REPORT: Despite warnings from many economists that stimulus may be too small, network news rarely raised the issue
SUMMARY: A Media Matters review of the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news programs from January 25 through February 15 found that of the 59 broadcasts that addressed the economic stimulus package and debate in Congress during the three-week period leading up to and immediately following its passage, only three of those broadcasts included discussion of whether that package was big enough, despite statements from many economists that it may not be.
A Media Matters for America review of the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news programs from January 25 through February 15 found that of the 59 broadcasts that addressed the economic stimulus package and debate in Congress during the three-week period leading up to and immediately following its passage, only three of those broadcasts -- one on each network -- included discussion of whether that package was big enough, despite statements from many economists that it may not be and may have to be followed by additional measures. Although the size of the stimulus package was referenced during at least 48 of the broadcasts that addressed it -- with anchors and reporters, in many cases, characterizing the bill as "massive," "enormous," or "giant" -- rarely was the concern raised that the package's size may not have been adequate.
Indeed, The Washington Post reported on February 17, "[A]s big as it is, the final bill is smaller than what initially passed in the House and Senate, and it falls well short of filling the $2 trillion gap in demand that many economists foresee." Economist Mark Zandi wrote in an op-ed on February 15, "[M]y most significant criticism of the current stimulus plan is that it is too small." He added: "Our struggling economy will produce nearly $1 trillion less than it is capable of this year and will underperform again by at least as much in 2010. The $789 billion in spending and tax cuts to be distributed over those two years is not going to fill this expected hole in the economy. I would thus not be surprised if policymakers are forced to consider a second stimulus plan soon." (Zandi added, "Nonetheless, when combined with other aggressive policy steps, including efforts to shore up the financial system and stem foreclosures, this fiscal-stimulus plan will go a long way toward relieving the current economic crisis.") Zandi was not alone. Other economists -- including Paul Krugman, Dean Baker, James Galbraith, Eileen Appelbaum, and J. Bradford DeLong -- also assessed the stimulus package as too small.
In documenting the references to the size of the stimulus package during the evening news broadcasts, Media Matters included any questions or statements that referred to the overall size of the package with descriptions such as "huge," "enormous," "massive," "billions and billions of dollars," or provided a price tag for the total package -- for example "$825 billion" or "a trillion." Many of these examples are below:
ABC's World News
January 25:
DAN HARRIS (anchor): Good evening. President Obama promised a new tone in Washington, but just five days after he took office, the new Washington is looking a lot like the old Washington. It became very clear today that Republicans are really digging in their heels on Obama's $825 billion plan to rescue the economy. This is a huge early test for Obama, who wants to not only fix the economy, but do so with large bipartisan majorities.
[...]
HARRIS: So we clearly have a debate here between Republicans who want tax cuts and Democrats who are pushing a massive government spending program.
January 27:
CHARLES GIBSON (anchor): Good evening. President Obama wants his economic stimulus package passed and passed quickly. The new president also wants Republican support for the package. So, today, he went the extra mile, and personally went to Capitol Hill to try and sell his plan to Republicans. He presents them with a problem. Do they support a popular new Democratic president who is proposing a massive $800 billion plan or do they rise in opposition?
January 28:
GIBSON: President Obama's giant $825 billion economic stimulus package cleared its first hurdle today.
Also from January 28:
BETSY STARK (ABC News business correspondent): Yeah, Charlie, it's not just politicians who are arguing over the particulars of this stimulus bill. Economists are also debating which parts of this massive package are really stimulus, which are social policy, and which will do the best job of creating jobs in spending as quickly as possible.
February 1:
HARRIS: I'm Dan Harris. Tonight on World News: rescue plan or spending spree? As the massive stimulus bill moves to the Senate, there are signs of compromise tonight, but many Republicans remain reluctant. Should we be spending millions on the arts, they ask?
Also from February 1:
HARRIS: Coming off a week when companies from Caterpillar to Starbucks cut nearly 100,000 jobs, the Senate is gonna start debating the massive economic stimulus plan tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher for millions of Americans in pain, and for our new president who campaigned on the promise of bipartisanship.
February 2:
GIBSON: Good evening. President Obama wants to sign the enormous economic stimulus plan on Presidents Day, two weeks from today. Time enough if, and it's a big if, differences over the bill can be worked out by then.
February 3:
GIBSON: And we did talk to the president about his giant economic stimulus package now before the Congress. We'll get to that in just a moment.
