Question US (Personal)
What are the biggest lies, falsehoods, and outright lunacy being spread by conservatives on Sodahead about President Obama and the Jobs/Stimulus Plan written by Congress?
Bob™ the Union Ironworker February 15, 2009 15:24:04
- 228 answers
- Read all 1,183 comments
- +51 / -16 raves
Myths and falsehoods surrounding the economic recovery plan
During their coverage and discussion of the economic recovery bill supported by President Obama, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rules.house.go... ] media figures have advanced several myths and falsehoods relating to the details and effects of the plan. These myths and falsehoods include: the assertion that a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) "study" found that the majority of the money in the bill will not be spent for a year and a half; that provisions in the bill to extend food stamps and unemployment insurance payments are "not stimulus"; that President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies failed to reduce unemployment during the Great Depression; that Japan's fiscal stimulus policy during the "lost decade" of the 1990s failed to help it recover from recession; that the bill would spend at least $217,000 for every job created; that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) would receive $4.19 billion from the bill; and that former Labor Secretary and Obama adviser Robert Reich proposed white males should be excluded from jobs created by the bill.
1. CBO analysis found the majority of stimulus won't take effect for a year and a half
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 [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost... ] 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 [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fbudget.house.gov%2... ] 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, [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fcbo.gov%2Fftpdocs%... ] 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."
2. Food stamps, unemployment payments are not stimulus
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: [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbo.gov%2Fftpd... ] "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, [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.house.gov%2Fsm... ] Mark Zandi -- the chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, who was reportedly a McCain campaign economic adviser -- stated [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.house.gov%2Fsm... ] 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.
3. The New Deal did not lower unemployment
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, [ http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080005?f=s_search ] 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. [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bls.gov%2Fopub... ]
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." [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F... ]
4. Fiscal stimulus in Japan failed during the "lost decade" of the 1990s
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, [ http://mediamatters.org/items/200812220005?f=s_search ] 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." [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nybooks.com%2F... ]
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. [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.petersoninstit... ] 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 [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.petersoninstit... ] that the Japanese government "way overstated the amount of fiscal stimulus in which they actually engaged." Other economists and media accounts [ http://mediamatters.org/items/200812220005?f=h_latest ] 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.
5. The economic recovery bill would amount to spending more than $200K per job created
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. [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fappropriations.hou... ]
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." [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prospect.org%2... ] 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." [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F... ]
6. $4.19 billion of stimulus "would go to" ACORN
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 [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rules.house.go... ] contains no language mentioning ACORN. The false claim is based on a misrepresentation of a provision [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rules.house.go... ] 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 [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Frepublicanleader.h... ] 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 [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fgopleader.gov%2FNe... ] 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.' "
7. Robert Reich proposed excluding white males from recovery plan
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 [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.blogsp... ] 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."
8-11 Are so stupid and racist I won't even waste my time debunking them
During their coverage and discussion of the economic recovery bill supported by President Obama, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rules.house.go... ] media figures have advanced several myths and falsehoods relating to the details and effects of the plan. These myths and falsehoods include: the assertion that a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) "study" found that the majority of the money in the bill will not be spent for a year and a half; that provisions in the bill to extend food stamps and unemployment insurance payments are "not stimulus"; that President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies failed to reduce unemployment during the Great Depression; that Japan's fiscal stimulus policy during the "lost decade" of the 1990s failed to help it recover from recession; that the bill would spend at least $217,000 for every job created; that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) would receive $4.19 billion from the bill; and that former Labor Secretary and Obama adviser Robert Reich proposed white males should be excluded from jobs created by the bill.
1. CBO analysis found the majority of stimulus won't take effect for a year and a half
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 [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost... ] 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 [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fbudget.house.gov%2... ] 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, [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fcbo.gov%2Fftpdocs%... ] 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."
2. Food stamps, unemployment payments are not stimulus
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: [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbo.gov%2Fftpd... ] "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, [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.house.gov%2Fsm... ] Mark Zandi -- the chief economist and co-founder of Moody's Economy.com, who was reportedly a McCain campaign economic adviser -- stated [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.house.gov%2Fsm... ] 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.
3. The New Deal did not lower unemployment
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, [ http://mediamatters.org/items/200901080005?f=s_search ] 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. [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bls.gov%2Fopub... ]
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." [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F... ]
4. Fiscal stimulus in Japan failed during the "lost decade" of the 1990s
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, [ http://mediamatters.org/items/200812220005?f=s_search ] 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." [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nybooks.com%2F... ]
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. [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.petersoninstit... ] 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 [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.petersoninstit... ] that the Japanese government "way overstated the amount of fiscal stimulus in which they actually engaged." Other economists and media accounts [ http://mediamatters.org/items/200812220005?f=h_latest ] 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.
