Even CNN Recognizes the Stimulus Didn't Do Much for the Country

[jeffrockit]

I know most of us level headed people already new this but now even CNN is starting to figure this out.... Is hell freezing over?????

Economists say the stimulus didn't help - Apr. 26, 2010

Bash CNN up one side and down the other on a daily basis for being "liberally biased" and then, when they finally say something the cons like, it's, "Even CNN" has figured this out.

Once again, the Republican Noise Machine figures out a way to make lemons out of lemonade.

Good liberal response...can't really refute the facts so shift the debate.

 

[jeffrockit]

Why were they all from only one entity which happened to be business economists?

Do you think people who work for the big corps have something to gian from trashing Obama?

Liberal debate tactic #2, attempt to invalidate the facts but invalidating the poll source.

 

[jeffrockit]

Between 600,000 and 1.6 million jobs were created or saved through September as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, according to a Congressional Budget Office report

Ah the Obama talking point of "created or saved" and you bought it. What defines a saved job? No one in the administration answered that question. Its just Obama hocus pocus as they count jobs created if the person was given a raise.

 

[Political Junky]

Is CNN going the direction of Fox?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Is CNN going the direction of Fox?

Let's hope so....Fox didn't get to be the number 1 cable news organization by telling lies.

 

[oreo]

It's not the study that's faulty, it's the conclusion.

The study was conducted among 68 people who held economic-related jobs in private firms, and asked if those firms had benefitted from the stimulus.

Most of the group asked happened to say that the stimulus had no benefit to their company, but 27% said it DID have a benefit to their company.

That is by no means a valid study to determine if the the stimulus had an effect on the economy at large, but even if it was, a 27% yes answer (without anyone saying that the stimulus had a negative effect on their business) is a positive result, not a negative one.

But CNN went for the more controversial headline.

Da-Duh--Da--Duh a 9.7% unemployment rate--over 14 months later says ithat the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill had no effect. If and when a recovery comes--it will be by the private sector--with no stimulus money doing it--as we typically do in this economy.

California is currently at the highest unemployment on record at 12.7%. And as they say--where California goes--so goes the rest of the country--because in fact, it is usually California that typically shows the first signs of economic recovery.

The only thing the stimulus has done--is drive us further into debt.

No one can BORROW and SPEND their way to PROSPERITY--including the Federal Government.

 

[jreeves]

Yeah 36 BILLION is a nothing

Which number is bigger: $789B or $36B?

If $36 Billion would cause unemployment to move by 2 full points, how effective should $789B have been?

It kept us from going to 24%.

now prove it didnt

LOL make outlandish claims and then say to disprove it....typical little liberal mind...

 

[skookerasbil]

Just more proof that liberalism is a gigantic hoax.

 

[Vast LWC]

It's not the study that's faulty, it's the conclusion.

The study was conducted among 68 people who held economic-related jobs in private firms, and asked if those firms had benefitted from the stimulus.

Most of the group asked happened to say that the stimulus had no benefit to their company, but 27% said it DID have a benefit to their company.

That is by no means a valid study to determine if the the stimulus had an effect on the economy at large, but even if it was, a 27% yes answer (without anyone saying that the stimulus had a negative effect on their business) is a positive result, not a negative one.

But CNN went for the more controversial headline.

Yes...it's only faulty when it doesn't say what you want to hear....makes perfect sense!!!!

The study DOES say what "I want it to say". That's the point. The conclusion drawn by CNN was faulty.

 

[Truthmatters]

They are too dishonest to admitt its merely an opinion poll of business people

 

[Vast LWC]

It's not the study that's faulty, it's the conclusion.

The study was conducted among 68 people who held economic-related jobs in private firms, and asked if those firms had benefitted from the stimulus.

Most of the group asked happened to say that the stimulus had no benefit to their company, but 27% said it DID have a benefit to their company.

That is by no means a valid study to determine if the the stimulus had an effect on the economy at large, but even if it was, a 27% yes answer (without anyone saying that the stimulus had a negative effect on their business) is a positive result, not a negative one.