Also from February 3:
GIBSON: As I mentioned, we did talk with the president about his economic stimulus plan. Despite his plea for bipartisan support, many Senate Republicans today said they do not feel his plan will really help the economy. And some offered their own $445 billion alternative stimulus plan. About half the cost of the president's. So, I asked the president if his proposal might be too ambitious. You said from the get-go that you wanted a very big stimulus package, and you wanted it quickly.
[...]
GIBSON: And so, within days, an $800 plus billion bill was written. Did haste make waste?
February 5:
GIBSON: Well, to Washington. The Senate is nearing a final vote on the giant economic stimulus package. The price tag on the Senate bill has actually grown. It's now over $900 billion. Moderates from both parties have been trying to hammer out a compromise that would cut that number down. But the calls for cooperation and bipartisanship are being drowned out by some very strident rhetoric.
February 6:
GIBSON: Welcome to World News. Tonight, a breakthrough. Senators reach tentative agreement on a giant economic stimulus plan, and leaders believe it will get enough votes to pass.
February 7:
DAVID MUIR (ABC News anchor): We turn now to Washington this evening, where the Senate held a rare Saturday session to debate President Obama's massive plan to rescue the economy. Tonight, the deal has been struck, but the partisan divide is wide and deep.
February 8:
HARRIS: We are, as we said at the top of the program, heading into a hectic and hugely consequential week in the debate over that massive stimulus bill. There is a lot on the line for the new president and for the entire American economy.
February 11:
GIBSON: Good evening. It may seem like the debate over the economic stimulus plan has been going on forever. But the fact is, the $789 billion bill agreed on today by congressional leaders, the biggest spending bill of its kind ever has been before Congress for just 17 days. Getting agreement in the Congress for anything, much less something this large, so quickly, is remarkable.
[...]
GIBSON: George, when you look at all this, this massive bill, as I said, the largest of its kind ever, at $789 billion, then you add the money that was already put out for fixing the financial system, $700 billion, and more may be needed there, these are massive amounts of money coming out of Congress.
February 13:
GIBSON: President Obama is on his way to a major victory tonight as Congress is giving final approval to the giant $787 billion economic stimulus plan and he will sign it next week.
February 14:
MUIR: We're gonna turn now this evening to Washington, where a bitterly divided Congress has given President Obama his first big legislative victory, passing that gigantic plan to rescue the economy.
February 15:
HARRIS: And now to the economy. President Obama has said that his massive stimulus package is just one leg of the stool when it comes to saving the economy.
NBC's Nightly News
January 26:
BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): The numbers these days become staggering after awhile, 300 billion worth of a bailout, a trillion dollars worth of stimulus, give or take. But today, when the bad news came out on jobs, it was again very bad, more than 50,000 of our fellow Americans, people with families and car payments, mortgages and rent. When the president and others talk about this bad economy, this is what they mean.
Also from January 26:
CHUCK TODD (NBC News White House correspondent): In addition to the financial bailout and expected housing relief, the Obama economic team is pushing the administration's massive stimulus package. Intending to build bipartisan support for the package, Obama makes his first visit to Capitol Hill as president on Tuesday to meet only with Republicans.
January 28:
WILLIAMS: Big money. A crucial vote on the president's massive stimulus plan as the massive debate continues.
Also from January 28:
KELLY O'DONNELL (NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent): And both parties agree that there's an urgent need to fix the economy, to create jobs, but how to do it is falling on party lines.
[...]
O'DONNELL: Meaning House Democrats, who have strength in numbers here, get the biggest say in how the giant stimulus plan shapes up and are quick to say Republicans already had their chance.
January 30:
WILLIAMS: And what should folks know about the status of this massive stimulus package we've heard so much talk about again as we head into another weekend?
February 3:
WILLIAMS: Mr. President, how do you make the case to American families who are losing jobs today, right now ... and hurting, and those who aren't are worried, that you've got something for them? That a big, enormous stimulus package is either going to save their job, get them a job, or generally help their lot in life. And meantime, they see the federal government buying up bad banks.
[...]
WILLIAMS: For all the provisions you just chose to outline, there are others, like the one Senator McConnell was mocking today, a subsidy for Hollywood filmmakers. Is it tougher to make the case that this enormous package is more like a million little things, is it getting pecked to death as you watch?
February 5:
WILLIAMS: Across town in Washington to Capitol Hill next, where the struggle to get President Obama's top priority through Congress has been anything but smooth sailing. The huge economic stimulus package is before the Senate tonight. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell on the story with us from Capitol Hill. Kelly, good evening.