5. The economic recovery bill would amount to spending more than $200K per job created
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. [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fappropriations.hou... ]
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." [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prospect.org%2... ] 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." [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F... ]
6. $4.19 billion of stimulus "would go to" ACORN
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 [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rules.house.go... ] contains no language mentioning ACORN. The false claim is based on a misrepresentation of a provision [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rules.house.go... ] 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 [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Frepublicanleader.h... ] 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 [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fgopleader.gov%2FNe... ] 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.' "
7. Robert Reich proposed excluding white males from recovery plan
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 [ http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Frobertreich.blogsp... ] 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."
8-11 Are so stupid and racist I won't even waste my time debunking them
Loading... 
Top Comment
-
All of the above
For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would be proud to say they are a Republican!! They have screwed this country so many times it is not even funny. My belief is the true republicans will abandon their Republican label and the crack pots will still sad but true call themselves Republicans because they are too ignorant to see.View thread
SodaHead Hot Trends
we cut intel and military.... and what did we get... can you say World Trade Center... I KNEW you could......
I am glad you see the folly of this 'stimulus package'.... it is just a way to bribe more idiots and vampires...
2. Food stamps, unemployment payments are not stimulus
I am not thrilled about footing the bill for other people's medical, food, and rent but heaven forbid I find myself in a situation where I can't provide for myself I am grateful these programs exist. Not everyone on welfare abuses it, there are people who cannot work due to disability so I think of them rather then the abusers when it comes to public assistance.
We Republicans have a word for people like you (behind your back, of course): losers.
there isn't any point in even trying to defend that nonsense....
5. The economic recovery bill would amount to spending more than $200K per job created
How to Cash in on the Bailout Money
Larrey Anderson
My wife and I fixed dinner for two friends last night -- both are prominent businessmen. The conversation turned to the bailouts and whether or not it was possible for ordinary Americans to cash in on the trillions of dollars being dished out by congress in the last couple of months.
Those American Thinker readers who are familiar with the twin bailout bills (the TARP bill passed by the Democrat congress under President Bush and the “stimulus” bill passed by the Democrat congress under President Obama) know that there is almost nothing in either bill for the “average” American.
Money from the first bailout bill went to banks and mortgage companies. It didn’t go to everyday Americans. The second bailout bill is targeted to special interests like education, health care, state and local governments. Again, there is not much in the bill for you and me. What’s a red-blooded American got to do to get his or her red-blooded share of the bailout money?
As we approached the end of our second bottle of wine, the ideas on how to grab our own little piece of the bailout pie started to flow. Not all of the ideas were legal -- and a few may have been amoral. But one idea struck me as worth pursuing (at least as a...
How to Cash in on the Bailout Money
Larrey Anderson
My wife and I fixed dinner for two friends last night -- both are prominent businessmen. The conversation turned to the bailouts and whether or not it was possible for ordinary Americans to cash in on the trillions of dollars being dished out by congress in the last couple of months.
Those American Thinker readers who are familiar with the twin bailout bills (the TARP bill passed by the Democrat congress under President Bush and the “stimulus” bill passed by the Democrat congress under President Obama) know that there is almost nothing in either bill for the “average” American.
Money from the first bailout bill went to banks and mortgage companies. It didn’t go to everyday Americans. The second bailout bill is targeted to special interests like education, health care, state and local governments. Again, there is not much in the bill for you and me. What’s a red-blooded American got to do to get his or her red-blooded share of the bailout money?
As we approached the end of our second bottle of wine, the ideas on how to grab our own little piece of the bailout pie started to flow. Not all of the ideas were legal -- and a few may have been amoral. But one idea struck me as worth pursuing (at least as a theoretical enterprise):
All ordinary Americans should get a new credit card -- a credit card issued by one of the banks receiving bailout funds. The credit card is to be used solely for one purpose: to pay off our income taxes. So the 100 million or so hard working Americans, who still have jobs and still pay taxes, will put all of our tax payments on a credit card -- and then we will refuse to pay off those credit cards.
Since the government has bailed out the banks issuing our credit cards, at least some of that bailout money will be going to the average American.
Ordinary Americans get to kill two birds with one stone: we all get a piece of the bailout action (the federal government pays off our credit card debt) and we don’t have to pay any federal taxes. (The government will pay them for us!)
Of course our plan is nonsense (although it was a lot of fun to talk about) and it would only lead to a massive spiral of debt.
In reality, our little credit card plan is very close to the bailout bill that the Democrats have endorsed and passed into law. The economy will be “stimulated” by federal spending of a trillion dollars on a hodge-podge of projects.
If “stimulating” an economy was that easy, why not just have the government pay everyone’s taxes? We would have more money to spend, the government could pay itself as much as it deserved, and everyone would live happily ever after.
Why not? Because, as everyone who lives in the real world understands, economies just don’t work this way. Someone, somewhere, must produce and sell actual goods and services. Someone, somewhere, must bake the bread, package the computer, screw the hinge on the car door, nail the sheetrock on the wall. And that someone, somewhere, is NEVER the government.
Now where did I put that credit card application?
(less)
All of the above
All of the above
None of the above
None of the above