Huh?
Not only did the same person write the two bolded statements below, but she separated them by only one sentence, with no indication of shame whatsover:
A good chunk of money from the 2009 stimulus package went to clean-energy programs, infrastructure and research and development, with infrastructure investment alone making up more than $105 billion of the $787 billion total. Those expenditures were supposed to stimulate job growth — and haven’t shown strong results in the struggling labor economy. These funds will also soon expire, leaving future prospects uncertain in labor-intensive industries such as construction and energy. Now the administration is pressing Congress to commit more money, so that the momentum built by the stimulus spending won’t lapse.
The expenditures haven’t done much, so we’d better spend more to keep up the momentum.
The writer? A political reporter for Yahoo News.
teh st00pid is strong in that one….
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 8/31/2010 @ 9:15 pmObama’s priorities are gay
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/31/2010 @ 9:45 pmLOL Happyfeet!
It does look pretty sweet, but what a waste of time and money. Bush didn’t care as much, and neither do the American people.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/31/2010 @ 10:11 pmI’ll be evoking feelings in the den
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/31/2010 @ 10:16 pmWell, like DUH.
She’s not talking about economic development…
She means the movement towards socialism.
We can’t let that momentum expire, dammit!!
I mean, come on!!
Get with the program, pal!
The Lefties have a lot invested in this, they can’t just let people back out of this commitment to The Great Egalitarian Future Paradise!!
Not NOW!
.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86) — 8/31/2010 @ 10:26 pmP.S., after a careful and extensive internet search, I managed to find a picture of the article’s author.
Red will certainly verify that it’s clearly a recent picture.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86) — 8/31/2010 @ 10:28 pmshould read…”the momentum (such as it is) built by the stimulus…”
or maybe the person was speaking in the negative
Torpedoing the economy does have a certain momentum behind it.
SteveG (d32ac2) — 8/31/2010 @ 10:29 pmObama’s priorities are fundamental… with an extreme focus on the fundament part. The Cranio-rectal insertion is just a side benefit.
IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86) — 8/31/2010 @ 10:30 pmplus he knows how to work with color… that’s rare.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 8/31/2010 @ 10:37 pmThe wonder of this administration is how many marxist economists and criminal corruptocrats they found in such a short time. Did they all work for Obama’s candidacy? No wonder Pelosi and Feinstein adore this simpleton.
pat (ea80c1) — 8/31/2010 @ 10:38 pmYup.
I think you might have jumped the shark just a little Patt. Note the qualifier before the second bold.
Now the administration is pressing Congress to commit more money, so that the momentum built by the stimulus spending won’t lapse.
The writer is not contradicting themselves after stating, ” Those expenditures were supposed to stimulate job growth — and haven’t shown strong results in the struggling labor economy.“. They are saying basically that the adminstration is the one pushing something that little or no effect to begin with.
peedoffamerican (51a29e) — 8/31/2010 @ 10:40 pmOops , that had little or no effect.
peedoffamerican (51a29e) — 8/31/2010 @ 10:42 pmNotice how peedofamerican did not bold the section that said “so that the momentum built by the stimulus spending won’t lapse” ?
JD (d606fc) — 8/31/2010 @ 10:53 pmIn other words, seems like she is dissing the Obambi Admin for pushing something that didn’t work to begin with.
Note that she also says in the next to last paragraph,
“Some reports suggest that small businesses are holding back spending and hiring until the legislation clears Congress. Republicans such as House Minority Leader John Boehner have repeatedly argued that the administration is to blame for scaring small businesses.“
Also in the fourth paragraph,
“Extending tax cuts for the middle class. Though the president has been focused on allowing the Bush tax cuts to languish, he confirmed Monday that he does support extending tax cuts for the middle class. But defining who is and is not “middle class” is a thorny political dilemma — one that the White House and Democratic leaders aren’t about to wade into during an election cycle in which voters are already sharply divided over how and whether government should aid an economic recovery.”
Notice the critcism that small businesses are scared of the possible dem congress legislation and also how the dems are not defining who is middle class for tax cuts being thorny.
Looks more like she stuck the knife in and is twisting it slowly.
Could she be conservative or just a disillusioned lib?
peedoffamerican (51a29e) — 8/31/2010 @ 10:56 pm” the momentum built by the stimulus spending ”
Was there any, peedoffamerican? The answer is provably no. Except a Cloward Pliven sort of aspect, to which there is tremendous momentum.
And that clause was a meaningful part of the article, giving a justification that isn’t consistent with the rest of the article or reality.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/31/2010 @ 10:59 pm13.Notice how peedofamerican did not bold the section that said “so that the momentum built by the stimulus spending won’t lapse” ?
Comment by JD — 8/31/2010 @ 10:53 pm
Because JD, it is the administration that is using the argument, not the writer. The writer is stating that is the admins argument to spend more money not her argument==their argument to spend spend spend. Here read the whole sentence bolded,
Now the administration is pressing Congress to commit more money, so that the momentum built by the stimulus spending won’t lapse.
peedoffamerican (51a29e) — 8/31/2010 @ 11:01 pmPeedoffAmerican,
I think that writing is absolutely terrible if it’s meant to convey that the author doesn’t think the stimulus built momentum, too, just the administration.
and yet, when I reread, your interpretation is consistent with how the author describes other arguments (including Republican arguments). It’s just restated, as though it’s a fact, when it may actually be intended to be conveyed as the opinion of the last referenced group.
That’s not how the English language is supposed to work (IMO), but I think you have a point. It’s not really Patterico’s mistake, though. That’s a really poor paragraph that does seem to take two sides of the issue… I guess by accident.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/31/2010 @ 11:08 pmDustin
” the momentum built by the stimulus spending ”
Was there any, peedoffamerican? The answer is provably no. Except a Cloward Pliven sort of aspect, to which there is tremendous momentum.