O'DONNELL: Good evening, Brian. And because this is so big, the most expensive bill in the country's history, all day senators have been trying to find ways to trim the cost. They say they're hearing lots of loud concerns and complaints from back home. People worried, "Is there too much waste, and will it work to improve the economy?"
February 6:
WILLIAMS: On our broadcast tonight, down to the wire. First, there's the political fight over this massive plan to fix the economy. Then, there's the question: will it work?
Also from February 6:
WILLIAMS: And our lead story comes from Washington tonight. The big vote there on what President Obama wants badly to avert what he calls a catastrophe. The White House is lobbying for votes in the Senate, one by one, on this massive amount of money to stimulate the economy. We begin with our own Kelly O'Donnell on Capitol Hill.
[...]
O'DONNELL: After repeatedly and personally courting Republican support for the massive stimulus bill only to get GOP resistance, today President Obama returned to a campaign style message.
February 7:
LESTER HOLT (anchor): This was no day off for the U.S. Senate today, still debating that staggering stimulus package meant to jump-start the US economy. For his part, President Obama, battered but not bruised from this week's partisan collision, has left town for the weekend, confident he now has enough votes for the Senate to pass the bill. Moderates from both sides of the aisle managed last night to shave 100 billion or so off the price tag, but it is still an eye-watering $800 billion and change, and the president has plenty of campaigning ahead to convince Americans it will be money well spent.
February 10:
WILLIAMS: The president went to Florida today; where, during his travels, he was interrupted by news from home in Washington both good and bad. First, the Senate -- behind us here on Capitol Hill -- had passed his stimulus bill, the big money the president says is needed to avoid catastrophe.
February 12:
WILLIAMS: And now to this stimulus package. A vote's on track, and now the scrutiny begins over what's buried in the fine print. Kelly O'Donnell with us from Capitol Hill tonight with what we're learning about what's inside this huge piece of legislation. Kelly, good evening.
O'DONNELL: Brian, it took all day and all last night to simply get this written and ready for the final stage. Now, we've been talking about big infrastructure projects and financial aid to states. But some of the proposed changes are more personal and geared toward families. Everything about this is big. With unemployment at a 35-year high and home values falling 16 percent over one year, Congress is poised to spend more of your money than ever in U.S. history, $790 billion to try to revive the economy.
February 13:
WILLIAMS: Major hurdle. It comes down to tonight for that huge economic recovery plan in a deeply divided Congress.
Also from February 13:
WILLIAMS: Now to the other major story we've been following here every night all week, the slow march to a final vote on a massive collection of spending called the stimulus package. Tonight, it's the Senate's turn. A vote that sends it to the White House where it will be signed by the president on Monday.
[...]
O'DONNELL: The overall price tag dropped a fraction today, recalculated to a still massive $787 billion.
February 14:
HOLT: President Obama is spending this holiday weekend back home in Chicago after winning his first showdown with Congress with passage of that massive stimulus plan. NBC's John Yang is in Chicago now with the latest on that.
[...]
JOHN YANG (NBC News correspondent): The $787 billion package of spending increases and tax cuts is the most expensive bill ever. Mr. Obama says he wants to make sure the money isn't wasted.
[...]
YANG: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that 74 percent of the money will be pumped into the economy in the next 18 months. The massive legislation, which the president's to sign into law early next week, changed right up until the final hours, with last-minute edits made by hand.
CBS Evening News
January 28:
KATIE COURIC (anchor): Tonight, it's President Obama's first major piece of legislation. The House votes on the massive economic stimulus bill.
February 5:
CHIP REID (CBS News chief White House correspondent): But as the two parties point fingers, the size of the bill has soared in the Senate, with both parties voting overwhelmingly to add 69 billion to protect the middle class from the alternative minimum tax, 11 billion in tax credits for car buyers, and 19 billion in tax breaks for home buyers, bringing the total to more than $900 billion.
February 6:
COURIC: There's breaking news from Washington tonight. The Senate has reached tentative agreement on an economic stimulus package. Price tag: $780 billion trimmed down from more than 900 billion. The compromise followed more dismal economic news. We'll have more about that in a moment. But first, our chief White House correspondent Chip Reid has the latest on the stimulus deal. Chip:
REID: Well, Katie, you know, the price of the stimulus deal has done nothing but go up and up and up. It was up around $930 billion. A lot of people said there's no way they'll get it down to the target of $800 billion. They exceeded that, really extraordinary by congressional standards. They're now -- they now have a tentative deal for $780 billion. We're told a lot of the cuts are from aid to the states, especially spending for education.
