The Thailand expat forum for Travel, Lifestyle and Fun.

isanyokel

CBS Says White House Is Fudging Stimulus Jobs Numbers


By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
October 30, 2009 - 11:53 ET

• 

When Katie Couric and the folks at CBS start doubting what the Administration says about how effective February's economic stimulus package was, you know President Obama is in trouble.
Consider that on Thursday's CBS "Evening News," Chip Reid began a segment with the following startling statement about a jobs report card to be released by the White House Friday:

Well, Katie, that report is going to claim that the stimulus has already created or saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, but if the administration`s first effort at counting stimulus jobs is any guide, tomorrow`s numbers could be hard to believe.

Readers are advised to make sure youngsters are out of the room, for watching Katie and the Gang say the White House might be fudging numbers could be way too frightening for minors (video embedded below the fold with transcript, h/t Terri Green, file photo):
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
<a href="http://harvest.AdGardener.com/noscript.aspx?s=16&c=fa99ab07-42c2-43e0-abfb-b47f96e4b9b9" target="_blank"><img src="http://harvest.AdGardener.com/noscript.aspx?s=16&w=336&h=280&c=fa99a b07-42c2-43e0-abfb-b47f96e4b9b9" width="336" height="280" border="0" /></a>

KATIE COURIC, HOST: Now let`s get back to that $787 billion stimulus Anthony mentioned. Earlier this year, the president claimed it would create or save three million jobs. There are some questions about how many it may have created so far. Chip Reid is at the White House tonight. And, Chip, I know the administration is putting out a jobs report card tomorrow. What can you can tell us about that?

CHIP REID, CBS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Katie, that report is going to claim that the stimulus has already created or saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, but if the administration`s first effort at counting stimulus jobs is any guide, tomorrow`s numbers could be hard to believe.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REID: At a small college in Georgia, $100,000 in stimulus funds paid for trucks for students to practice for commercial driver`s licenses. Another $100,000 went for a modular classroom. The school reported to the government that 280 jobs were created.
In reality, not even close. That`s the number of students who benefited. It has nothing to do with jobs.
In Cocoa, Florida, a childcare center reported 129 jobs created by a stimulus grant. In fact, no jobs were created. The money was really used to increase the compensation and benefits of 129 existing employees.
Overall, it turns out the administration`s initial stimulus jobs report contained hundreds of errors as first reported by the Associated Press. Critics say if the kinds of errors found in that earlier report are repeated in Friday`s much more extensive job creation survey, it won`t be worth the paper it`s printed on.
CRAIG JENNINGS: We have, I think, a rough estimate at best. And at worst, these numbers are next to useless.
REID: The White House says the errors have already been corrected, that tomorrow`s jobs report has been double- and triple-checked for weeks, and that it will give an accurate, detailed look at the early success of the stimulus.
Republicans in Congress, though, predict the report will be a world- class example of government obfuscation.
REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R), OHIO: There is no factual way of determining how many jobs were saved or created.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
REID: Those Republican critics also say they don`t understand how some stimulus projects will create any jobs. For example, half a million dollars to study social networks like FaceBook, and $219,000 to study the sex lives of female college freshmen. Katie.
COURIC: Chip Reid reporting from the White House tonight. Thanks, Chip.

Makes you wonder if White House communications director Anita Dunn is going to file a complaint with CBS.
After all, she didn't think it was right for Fox News's Chris Wallace to fact check the Adminstration.
Why should Katie and crew get to do it?

__________________
Here's lookin' at you.

raycarey

gee, so much for the 'liberal' media, eh?

and btw, why isn't there a link?

ashamed your source is newsbusters.com?

don't be, you'll fit right in with the rabid right wingers here in issues.

isanyokel

Tried to upload the youtube video, but being a computer nerd failed.

YOUTUBE ; CBS Administrations Trillion Dollar Stimulus.

DOWNLOAD FOR ME PLEASE [HELP]!!!!

chitown

If Fox reported it, you would have cried like a big thumb sucking liberal baby.

Its not real news blah, blah, blah.....

Norton

Boon Mee

RA is still sailing up/down that river in Egypt, eh?

Boon Mee

Deafining sound of chirping crickets from the usual suspects in this thread, eh?

Check this out. It seems the White House is angered when us peons begin questioning the 640,000 jobs the White House claimed "created or saved" by the Spendulus.

Even CBS and AP have noted the gross over-inflation of jobs numbers; and have uncovered bullshit like the school that spent $200,000 to buy trucks and a portable classroom, and reported 280 jobs created or saved.

__________________
ผมเป็นคนบ้านนอก

Jet Gorgon

I questioned the numbers also, especially the "jobs saved", which were reported to be police, teachers and other workers on government payrolls. It all seems pretty wishy washy. But, hey, who cares! They have to get healthcare done and create more government unions!

sabang

GDP, GNP, Unemployment figures have been fudged for years.

