Stimulus Package

**Gen** · 02-06-2009, 12:00 PM

Re: Stimulus Package

why yuh disable embedding what the name of teh video suh mi can find it ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Magix_di_PM</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm with Wanda on this one.

<span style="font-weight: bold">I want receipts damn it!</span>

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KADr2KG5aso"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KADr2KG5aso" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object> </div></div>

**Tuff Gong** · 02-06-2009, 12:41 PM

Re: Stimulus Package

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why yuh disable embedding what the name of teh video suh mi can find it?</div></div>

I don't think he did it must have been the person who uploaded it. Let's try one of these.

She was funny in the Video I stayed up all night watching most of her Vids on Youtube.

<span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">Wanda Sykes On Bailout Stock Market</span>

nope!

Wanda Sykes on the state of the economy

nope!

**Dr.Dudd** · 02-06-2009, 01:50 PM

Re: Stimulus Package

sometimes we get more traction if we step back before we go forward from a stand still.
these fools who are suggesting that a tax reduction.

They don't realize that in a depressive economy people will not increase spending on tax savings.
This is because there is no certainty in that job being there in the future.

What that does it encourage saving.
An increase in savings without loan demand created by increase production will still result in a deeper depression.

Only by increasing demand for products ans services will the economy rebound.

The fastest way to do that is to convince the people thatrge economy will improve and cause them to lose the fear of imminent job loss.

this is best done by government increasing spending by creating employment opportunities.

Any economist that does not know that is not an economist.

**evanovitch** · 02-06-2009, 06:55 PM

Final stimulus bill may be a bit leaner

(Reuters) - The Senate and House of Representatives must resolve differences in their respective economic stimulus bills so they can produce a final version to send to President Barack Obama to sign into law.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Lawmakers say the final measure may include the following:</span>

* The price tag may be <span style="font-weight: bold">trimmed to about $820 billion</span>, which Obama has indicated he could accept, senators say. The House-passed package of tax cuts and new spending would cost $819 billion, while the one headed toward anticipated Senate approval would likely cost somewhat more.

* Cuts in spending would likely focus on non-construction projects that critics say would have little, if any, impact on stimulating the economy or creating jobs.

* A bigger proportion of the package could be devoted to tax cuts. Currently, less than a third would go to tax relief. Obama initially proposed 40 percent.

* Increased efforts to stem record home mortgage foreclosures, which have been largely to blame for the economic downturn. Senate Republicans have offered a number of measures to provide relief, including one to reduce mortgage rates.

* The House will likely go along with a Senate proposal to soften a "Buy American" requirement in spending plans, including projects to rebuild roads and bridges. Fearing a trade war, the Senate agreed to require provisions be applied in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations in international accords.

* Little Republican support for the final bill in the House or Senate is expected. No Republican voted for the initial House bill and scant Republican support was expected for the Senate bill -- undercutting Obama's goal of forging increased cooperation between Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

**evanovitch** · 02-06-2009, 07:05 PM

Obama denounces stimulus hold-up

US President Barack Obama has said the Senate's delay in passing his $900bn economic stimulus package is "inexcusable and irresponsible".

He described the economic situation as "an urgent and growing crisis", which could become "a catastrophe" if the Senate failed to act.

The bill includes measures to cut taxes and invest in job creation.

Moderate Democrat and Republican senators have argued that the plan should be trimmed by up to $90bn.

Mr Obama described as "devastating" the news that nearly 600,000 Americans lost their jobs in January.

"The situation could not be more serious. These numbers demand action," he said.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Mr Obama's remarks came as he unveiled a new board of economic advisers, chaired by <span style="font-style: italic">Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve.</span> </span>

"<span style="font-style: italic">I created this board to enlist voices that come from beyond the echo chamber of Washington DC</span>, " said Mr Obama, "and to ensure that no stone is unturned as we work to put people back to work and to get our economy moving."

The Senate is likely to vote on the stimulus bill later on Friday, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Moderate senators from both parties have been holding talks in an effort to find common ground on the package.

About one-third of the bill is currently composed of tax relief, with the rest devoted to spending on infrastructure projects.

Republicans and some centrist Democrats are keen to reduce the number of spending commitments in the bill, and without their support the bill may not have enough votes to pass in the Senate.

The House of Representatives approved its version of the package last week, worth $825bn, without any Republican support.

If the Senate gives its approval to the bill, the two different versions will then have to be reconciled in a joint House-Senate committee before facing a final vote.

<span style="font-weight: bold">President Obama has said he wants the passage of the bill to be completed by 16 February. </span>

**evanovitch** · 02-06-2009, 07:16 PM

AIG and Citi deals gave Treasury least value

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Treasury Department bank bailout program received the least value from its investments in the most troubled surviving institutions -- American International Group and Citigroup, a new report from a watchdog panel showed on Friday.

The Congressional Oversight Panel report said the Treasury overpaid financial institutions by about $78 billion in its capital injections last year through the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

It paid $254 billion in 2008 in return for stocks and warrants worth $176 billion under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

This conclusion was first disclosed on Thursday by the panel's chairwoman, Elizabeth Warren, in Senate testimony.

But the new report provided more details on the methodology and it also concluded that the U.S. government received far less value than private investors did in recent major transactions in the financial sector.

The report showed that the Treasury got the worst deal on second-round investments in American International Group for $40 billion and Citigroup for $20 billion under special aid programs tailored for the two institutions.

For each $100 spent on these two companies. the Treasury received securities worth $41, the report concluded.

Earlier investments in eight institutions seen as "healthy" at the time, returned $78 for every $100 spent. These investments included an initial $25 billion for Citigroup, along with funds for Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, PNC Financial and US Bancorp.