By contrast, in only three broadcasts was the possibility of the bill's being too small even raised:
ABC's World News
February 8:
HARRIS: We are entering a pivotal week in the titanic battle over the economic stimulus bill. But after all the fighting, some are now arguing that $800 billion-plus is too small.
Also from February 8:
JOHN HENDREN (ABC News correspondent): The Senate and House must still reconcile their two different versions of the spending bill. The Senate would spend $827 billion, and the House, $819 billion. But some economists say both versions are too small.
ZANDI: It's possible that this won't be enough to jumpstart the economy, that, in fact, policymakers will have to come back and provide more help to the economy before all is said and done.
Also from February 8:
HARRIS: We are, as we said at the top of the program, heading into a hectic and hugely consequential week in the debate over that massive stimulus bill. There is a lot on the line for the new president and for the entire American economy. We have with us tonight Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, and ABC News analyst George Will. Paul, let me start with you. The Republicans are saying that this stimulus bill is a tired old liberal wish list. You, however, are arguing that the bill is too small. Explain.
KRUGMAN: Yeah. I mean, we have a very, very serious economic crisis. This bill is supposed to prop up demands. Now, if we look at the scale of the problem, the Congressional Budget Office says that we're gonna have a hole in the economy, insufficient spending to the tune of $2.9 trillion over the next three years. And we've got a sort of $800 billion plan to cope with it. It's actually quite a bit on the low side.
NBC's Nightly News
February 12:
WILLIAMS: Now, what about this country? We have these two separate tracks. We've got the stimulus package and we've got this bank bailout. What's the chance neither one is big enough?
DAVID FABER (CNBC anchor): We don't know on the stimulus. I mean, you know, we're just going to be trying to guess there in terms of how quickly -- you heard an economist in one of the earlier pieces talk about maybe job losses will slow by the end of the year. And yet Jim Owens, who runs Caterpillar, said he's going to lay off more people before he starts hiring.
WILLIAMS: Right.
FABER: It's a guessing game at this point, but many people expect that ultimately it's going to have a positive effect. Whether it's big enough or too big, who knows.
CBS Evening News
February 11:
COURIC: They have been very busy back there at the Capitol. And late today negotiators announced the House and Senate have reached a compromise on an economic stimulus package. Price tag: $789 billion, down from the more than 800 billion both Houses had approved. And here's how it breaks down: 65 percent spending, 35 percent tax cuts, all aimed at giving the economy a boost and saving or creating more than three million jobs. Chip Reid is at the White House tonight.
And, Chip, did the president get what he wanted?
REID: Well, Katie, he certainly did not get everything he wanted. For example, the bill falls short by billions on health care and education, but in the end the president decided it's much more important to get this bill passed quickly and put people back to work than to get it exactly right.
Methodology
Media Matters reviewed all ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news broadcasts between January 25 and February 15 for which there was a Nexis or Factiva transcript available. Only broadcasts in which there was a report about or discussion of the stimulus were included in the study. Media Matters documented instances in which individuals discussed the issue of whether the stimulus package was big enough -- either by questioning whether the overall size of the stimulus package is large enough, claiming that the total package is too small, or citing or airing statements by others raising questions about whether the stimulus is large enough or stating that it is not. Media Matters counted references to the size of the total stimulus package, including any questions or statements that referred to the overall size of the package with descriptions such as "huge," "enormous," "massive," "billions and billions of dollars," or that provided a price tag for the total package -- for example "$825 billion" or "a trillion."
RSS Feeds
paul krugman had been saying the stimulus wasn't big enough from the go. and he is a nobel prize winnign economist. if it were me i would take the guys advice.
No kidding. You'd think that people would look up to those who've achieved such greatness. Krugman has been right more often than anyone else. If he has a solution, someone with some authority should at least give him the time of day.
krugman had been telling this on news shows i think as ealry as maybe december when talk of a stimuls plan was forming. he said that it wasn't big enough, there needed to be more money. i think he said the figure he would like was somewhere near 3 trillion.
There was some tool on CNN a couple of weeks ago who said something along the lines of 'So what if Krugman has a Nobel Prize. So does Al Gore. It can't be that hard.'
commensenseliberal; You'd think that people would look up to those who've achieved such greatness....If he has a solution, someone with some authority should at least give him the time of day.
