Soledad O'Brien Asks Obama Aide If There Should Be Another Stimulus
Does CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien's job description include spoonfeeding Democratic talking points to Obama's deputy campaign manager? Quoting a study used by the Democratic-appointed CBO director to defend the stimulus plan, O'Brien asked Stephanie Cutter if there should be another stimulus, on Monday's Starting Point.
"So, is the takeaway from this, the stimulus worked, so there should be another stimulus?" O'Brien asked after touting a survey of economists that included the Obama's former economic advisers. [Video below the break. Audio here.]
CBO director Douglas Elmendorf had staunchly defended Obama's stimulus plan last week before Congress, and he cited the survey of economists who said unemployment would have been higher without it. Elmendorf was jointly appointed by then-Speaker Pelosi and then-Senator Robert Byrd in 2009 as the CBO director.
The study in question was conducted by the University of Chicago's business school and involved over 40 economists. 80 percent of them either strongly agreed or agreed with the premise that the nation's unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been had the stimulus bill not been enacted.
A brief transcript of the segment, which aired on June 11 on Starting Point at 8:07 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
SOLEDAD O'BRIEN: So there was a question they polled with this question. Did the stimulus help lower unemployment and 80 percent said "yes," "no" said 4 percent, and "uncertain" said 2 percent. These are 42 economic experts who were polled of this. So, is the takeaway from this, the stimulus worked, so there should be another stimulus? That would be another solution for the crisis that we're in right now, or the slowly improving crisis that we're in right now. What do you think?
STEPHANIE CUTTER, Obama deputy campaign manager: Well, I think those economists said that the stimulus worked in stemming off the economic downturn. The economic downturn, according to those economists, was much worse than anybody predicted in the fall of 2008. But what the stimulus did is it protected us from going off that cliff. It protected us from falling into a depression and actually resulted in saving and creating more than 3 million jobs.
But we need to do more. That's the message that the President was communicating on Friday. That we need to do more. We need to keep our foot on the pedal of this economy and continue doing things to help it grow rather than putting up roadblocks.
And that's the debate I think that we're going to have on the campaign trail. How do we grow this economy? President has solutions out there that would jump start our economy now, put people back to work. It's actually, according to independent economists, a million jobs that are sitting on the table in Congress if they would just move on those proposals.
O'BRIEN: Stephanie –
CUTTER: But unfortunately, we need some people to put the country ahead of politics, to move those proposals forward and so far House Republicans haven't been willing to do that.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Typical
Submitted by CO2Maker on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 4:47pm.
Solenoid wants more stimulation.
Their other stimulators, TARP and QE1 and QE2 didn't get it done, and all the green stuff didn't do it either. Why not try it again?
It's the definition of mental illness.
Is it saving or creating or saving and/or creating, or losing. .
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 5:09pm.
STEPHANIE CUTTER: [..] It [Stimulus] protected us from falling into a depression and actually resulted in saving and creating more than 3 million jobs.
Now what was that again? Did it actually result in saving, or in creating, more than 3 million jobs? Or, was it "saving and/or creating" 3 million jobs?
And Ms. Cutter and ms. O'Brien, if the number of jobs in the country (number of employed) is currently fewer than the number of employed prior to the economic crash (which it is) then how can you claim that any jobs have been created?
Isn't it more plausible that so far, all that we've done is replace a percentage of the jobs lost?
In other words, ladies, all we've done so far is loose jobs since the beginning of the downturn.
Here's your example. Let's say that you invest $10,000 into a stock. Then, there's a downturn and you loose $5,000 on that investment. It's worth $5,000. Over the next 4 years, it recovers and is now worth $7,500. Now, are you going to tell me that you just "created" $2,500 of value, or are you going to say that we've recouped 1/2 of what we lost?
You see -- nothing has been created.
How can one create jobs when there are fewer jobs at the present?
And, speaking of "putting politics ahead of reality," read again what the two of you had to say between yourselves and the audience.
(;~/ gary
She knows what answer she's
Submitted by rbosque on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 5:18pm.
She knows what answer she's going to get, it's set up that way. Why doesn't she ask that question from a competent unbiased Economist? The other ones didn't work how's is this one going to be any different?????
Wow....
Soledad O'Brien
Submitted by bobsmom on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 6:29pm.
"Stephanie, repeat after me.............."
Sure, spending money props up the economy.
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 6:37pm.
But at what cost? Should we just do this forever? Should we continue with the current plan, where the end of Stimulus means just that, and GDP begins to recede? Because that's what's happening. We didn't "stimulate", reach a new level, then "plateau" once the funds ran out. We "stimulated", grew to some degree -though mostly limited to very large companies, and then retreated. Meanwhile, we added $3T in public debt.
Progressives have -at best- three plays in their playbook. Every thing they do is a derivative of those three plays. Tax. Spend. And unionize. That's it. That's all they've got. That's all they're capable of.
First Thing I Thought
Submitted by SimJim on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 8:52pm.
This was a brainless survey. Of course spending nearly a trillion dollar reduced unemployment. I'm surprised any economist would deny this obvious reality. The real question should have been was it worth the cost? Would that same amount of money left in the private sector create more jobs? I have no doubt it would have created more jobs...and jobs that last.
The stimulus propped up a failing system for a year or two. Delaying the inevitable and now libs want more so they can delay longer and get themselves elected.
Latest poll says
Submitted by cristo on Mon, 06/11/2012 - 6:46pm.
Government by poll, Bill Clinton's old trick. Let's see, there's a poll every day and Americans are less likely or more likely to be watching CNN? AAARRRHHHH, buzz. Less likely! Bingo, more the whole shootin' match over to Current TV!
Soledad O'Brien
Submitted by Michael_in_Orlando on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 9:19am.
I don't know what it is about Soledad O'Brien. I think she is my favorite ditsy brunette.
Sorry Soledad
Submitted by chiefpayne on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 12:32pm.
but we TRIED it Obama's way...and it FAILED...MISERABLY!
As such, there will BE NO MORE STIMULUS bills! We The People have had ENOUGH of liberal WASTE of taxpayer dollars.
Obama LOSES in a landslide in November...only getting about 40% of the votes cast!
Remember you heard it HERE first!
Sorry Soledad
Submitted by chiefpayne on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 12:32pm.
but we TRIED it Obama's way...and it FAILED...MISERABLY!
As such, there will BE NO MORE STIMULUS bills! We The People have had ENOUGH of liberal WASTE of taxpayer dollars.
Obama LOSES in a landslide in November...only getting about 40% of the votes cast!
Remember you heard it HERE first!
"Democratic-appointed" No. It
Submitted by Callawyn on Tue, 06/12/2012 - 1:23pm.
"Democratic-appointed"
No.
Its: "Democrat-appointed"
There is nothing democratic about the Democrat party