If you 'knew' how to read the figures, you would have known the US was in recession long before you were told. And in fairness, I did tell you in about the second quarter of the recession.

So, it is well possible that the current figures are being fudged somewhat.

__________________
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Milkman

Yes, I believe the WH fudged the numbers.

What's new?

The whole concept of the stimulus was a charade to begin with.

And it was the 3rd stimulus. - the first 2 were by the GWB administration.

raycarey

let's begin here: the commentary in the OP is from newsbusters.com....a member of the whacky, right-wing of echo chamber.

secondly, the title of the thread states that "CBS says white house is fudging stimulus jobs numbers"

really?
is that what CBS is saying?
because i don't see anything like that in the OP.
the only place i see it is in the thread title.

perhaps they did. i have no idea.

certainly no one here has provided any evidence of the kind.

but i do know what is included in the OP...

the school and childcare center reported these numbers....but somehow it's the white house that is 'fudging job stimulus numbers'?

NEXT!


agreed.

let's eat!

the dogcatcher

It's been the same in UK as long as I can remember. Alway thinking of new ways to count the unemployed, or not count them to be more accurate.

raycarey

too true.

the number that recieves the most attention is U3.

taycy

Let's just hope that things will change for the better in the days to come.

sabang

Paul Krugman thinks the Stimulus spending is way too small-


"the Obama stimulus plan, is working just about the way textbook macroeconomics said it would. But that’s also the bad news — because the same textbook analysis says that the stimulus was far too small given the scale of our economic problems. Unless something changes drastically, we’re looking at many years of high unemployment.


About that good news: not that long ago the U.S. economy was in free fall. Without the recovery act, the free fall would probably have continued, as unemployed workers slashed their spending, cash-strapped state and local governments engaged in mass layoffs, and more.

The stimulus didn’t completely eliminate these effects, but it was enough to break the vicious circle of economic decline. Aid to the unemployed and help for state and local governments were probably the most important factors. If you want to see the recovery act in action, visit a classroom: your local school probably would have had to fire a lot of teachers if the stimulus hadn’t been enacted.


Suppose that the economy were to keep growing at 3.5 percent. If that happened, unemployment would eventually start falling — but very, very slowly. The experience of the Clinton era, when the economy grew at an average rate of 3.7 percent for eight years (did you know that?) suggests that at current growth rates we’d be lucky to see the unemployment rate fall by half a percentage point per year, meaning that it would take a decade to return to something like full employment.

Worse yet, it’s far from clear that growth will continue at this rate. The effects of the stimulus will build over time — it’s still likely to create or save a total of around three million jobs — but its peak impact on the growth of G.D.P. (as opposed to its level) is already behind us. Solid growth will continue only if private spending takes up the baton as the effect of the stimulus fades. And so far there’s no sign that this is happening."

He's all in favour of more Government spending on job creation, and argues that the true cost to the governmemt is a fraction of the headline numbers:-


"But can we afford to do more? We can’t afford not to.

High unemployment doesn’t just punish the economy today; it punishes the future, too. In the face of a depressed economy, businesses have slashed investment spending — both spending on plant and equipment and “intangible” investments in such things as product development and worker training. This will hurt the economy’s potential for years to come.

Deficit hawks like to complain that today’s young people will end up having to pay higher taxes to service the debt we’re running up right now. But anyone who really cared about the prospects of young Americans would be pushing for much more job creation, since the burden of high unemployment falls disproportionately on young workers — and those who enter the work force in years of high unemployment suffer permanent career damage, never catching up with those who graduated in better times.

Even the claim that we’ll have to pay for stimulus spending now with higher taxes later is mostly wrong. Spending more on recovery will lead to a stronger economy, both now and in the future — and a stronger economy means more government revenue. Stimulus spending probably doesn’t pay for itself, but its true cost, even in a narrow fiscal sense, is only a fraction of the headline number."


Interesting stuff. Krugman, a Nobel prize winner for economics, has consistently been pushing for more government action, not less- and he does know his shit. Certainly, if he's to be believed, the fact that it will take around ten years for the US to return to full employment even if 3.5% GDP growth is maintained is a bit concerning. But the US economy would certainly be in worse shape now if there had been no stimulus.

Jet Gorgon

Hilarious. What, is he a Soros puppet? They created almost no jobs with the stimulus and saved only some govt union jobs, like police and teachers. Absolute farce.

Milkman

Tom Krugman has become an Op-Ed writer, and his credibility has diminished.

I read the article in the NY Times.

Note the 10th grade writing style. Krugman has become a buffoon, and many of his predictions will be tested very soon.