Isn't that what President Obama promised us he'd do when we voted him into office? But, if the guy says it will take near $3 trillion then that's probably why. Nobody wants the American public to actually know the full cost, I think they want to be able to have the purse strings fully open as long as possible. Throwing pocket change at something that needs mega$$ is the easiest way to keep the $$$ flowing. Those in control are pretty smart, in that regard. They seem to just want to spend, spend, spend. As if we didn't get enough of that process during the last 8 years. Which btw, put us in this mess.
Why listen to Krugman when you can listen to the lunatic-fringe likes of flush, billo, beck and the mannity.
That's just wrong. LEAVE RUSH LIMBAUGH ALONE!!!
This observation assumes that the sclm's primary objective is to inform the public and not to generate ratings and ad revenues.
Surely, you jest.
Why muddy the narrative with opinions that matter?
Or confuse the wacks with the facts?
Is it not amazing that in such short few years, the media has become the but of all jokes instead of the keeper of the truth ? What a monumental FUBAR.
John McCain is complaining it has too much pork, wants to cut it some more, and yet, publicly stated he is not an economist ( proven by his stupid statement the fundamentals of the economy are strong )( I think it is going to take a lot of money to bring back good tech jobs that pay social security and keep the Treasury solvent. There aren't enough finished goods being exported and probably never will be again, for US companies were deregulated and exported the machinery to make these finished products. It wasn't that long ago the show " Made in America ' with that Cheers guy, the mailman, was produced and as it turns out, didn't last long. Dirty Jobs seems to have a long life.
If nothing else, McCain has proved that he doesn't have a case or a clue about much of anything.
He just mindlessly mutters the name of ronald reagan and rants at clouds until it's medication time.
This off topic alittle but I remember the discussions we were having a few days ago about the DOW specifically Contessa Brewer cropping a chart to suggest the turndow of the DOW began on Obama's election. Of course the usual cons jumped in with their usual regurgitation of Fox, Limpballs talking points, but I think even for some who had legitimate questions (Bruce)there was a misplaced anger that I think was based on incorrect understanding of the DOW and what it represents. SOooooo I found this article on the fair.org site that I think ads to that understanding and discussion : What the Dow Isn't
The Obama stimulus package, $787 billion. The housing plan, $75 billion. That's $2.3 trillion. Seven hundred and fifty billion dollars additional in this document for additional bailout money for the banks. Meantime, what metric do we have to see how people--what people think of that government intervention? The Dow is one metric. It closed on Friday at its lowest level since 1997, just over 7,000.Stocks misused as 'scorecard' of White House policy
3/5/09
To hear some in the corporate media tell it, you judge a president by how the Dow Jones Industrial Average is performing--and, thus, Barack Obama is not doing a very good job.
As NBC's Meet the Press host David Gregory said (3/1/09):
How does [Obama] deal with the fact that he has a scorecard now. It's called the Dow Jones.... No matter what they say, the Dow keeps going down. It's down to almost 7,000 now. I used to think 8,000 was the floor. It's heading toward 6,000! People are really getting angry! I'm getting angry!MSNBC host Chris Matthews put it earlier (Hardball, 2/23/09):
Some of the commentary was even blunter. NBC's financial pundit Jim Cramer declared on the March 3 Today show that Obama is pursuing a "radical agenda" that amounts to the "greatest wealth destruction I've seen by a president." When reporter Erin Burnett seemed to disagree slightly, Cramer retorted: "The stock market is the country right now. This is where people's wealth is."
But reporters and commentators are mistaken if they believe the Dow Jones average amounts to a public referendum on the Obama White House (or any other White House, for that matter). There is also little evidence that a rising stock market is necessarily tied to increased prosperity or broad economic health; it is a measure of what people who trade stocks think those stocks are worth, i.e. how much they think other traders would pay for them. As Dean Baker wrote in response to a Washington Post article (3/3/09), the value of the Dow is not a reliable indicator of much of anything: "As should be apparent at this point, the stock market can often be driven by irrational exuberance. Remember, it was almost three times as high in 2009 dollars back in 2000 as it is today. Did that make sense?"
"It took only 14 trading sessions for the Dow to fall from 8,000 to less than 7,000," declared Today host Matt Lauer (3/3/09). As pointed out by Media Matters (3/3/09), MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer seemed to more explicitly tie the market average to Obama: "Since Election Day, the Dow Jones industrial average has dropped nearly 3,000 points. It's shed a quarter of its value in just the past two months." The Dow had also lost more than 3,000 points in the six months prior to Election Day, which might suggest the problems started long before last November.
