrates you. Too bad, so sad.
And you've been inaccurately calling me Sue for a year, and you've been predicting a meltdown (or a banning) by me for that same year, and you've been wrong for the past year!
You are "warning" me? Of what? Yet another personal attack from you saying that I'm close to a breakdown? REALLY??????????
Wow.
Consumers are trying to save more, which under other circumstances would be a noble effort, but it hurts our economy right now. It'd be hard to go out and tell them "stop saving so much money", but it's what should be done - they should be told that temporarily, they need to be spending money! But their increased saving is a real problem for our economy. And much of that decrease in spending comes from the richest Americans - again, those most likely to be on the right side of the political aisle!
Businesses have plenty of money to spend, and if they primed the pump with some of that money, it would be enough to create the demand that would justify the spending of that money.
As I have repeatedly explained, it's the lack of spending AFTER an economic downturn that fuels a recession. All that has to happen is have the spending return, and the recession will fall away like a line of dominoes.
But too many Republicans control too many businesses, and they are ALL about short-term gain, and it's in their best political interests to hurt Democrats by extending the recession. Also, they've been deluded by the rightwing propaganda, again which hurts America overall but helps the rightwing's short-term goals of hurting Democrats!
Is that the liberals answer to everything, SPEND?
My god, you have no clue what you are talking about.
I understand that it's their job to do all those things (although it's not really the aim of most employers to actually protect their employees for ANY unselfish reason), but that doesn't change what I said one bit!
And yeah, when we're in a recession or trying to dig our way out of one, the ONLY answer to that is to SPEND!
That is what gets us out of a recession. It's the decline in spending that gets us INTO one, as I have repeatedly explained. Even with 10% unemployment, 90% still have their jobs, and so if it were just that 10% that changed their spending, we wouldn't HAVE a recession. It's the generic, still-employed consumer restricting their spending that causes a recession after an economic downturn! And that's why government spending is required, to make up for some of that reduced spending, until that normal spending returns!
And right now, the thing that's holding back the economy from recovering is two-fold - consumers realizing that they need to save more, as I explained above a good thing normally but right now a near-mortal wound to the economy, AND business spending that's missing! Since we can't tell people to stop saving and be very successful at it, the ONLY option outside of more gov't stimulus is to get the business community to spend the money they aren't spending that they could and should be spending! And that's Republicans who aren't spending because of dangerous political motives. And the rich consumers who aren't spending are doing it for the same dangerous motives.
It should be sickening to ALL loyal Americans. But people like you are virtual traitors to our nation for your own political gains.
You try to PRETEND that I don't know what I'm talking about because you can't actually refute a thing I wrote!
I pegged it above. Too bad, so sad for you. You USED to have more power here. Now you're simply a paid troll paid to derail threads.
Aren't you proud of them?
The topic here isn't about whether or not the top tax rates should be allowed to return to the levels that the Bush tax cuts mandated 10 years ago. It's totally off topic and simply a way for YOU to throw out an insult.
O
D
G
E
I won, I was successful, and YOU lost, you were unsuccessful. And that teed you off. So, once again, you throw out a baseless insult.
Too bad, so sad for you.
What all your posts boil down to.
Nobel Prize-winning economists and experts or Fox's top-button-always-undone-to-show-some-chest, wannabe-how-you-doin fake everyman Eric Bolling?
I never heard them complain about the folly of giving huge tax cuts to rich people while we were fighting the "Global War on Terror". I have yet to hear a Republican fret over the Trillion Dollars pi$$ed away in the sands of Iraq, with nothing to show for it.
I wonder why?
I heard just last night about two owners of mid sized businesses. One has a small chain of restaurants who says he has the money to open a new one. The other is a guy with 400 employees who said he could hire another 100 employees. Both said they would not expand while Obama is president because of the uncertainties of his policies. No one wants to expand if they don't have some sort of faith of what their costs will be in the future. With Obama, who knows what he'll push through. It is because of the uncertainties of his stupid economic policies employers are not hiring.
The shame is everyone who could read knew he didn't have any experience - yet so many fools voted for him.
As Rush has said, Obama is the most inexperienced man in any room in walks into.
If true, those are ridiculously poor business men. They are business men in the same way that your Joe the Plumber was are they?