Washington Times: Stimulus created work for millions

[Chappy]

Today, on C-SPAN's Washington Journal program I was watching when Greta read a Reuters article published on the front page of The Washington Times today, headlined as “Stimulus created work for millions.” (approx. minute 30 into the program.)

I like articles that cross political leanings of their publications, so I thought I'd look it up. But alas, all that remains of the article on The Washington Times web site is this:

That story has been removed from the site

Every so often we are forced to remove stories from our site. We’re sorry but you just happened to request one of them.

Tens of thousands of printed copies of The Washington Times still carry the news that the stimulus worked, C-SPAN captured that slice of reality shining through, but, the web site, no longer. Those printed headlines testify that the printed page still has some merit in this modern age; they are a little less malleable when ‘mistakes’ happen.

 

[haymarket]

Thanks for posting this Chappy. Most interesting. It seems the truth caused some to get egg on their face and they did not like it very much.

 

[Objective Voice]

YahooNews, MSNBC.com, and International Business News all carried this same story.

Note: I try to use as many impartiat online media sources available, in this case IBNews, since most posters will deeply critisize the typical partisan sources, i.e., MSN, NBC or Fox. Since Reuters and IBNews carried the story, there has to be some validity to it. (I wonder if Conservative can find the FY2010, 3Q stats and post them?)

 

[ricksfolly]

Tens of thousands of printed copies of The Washington Times still carry the news that the stimulus worked, C-SPAN captured that slice of reality shining through, but, the web site, no longer. Those printed headlines testify that the printed page still has some merit in this modern age; they are a little less malleable when ‘mistakes’ happen.

Good economic news is bad news for Republican politics and they own or influence most of the news sources, including C-SPAN and the Associated Press (AP).

ricksfolly

 

[Simon W. Moon]

here's the google search to find the link

Google

here's the dead link

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/24/stimulus-created-work-for-millions/


here's the search from the WT site--it's the third link down
http://www.washingtontimes.com/sear.../23/furloughs-will-be-in-dc-plans-union-says/

 

[Objective Voice]

We know the story is out there and so do the President's opponents. Unfortunately, as long as the story remains "unpublished" atleast within prominent media circles specifically in DC, it likely won't be used as prove within the Obama Administration to show that the stimulas is working. Guess we'll just have to hope the numbers present themselves on other government sources, i.e., BLS.gov or something. (Where you at, Conservative? That man's never around when you need him. :mrgreen

 

[Grim17]

Nobody is saying the stimulus package didn't create jobs. The debate is over whether it created enough jobs and economic activity, to justify spending over $800 billion dollars and burying the country in massive debt. Other questions over the jobs themselves have sparked debate also. Questions like "What percentage of the jobs created are permanent" and "What percentage of the jobs are in the private sector". The headline of the story also implies that the stimulus package worked like it was designed to, when the fact is it didn't. It was supposed to keep unemployment under 8% and boost our economic output (GDP) much higher than it did.

In my opinion this story misleads the public in a several ways. First, by publishing the estimated jobs created, while choosing not to publish the number of actual jobs the country has lost over all to provide perspective. It's kind of like telling everyone you just won 10 thousand dollars in the state lottery, and not mentioning that you spent 12 thousand dollars on the tickets.

Second, the article fails to mention that the CBO's job estimates are based on companies that received money or were contracted to do work based on stimulus money, and don't take into account if those jobs would have existed even without the stimulus money. In other words, if a company with 100 employees with no plans to lay off workers or cut back on hours, received an order to manufacture a certain product, and that work order was paid for by stimulus money, those 100 people employed by that company are counted by the CBO as "Jobs created".

The following excerpt from the article struck me as a bit strange:

Not all elements of the Recovery Act got the same bang for the buck, the CBO said.

Direct spending on highway construction, water-system upgrades and energy efficiency were among the most effective, the CBO said, while tax breaks for businesses and higher-income people cost more in lost revenues than they made up for in increased economic activity.

The stimulus package was designed to provide tax relief for people hit hard by the economic downturn, and to create jobs and boost the economy. That part of the CBO report was evaluating the effect on the GDP certain parts of the stimulus had, and listed tax breaks for businesses and higher-income families as the two that had the least positive effect. The thing is, the "tax breaks" for upper income folks (families earning between $75K and 430k) wasn't designed to create jobs or boost the GDP, it was simply providing financial relief for American tax payers. As for the "tax breaks" for businesses, they only comprised a little over 1% of the stimulus money and the majority of that was in the form of incentives and tax credits, such producing "green" products.