And such commentary certainly suggests that the downturn in the market is some sort of reaction to White House actions--rather than a response to the routinely downbeat reports from major corporations, indicating that they will make less money and hence be worth less to investors than they have in the recent past (and in the case of many major financial corporations, their balance sheets are worse than downbeat). As the Washington Post reported (3/5/09): "The U.S. recession is dragging down almost every industry in almost every part of the country and businesses do not expect conditions to improve until late this year at the earliest, according to a Federal Reserve report released yesterday."
If reporters really want to assess public reaction to White House economic proposals, there is a much more straightforward way to do that: public opinion polls. Those show much more public support for the Obama administration than is evident among Wall Street investors--or millionaire TV journalists.
See FAIR's Archives for more on:
Economy
I just witnessed Mathews put up such chart claiming DJIA been going down since the election, Nov 4. He is being dishonest about this for Obama has not taken office until jan 20, a full 3/4 of a chart later. Mr Mathews, you are a dishonest person not worthy of a news program and assuming we are stupid and not notice it, makes you even a worst person.
I saw that segment and immediately fired off an e-mail to MSNBC and to his Spitball show. That whole segment was based on an assertion by Matthews that the Administration was being lax in "picking" a fight with Limbaugh and how it sounded like Clinton politics!?!?!?!What a jerk! Then he brings out Contessa's cropped chart to back up Pat B's tantrum about how the administraTION IS NOT GOOD AT GOVERNING!?!?!?!?!WOW! A whole segment based on a lie then he provides a cropped BS chart to back up the lie.
To clarify my position, I never blamed Obama for the falling DOW. I did say that his approval rating will suffer if the DOW doesn't stabilze or turn around fairly soon.
My argument was strictly that the plunging DOW is very damging to the middle class.
And I would second that and also add it is also damaging to the retired. I read about a 90 some odd year old guy who had to go back to work because of his investments tanking. My mom? Oy, vey, she has stories too. So many stories! ;)
I don't know what you mean by fairly soon! If you mean in a few months I don't think it will, but i'am no economist. My understanding is that the stimulus is just 1 leg of his economic policy. I myself am interested in what he is going to do about healthcare as I feel that 87million uninsured in this or any nation is appalling and is a major drag on the economy. I again argue if Obama's approval drops because of the DOW itis misplaced anger, but I have no doubt that demagoges like they are presently doing will be trying to exploit people's economic misery for their own political benefit. We have to combat them with the truth!
I would say he needs an improvement by September or October.
Also, leaders get blamed all the time for things that may not be their fault. It's part of the deal. Credit and blame flow freely to that position.
But so we get this correct you still don't blame him correct? And you still feel it's incorrect to use the DOW as an indicator of popularity , right?
I don't blame him but I do find the accelerating market decline in the past few months to be troubling.
If his plan works, the DOW will improve. So I do think it's fair to judge him based on the markets (part of the economy) after a reasonable period of time.
Look, we all know that the fat cats are sitting on their money while we get burned. We need to take the money that they are hiding away and start letting the government give it to those of us who really desreve it.
I can't stand them not listening to these experts who show us that we need more, not less, government spending. Don't they see history in how FDR saved this country from drowning in debt during the decade long depression in the 30's? Read a book and see how these guys did it with spending, please.
I agree that is one of the biggest concerns that I have in regards to the stimulus package... how much will it take. There is so much waste coming from Washington, and they get a 'free pass' on the total it will take to save our economy from the main stream media. Of course I haven't seen Media Matters talk about this issue either (till now) so, they aren't much different. There's a lot of money being spent on wasteful stuff that could be used for better purposes, such as the $3 million being designated to "save old Tiger Stadium". The building is nearly all torn down, now they want to save it? I'll bet there are a lot of people losing their homes in Detroit who could use some of that money. That's just one of the many things that adds up to great waste and furthers our weak economy.
See? Even the liberal media knows this spending is out of control. America is about to become the land of the collective and the home of the controlled.
The only way to save this country is to ease the financial burdens on the economic sectors that give this country its great wealth and prosperity. We must immediately remove all taxes, regulation, and restrictions on our financial, energy, and real estate markets and allow their inevitable blossoming to resurrect our great country.
right, because guys making millions of dollars in unregulated sectors are so very patriotic and will only do what is right for all and not what is only right for themselves.
dude, whatever your smoking let me in on it.