But CNN went for the more controversial headline.

Da-Duh--Da--Duh a 9.7% unemployment rate--over 14 months later says ithat the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill had no effect. If and when a recovery comes--it will be by the private sector--with no stimulus money doing it--as we typically do in this economy.

California is currently at the highest unemployment on record at 12.7%. And as they say--where California goes--so goes the rest of the country--because in fact, it is usually California that typically shows the first signs of economic recovery.

The only thing the stimulus has done--is drive us further into debt.

No one can BORROW and SPEND their way to PROSPERITY--including the Federal Government.

To use your font and color:

8.2% of that unemployment was already there by Obama's first month in office, February of 2009. And that was BEFORE the stimulus.

But you all find it convenient to ignore that little fact, don't you?

The fact is that the RISE in the unemployment rate slowed significantly soon after the stimulus went into effect.

It has now STOPPED RISING and STARTED DROPPING over the past couple of months.

This is what's commonly known as an improvement.

Keep on spinning though, and keep on using bold purple fonts, maybe it will make up for your lack of accuracy.

 

[Flopper]

Is CNN going the direction of Fox?

If you mean, are they moving toward one-sided commentary, I don't think so. I think CNN is about as middle of road as you can get. What passes for news reporting on Fox and MSNBC is just news commentary.

 

[Vast LWC]

Is CNN going the direction of Fox?

If you mean, are they moving toward one-sided commentary, I don't think so. I think CNN is about as middle of road as you can get. What passes for news reporting on Fox and MSNBC is just news commentary.

That's the truth. Though in this case I think CNN showcased an incorrect conclusion. I think it was in the interest of sensationalism, not partisanship.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Is CNN going the direction of Fox?

If you mean, are they moving toward one-sided commentary, I don't think so. I think CNN is about as middle of road as you can get. What passes for news reporting on Fox and MSNBC is just news commentary.

That's the truth. Though in this case I think CNN showcased an incorrect conclusion. I think it was in the interest of sensationalism, not partisanship.

Ya...when your ratings tank.... make shit up. Good thing you aren't in charge of anything meaningful.

and FYI The unemployment rate was at 7.6% when Obama took office. He sold his wall street buddies on the Stimulus bill and said unemployment WOULDN'T GO ABOVE 8%...Remember that? Or are you "having a moment".

 

[Flopper]

Is CNN going the direction of Fox?

If you mean, are they moving toward one-sided commentary, I don't think so. I think CNN is about as middle of road as you can get. What passes for news reporting on Fox and MSNBC is just news commentary.

That's the truth. Though in this case I think CNN showcased an incorrect conclusion. I think it was in the interest of sensationalism, not partisanship.

I think all news media will draw incorrect conclusions occasionally, however drawing any conclusions should not be a part of real news reporting. Drawing conclusions should be reserved for editorials and news commentary not real news. Remember when news programs announced editorials and differentiated news reports from editorial. It's too bad they don't do that anymore. If they did Fox and MSNBC would have to label all of their news programs as editorials.

 

[Jarhead]

If you mean, are they moving toward one-sided commentary, I don't think so. I think CNN is about as middle of road as you can get. What passes for news reporting on Fox and MSNBC is just news commentary.

That's the truth. Though in this case I think CNN showcased an incorrect conclusion. I think it was in the interest of sensationalism, not partisanship.

I think all news media will draw incorrect conclusions occasionally, however drawing any conclusions should not be a part of real news reporting. Drawing conclusions should be reserved for editorials and news commentary not real news. Remember when news programs announced editorials and differentiated news reports from editorial. It's too bad they don't do that anymore. If they did Fox and MSNBC would have to label all of their news programs as editorials.

I dont watch MSNBC so I can not speak for them. As for the fox NEWS programs, they do not editorialize and they do not come to conclusions.

 

[KMAN]

slanted study folks with only 68 people.

Of course it is....

Anytime a poll shows something different than what a liberal believes the poll is slanted...

 

[KMAN]

It's not the study that's faulty, it's the conclusion.