The government's "subsidy" -- the percentage difference between the value paid and the value received -- was largest for AIG at 63 percent and smallest for US Bancorp at 5 percent.

The Congressional Oversight Panel hired an independent valuation firm, Duff & Phelps, to devise a methodology for comparing the government's investment to the value of the preferred stock and warrants received -- a difficult task because none of the securities is publicly traded.

Duff & Phelps based its valuation on the market values of similarly structured securities immediately following the announcement of the TARP investments, taking into account how government support for these institutions changed investor perceptions.

In comparing the value of the deals with those carried out by the private sector, the report said the $5 billion investment by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway in Goldman Sachs in September immediately returned $110 in fair market value for every $100 invested.

The 7 billion pound ($10.22 billion) investment in Barclays by Qatar Holding and Abu Dhabi in October immediately yielded $123 in fair value for every $100 invested.

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial's $9 billion investment in Morgan Stanley in October yielded $102 for every $100 investment, while the U.S. Treasury received only $58 on the same basis in its Morgan Stanley deal around the same time, according to the report.

The use of standardized documents allowed the Treasury to quickly execute transactions, but that meant that it could not address differences in credit quality between institutions

"Because Treasury decided to make all healthy bank purchases on precisely the same terms, stronger institutions received a smaller subsidy, while weaker institutions received more substantial subsidies," the panel said in the report.

**Tuff Gong** · 02-06-2009, 08:43 PM

Re: Stimulus Package

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">sometimes we get more traction if we step back...</div></div>How far back though?

**Tuff Gong** · 02-06-2009, 09:03 PM

Re: Stimulus Package

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020503599.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: 'Arial Black'">Obama's Preemptive Strike</span>

President Obama will take his message to the people, who will miss out on original broadcast TV content -- and ads. (By Charles Dharapak -- Associated Press)</a>

<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'">Broadcasters are bracing themselves for the likelihood of three prime-time interruptions in three weeks, totaling at least three hours of prime time -- and ad breaks -- yanked.

"His economic stimulus package apparently does not extend to the TV networks," one network exec noted.

Obama's reps have alerted broadcasters that the president will hold a news conference Monday, according to network execs. It's expected to eat up the first hour of prime time; that alone could cost broadcasters more than $9 million in lost ad revenue.

Obama's also mulling a shorter prime-time appearance Feb. 16 tied to the economic stimulus package. And White House officials have said that on Feb. 24, Obama will address a joint session of Congress to give the equivalent of a two-hour State of the Union speech. Traditionally, the address to the joint houses of Congress given by the newly elected president is not called the SOTU; that'll be next year's speech.

That one, the broadcast networks were expecting; they budget for a State of the Union/Whatev address to preempt two hours of prime time every year around this time.

The networks were awaiting more information about the two Monday prime-time appearances at press time. "They're playing very close to the vest," one network exec told the TV Column</span>

**Tuff Gong** · 02-06-2009, 11:44 PM

Re: Stimulus Package

<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/06/dem-stimulus-deal-reached_n_164808.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 17pt">SENATE REACHES STIMULUS DEAL </span>
Package Will Cost $780 Billion... Latest Draft Cuts Around $100 Billion... Vote Expected In Coming Days... Republicans Collins, Specter Say They'll Vote For Bill... Dem Nelson: "We Trimmed The Fat"... McCain: "This Is Not Bipartisan"</a>

**Dr.Dudd** · 02-07-2009, 02:11 AM

Re: Stimulus Package

<span style="font-size: 11pt"> <span style="color: #FF0000"> Even more myths and falsehoods surrounding the economic recovery plan </span>

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.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> 1. The bill will not stimulate the economy</span>

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."

<span style="color: #FF0000"> 2. Government spending in the bill is not stimulus</span>

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."

<span style="color: #FF0000"> 3. There is no reason for stimulus after a turnaround begins</span>

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]

<span style="color: #FF0000"> 4. Corporate tax rate cuts and capital gains tax rate cuts would provide substantial stimulus</span>

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]

<span style="color: #FF0000"> 5. Undocumented immigrants without Social Security numbers would be eligible for the "Making Work Pay" tax credit</span>

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:

<span style="color: #FF0000"> 6. CBO analysis found the majority of stimulus won't take effect for a year and a half</span>

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."

<span style="color: #FF0000"> 7. Food stamps, unemployment payments are not stimulus</span>

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.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> 8. The New Deal did not lower unemployment </span>

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."

<span style="color: #FF0000">9. Fiscal stimulus in Japan failed during the "lost decade" of the 1990s </span>

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.

<span style="color: #FF0000">10. The economic recovery bill would amount to spending more than $200K per job created </span>

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."

<span style="color: #FF0000"> 11. $4.19 billion of stimulus "would go to" ACORN </span>

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.' "

<span style="color: #FF0000"> 12. Robert Reich proposed excluding white males from recovery plan </span>

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."

—C.S. & J.K.F

</span>

**Tuff Gong** · 02-07-2009, 02:42 AM

Re: Stimulus Package

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dr.Dudd</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="font-size: 11pt"> <span style="color: #FF0000"> Even more myths and falsehoods surrounding the economic recovery plan </span>

Even more myths and falsehoods surrounding the economic recovery plan </span> </div></div>

ReThugs remind me of the PNP. Doc I wish in all the years you and others have been on board we would have been as progressive and diligent about rooting out PNP lies and falsehoods as we have been in so far in looking into the ReThughs destructive, despicable maneuverings.

**Gen** · 02-10-2009, 02:48 PM

Re: Stimulus Package

well brukking news it just pass

**RichD** · 02-10-2009, 02:58 PM

Re: Stimulus Package

yes ..so now dem a go work on the final look of the plan before him sign it

Stimulus Package

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads