Skip to comments.NY Times: The Stimulus worked! (Almost verbatim White House talking points)
Posted on 02/23/2014 11:37:10 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Here's an editorial in the New York Times about the beneficial effects of the $832 billion stimulus bill passed in 2009 that could have been written in the White House:
Of all the myths and falsehoods that Republicans have spread about President Obama, the most pernicious and long-lasting is that the $832 billion stimulus package did not work. Since 2009, Republican lawmakers have inextricably linked the words "failed" and "stimulus," and last week, five years after passage of the Recovery Act, they dusted off their old playbook again.
"The 'stimulus' has turned out to be a classic case of big promises and big spending with little results," wrote Speaker John Boehner. "Five years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, millions of families are still asking, 'where are the jobs?' "
The stimulus could have done more good had it been bigger and more carefully constructed. But put simply, it prevented a second recession that could have turned into a depression. It created or saved an average of 1.6 million jobs a year for four years. (There are the jobs, Mr. Boehner.) It raised the nation's economic output by 2 to 3 percent from 2009 to 2011. It prevented a significant increase in poverty -- without it, 5.3 million additional people would have become poor in 2010.
None of this is "provable" in the sense that there is broad agreement among all economists that any of this is true. They are publishing the opinions of pro-adminsitration economists.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Well you have to admit, copy and paste from the regime’s missives saves them a lot of work!
Reporting is so much easier when you don’t have to do the writing yourself.
just about the only reason to read the NYT is for the (admittedly sicko) entertainment value of seeing what Big Lies and stories from Alternate Universes they’ve managed to cook up recently...
“The Stimulus worked!”
You mean, the stimulus “worked’ to destroy the country? Yes, we can!
They should just connect the White House Fax to the presses and skip the middleman/woman journalist.
It was a beautiful payoff to political friends. Worked like a charm.
the one thing the NYT prints that’s worthwhile are their crossword puzzles
At least the NYT still gets to go to bed every night.
One and a half percent growth in the GDP per year for five years now, only at a cost of about $4.5 trillion for our grandkids (plus interest) later. What a deal!
"Skin't us good, they did."
The CBO analysis already settled this, New York Times. It is a drag on the economy and the added debt will continue to drag it down as interest continues to accumulate from this - adding more to the red side of the balance sheet for generations.
We did not get back the money that was spent on this as a return on investment - the overwhelming majority of it was not for infrastructure improvements but for junk and to increase the baseline of already existing social programs.
Good news and bad news.
Bad news is the bailout leaves 90million people out of work.
Good news is that 40% of the NYSlimes reporting and editorial workforce is out of work.
And the whole “had it been larger” - LOL - since it added to the baseline of so many programs it has in fact been implemented multiple times over.
About as much as Catherine Zeta-Jones is able to stimulate Richard Simmons.
RE: About as much as Catherine Zeta-Jones is able to stimulate Richard Simmons.
I’m a little ignorant on popular culture — who on earth is Richard Simmons?
LOL! But, oddly enough, none of those 1.6 million were at The New York Times.
New York Times editor Jill Abramson said in an interview on Wednesday that the recent buyouts and layoffs that hit her paper were "painful" but necessary. The Times shed about 30 staffers in its latest round of job cuts, including several very senior editors who had been with the paper for decades. Reports at the time indicated that Abramson was trying to push through a major reform of the Times' masthead. Speaking to Capital New York's Joe Pompeo, Abramson essentially confirmed this narrative, saying that there were simply too many cooks in the kitchen. "Some of the top jobs in the newsroom we sort of could no longer afford," she said.