The study was conducted among 68 people who held economic-related jobs in private firms, and asked if those firms had benefitted from the stimulus.

Most of the group asked happened to say that the stimulus had no benefit to their company, but 27% said it DID have a benefit to their company.

That is by no means a valid study to determine if the the stimulus had an effect on the economy at large, but even if it was, a 27% yes answer (without anyone saying that the stimulus had a negative effect on their business) is a positive result, not a negative one.

But CNN went for the more controversial headline.

Da-Duh--Da--Duh a 9.7% unemployment rate--over 14 months later says ithat the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill had no effect. If and when a recovery comes--it will be by the private sector--with no stimulus money doing it--as we typically do in this economy.

California is currently at the highest unemployment on record at 12.7%. And as they say--where California goes--so goes the rest of the country--because in fact, it is usually California that typically shows the first signs of economic recovery.

The only thing the stimulus has done--is drive us further into debt.

No one can BORROW and SPEND their way to PROSPERITY--including the Federal Government.

To use your font and color:

8.2% of that unemployment was already there by Obama's first month in office, February of 2009. And that was BEFORE the stimulus.

But you all find it convenient to ignore that little fact, don't you?

The fact is that the RISE in the unemployment rate slowed significantly soon after the stimulus went into effect.

It has now STOPPED RISING and STARTED DROPPING over the past couple of months.

This is what's commonly known as an improvement.

Keep on spinning though, and keep on using bold purple fonts, maybe it will make up for your lack of accuracy.

Funny how the unemployment rate skyrocketed once the Dems got control of congress. I guess this stat was conveniently left out as well... LOL

Google - public data

 

[Flopper]

That's the truth. Though in this case I think CNN showcased an incorrect conclusion. I think it was in the interest of sensationalism, not partisanship.

I think all news media will draw incorrect conclusions occasionally, however drawing any conclusions should not be a part of real news reporting. Drawing conclusions should be reserved for editorials and news commentary not real news. Remember when news programs announced editorials and differentiated news reports from editorial. It's too bad they don't do that anymore. If they did Fox and MSNBC would have to label all of their news programs as editorials.

I dont watch MSNBC so I can not speak for them. As for the fox NEWS programs, they do not editorialize and they do not come to conclusions.

I have noticed on Fox and MSNBC, the commentator's conclusions are contained in the questions they ask, for example in an interview: Do you really believe that Obama had no knowledge of this even though his staff has confirmed that he did? The proper way to ask the question so not lead the audience to a conclusion is leave out the word "really". Also the staffs confirmation information is not needed unless you are trying to guide the guest to an answer. The better phrasing would be just a simple question. Do you believe Obama had knowledge of this?

 

[The Rabbi]

Da-Duh--Da--Duh a 9.7% unemployment rate--over 14 months later says ithat the 787 BILLION dollar stimulus bill had no effect. If and when a recovery comes--it will be by the private sector--with no stimulus money doing it--as we typically do in this economy.

California is currently at the highest unemployment on record at 12.7%. And as they say--where California goes--so goes the rest of the country--because in fact, it is usually California that typically shows the first signs of economic recovery.

The only thing the stimulus has done--is drive us further into debt.

No one can BORROW and SPEND their way to PROSPERITY--including the Federal Government.

To use your font and color:

8.2% of that unemployment was already there by Obama's first month in office, February of 2009. And that was BEFORE the stimulus.

But you all find it convenient to ignore that little fact, don't you?

The fact is that the RISE in the unemployment rate slowed significantly soon after the stimulus went into effect.

It has now STOPPED RISING and STARTED DROPPING over the past couple of months.

This is what's commonly known as an improvement.

Keep on spinning though, and keep on using bold purple fonts, maybe it will make up for your lack of accuracy.

Funny how the unemployment rate skyrocketed once the Dems got control of congress. I guess this stat was conveniently left out as well... LOL

Google - public data

Skyrocketed and then has stayed elevated. I dont recall another recession where unemployment remained quite so high for so long. Job loss may have leveled off but hiring is severely lagging. Hmm, wonder why??