Then there was this:

"The Recovery Act has already had its greatest impact on the economy and its effects will continue to wane into 2011, CBO said."

That line tells me, that the headline of that story should have been:

"Jobs Created By 'Stimulus' Come Up Short, As Effectiveness Begins To Fade"

 

[Kushinator]

Good economic news is bad news for Republican politics

The partisan right confirms this on a daily basis here at DP.

 

[Grim17]

Good economic news is bad news for Republican politics and they own or influence most of the news sources, including C-SPAN and the Associated Press (AP).

ricksfolly

LOLOLOL... Not that George Soros manufactured "corporate media" line of crap again. Do you really think that people who have witnessed liberal bias in the main stream media for more than 3 decades, are all the sudden going to come to the conclusion they were mistaken because of who owns certain media outlets? The only people who buy that BS are partisan fools that are so far left, they think Michael Moore is a centrist... lolololol

 

[Grim17]

The partisan right confirms this on a daily basis here at DP.

This is posted in the "Bias in the media" section of the forum, and isn't a question of how I feel about good news. I posted what I did, because that article is being waved around like it's actually good economic news, when in reality it's not. Reuters, just like the AP, tilts to the left and stories like this are perfect examples. Just look at how the story tries to put a positive spin on a piece of democratic legislation that didn't even come close to achieving what it was supposed to.

Honestly, how can any of you call that bill a success when it promised to keep unemployment under 8%, and we've averaged around 9.4% since the day it was signed? How can you also claim the bill was a job creating success (like that article led people to believe), when we are over 3 million jobs in the hole since it was signed into law? Then of course there's the level of economic growth it was supposed to produce, which still hasn't materialized.

That article, just like democrats and Obama supporters, paint the stimulus package as a success by saying, "without it, things would have been a lot worse". Well I have news for you... That $800 billion package, the largest single government expenditure I had ever seen, was supposed to make the economy better, lower the unemployment rate and result in net job gains... It was not supposed to prevent us from having an "extremely" crappy economy and instead produce only a "really" crappy one for us.

The only positive thing any honest person can say about the stimulus package is, "At least it wasn't a total loss... It did create some jobs."

 

[Councilman]

I believe if you use something other than the new Obama math and compare actual numbers of unemployed at the time the $797 billion was approved to the actual total unemployed today you will see that the net number of jobs created is going,, on almost nearly, a total of zero.

A prime example of the Obama Stimulus plan is the $111 million given to Los Angeles, where they were able hire a whopping 54 whole people. Now there's something to crow about.

CNN: Nov 13, 2009 ... Darrell Issa: Reports of 640000 jobs created/saved have been greatly exaggerated.

But hey let's use this bogus number and double it to 1,280,000, it's still a net loss.

I love that created/saved bit.

 

[Councilman]

I believe if you use something other than the new Obama math and compare actual numbers of unemployed at the time the $797 billion was approved to the actual total unemployed today you will see that the net number of jobs created is going,, on almost nearly, a total of zero.

A prime example of the Obama Stimulus plan is the $111 million given to Los Angeles, where they were able hire a whopping 54 whole people. Now there's something to crow about.

CNN: Nov 13, 2009 ... Darrell Issa: Reports of 640,000 jobs created/saved have been greatly exaggerated.

But hey let's use this bogus number and double it to 1,280,000, it's still a net loss.

I love that created/saved bit.

 

[Erod]

So we spent about $10 million to create a $30,000/yr job, and we still have 10 percent unemployment?

Think about that.

 

[Boo Radley]

Nobody is saying the stimulus package didn't create jobs. The debate is over whether it created enough jobs and economic activity, to justify spending over $800 billion dollars and burying the country in massive debt. Other questions over the jobs themselves have sparked debate also.

OK. So we agree it did create some jobs, and certainly in education save some jobs. So, what would have been the response from people had we not spent the money?

 

[cpwill]

I love that created/saved bit.

well you can't really blame the CBO; they are ordered to make those assumptions.

if i destroy 2 jobs to make 1, have i created a job?

 

[cpwill]

OK. So we agree it did create some jobs, and certainly in education save some jobs. So, what would have been the response from people had we not spent the money?

given that the economy would likely have improved, probably better.

given that most Americans have come to oppose it, probably much better.

 

[Boo Radley]

given that the economy would likely have improved, probably better.

given that most Americans have come to oppose it, probably much better.

Americans are a fickled people. I suspect that there would have been more loses, less jobs and people would have been even angier than they were for them spending it.

 

[cpwill]

doubtful; Americans are also generally pissed off about the huge amount of debt. wide majorities, for example, oppose another stimulus now; even as we face 'official' 9.6% unemployment. all factors equal, i don't see a general charge to push ourselves deliberately deeper into debt for short term gains.

which if we even got the gains would be extremely debatable. if the government had not sucked up the hundreds of billions of available cash; that would have been quite a bit of capital flowing in to businesses to fund an actual recovery.

 

[Erod]

Americans are a fickled people. I suspect that there would have been more loses, less jobs and people would have been even angier than they were for them spending it.

No, Americans understand that when you buy groceries, you need money in the account. They know that putting it on the Visa is a horribly bad idea.

You act like there was money there to spend. There wasn't. Essentially, we got our Visa limit raised from $10,000 to $100,000, then we maxed it out.

Average Americans understand how patently stupid that is.

 

[NolaMan]

Today, on C-SPAN's Washington Journal program I was watching when Greta read a Reuters article published on the front page of The Washington Times today, headlined as “Stimulus created work for millions.” (approx. minute 30 into the program.)

I like articles that cross political leanings of their publications, so I thought I'd look it up. But alas, all that remains of the article on The Washington Times web site is this:



Tens of thousands of printed copies of The Washington Times still carry the news that the stimulus worked, C-SPAN captured that slice of reality shining through, but, the web site, no longer. Those printed headlines testify that the printed page still has some merit in this modern age; they are a little less malleable when ‘mistakes’ happen.

Of course spending $800,000,000,000 caused some jobs to "created/saved" (whatever that even means). That said, it is a perfect example of the broken window fallacy. All the stimulus did was shift money away from the private sector to fund it. That kills an equal amount of economic activity in the private sector.. we would all have been better off had the government let the private sector fix itself.

 

[cpwill]

i went out this morning and purchased a cup of coffee from Starbucks.


I await the CBO's accolades in how i saved or created 3 hundred million jobs by doing so

 

[Whovian]

Of course spending $800,000,000,000 caused some jobs to "created/saved" (whatever that even means). That said, it is a perfect example of the broken window fallacy. All the stimulus did was shift money away from the private sector to fund it. That kills an equal amount of economic activity in the private sector.. we would all have been better off had the government let the private sector fix itself.

The stimulus was like bailing out the water from the front of the dingy, by dumping it in the back of the dingy.

 

[NolaMan]

While we are quoting CBO reports, let us not forget this one that said the passing of the stimulus would leave us worse off over time than if we did nothing.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. [The House bill] would have similar long-run effects

CBOs basic assumption is that, in the long run, each dollar of additional debt crowds out about a third of a dollars worth of private domestic capital, CBO said in its letter.

CBO said there is no crowding out in the short term, so the plan would succeed in boosting growth in 2009 and 2010

CBO did project the bill would create jobs, though by 2011 the effects would be minuscule.

Great, so we can cram some economic activity up front, call it a success, and ignore that it makes us worse off in the long run...

 

[Boo Radley]

doubtful; Americans are also generally pissed off about the huge amount of debt. wide majorities, for example, oppose another stimulus now; even as we face 'official' 9.6% unemployment. all factors equal, i don't see a general charge to push ourselves deliberately deeper into debt for short term gains.

which if we even got the gains would be extremely debatable. if the government had not sucked up the hundreds of billions of available cash; that would have been quite a bit of capital flowing in to businesses to fund an actual recovery.

I doubt that. Here's why. We've had huge amounts of debt for a long long time. This didn't begin and end with Obama. In fact, some even argued the debt was meaningless. Even reagan had little trouble with deficit spending. So, while I don't favor ignoring the debt, there is little evidence that Americans really have trouble with debt alone. If people were workign, they'd forget this in a New York second, and if republicans were in charge, it's importance would be as little as it was during the Bush years.

So, forgive me if I'm not convinced you're right.

 

[ricksfolly]

So we spent about $10 million to create a $30,000/yr job, and we still have 10 percent unemployment?

Think about that.

I realize that it's important to you to make Obama's plan look bad so he won't get reelected, but exaggeration is not the right way to do it, not when numbers can be checked so easily.

ricksfolly