NO, I agree and so did the author when she states, “Those expenditures were supposed to stimulate job growth — and haven’t shown strong results in the struggling labor economy.”
And that clause was a meaningful part of the article, giving a justification that isn’t consistent with the rest of the article or reality.
And that is why she quoted the administrations line about not letting the momentum lapse, thus showing that the admins line is spurious.
peedoffamerican (51a29e) — 8/31/2010 @ 11:14 pmpoa: the sentence by itself does indeed make me think the writer is writing about O’s admin… but the whole paragraph makes me think the writer is the one that makes the assertions.
It reads totally different both ways o.O
Lord Nazh (0d312a) — 8/31/2010 @ 11:15 pmI actually think that this reporter is actually trying to be impartial and report the facts by giving both sides to the story. Notice that she gives links supporting both the GOP and Dem positions.
I have seen and heard a lot of libturd slanted news, and I think it is refreshing when a reporter actually tries to be fair, and just report the news.
I don’t know if she has been fair and impatial in any of her prior articles, but this one does seem to be. It could be a hell of a lot worse. Just imagine Tingle Matthews, Eddie (sgt.) Schultz, or the Olberdouche and how they would have presented it. Their lines would have been GOP evil, Dems heavenly.
peedoffamerican (51a29e) — 8/31/2010 @ 11:28 pm…not letting the momentum lapse…
This administration has momentum?
AD - RtR/OS! (578e62) — 8/31/2010 @ 11:33 pmIf so, I would think they would want to arrest this long, slow slide into oblivion that they’re on.
That is what it looked like. And that’s the impression I got from your shark jumper before I clicked over to the article, based on the contradiction.
It’s bad writing that seems to contradict itself, but is really just a poor system of attributing points of view that are controversial. She’s trying to be fair. She can be more fair by taking a job at a McDonalds and letting a literate journalist take over.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 8/31/2010 @ 11:35 pmi believe that even happyfeet @ comment #2 would agree that Sarah would do a better j*b of decorating the Oval office…..
even if whe just posed in her jogging gear by the windows.
😀
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 9/1/2010 @ 12:06 amShe can be more fair by taking a job at a McDonalds and letting a literate journalist take over.
Comment by Dustin — 8/31/2010 @ 11:35 pm
Even if she is replaced by a total douchenozelle weenie in the mold of Tingly Matthews or Olberdouche who just happens to have a flair for writing?
Nah, I will stick with someone that is at least trying to do a reporter’s job of just reporting news and not slanting it.
This from someone (me 🙂 ) that has Joe Wilson moments all of the time when Pelosi, Reid, Obummer et al shows their lying ugly faces on my TV. I shout out, “YOU LIE”! And it scares the crap outa my cats and dogs, and somtimes my nearest neighbors that live a quarter mile away. 🙂
Forgot where I was last month, at the Doctors office, Fox News was on, and Pelousi’s ugly face popped up lying. I scared the crap outa the waiting patients and receptionist when I had that Joe Wilson moment. Needless to say, I saw the doctor next.
peedoffamerican (51a29e) — 9/1/2010 @ 12:08 amJogging gear can clash with the window treatments… or so I’ve heard
SteveG (11baba) — 9/1/2010 @ 12:12 amOops, douchenozzle
peedoffamerican (51a29e) — 9/1/2010 @ 12:12 amWell, if we have to choose between an attempt at fairness that is difficult for several intelligent people to decipher, and someone who is literate but dishonest, I … guess we pick Corky. I guess.
Frankly, I’d rather read the liar, knowing they were a liar. But that’s selfish.
It shouldn’t require much to report the facts. There should be (probably is) a style guide to how to present various POVs.
This fake neutrality is also a problem, POA, since there doesn’t need to be much neutrality on some of the facts. There is no momentum. The author isn’t stating the GOP’s POV when she notes how the jobs didn’t arrive… that’s just the facts on the ground.
She presents her neutrality, at best, as ‘Now the administration is pressing Congress to commit more money, so that the momentum built by the stimulus spending won’t lapse.’
I could come up with many examples of this structure that are unacceptable, but one is right here already. She seems to know this sentence isn’t true. It is contradicted in her article. She should present fact claims that she knows are untrue in a different way.
‘The administration cited a momentum built by the stimulus as an important reason not to lapse stimulus spending by Congress.’
Active voice, baby.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/1/2010 @ 12:21 amNo, no, no. That’s what Clinton would be doing.
the friendly grizzly (2f59a6) — 9/1/2010 @ 2:53 amIt’s Obama – the guy who wastes trillions on pork paid for by debt, then tells people that the government must balance it’s budget.
Contradiction is the new non-contradiction. It’s a new age.
scrubone (753c79) — 9/1/2010 @ 2:55 amthe administration is pressing< Congress
that’s still active voice, Dustin. 🙂
passive voice would be something monstrous like “Congress is being pressed by the administration …”
aphrael (73ebe9) — 9/1/2010 @ 7:37 amThe issue we’re talking about is the claim that the stimulus has led to momentum. That’s the oddball claim that is written in a way that makes it hard to see who is claiming it.
That’s why it should be the direct active voice clause in the sentence, IMO, if the writer wants to be clear.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/1/2010 @ 8:41 amI guess it has led to some kind of momentum. It just does not specify in what direction, or whether said momentum is positive or negative.
JD (d606fc) — 9/1/2010 @ 8:47 amRight, but in the sentence, I think the fact that the administration is pressing for more stimulus is the focus of the sentence.
Maybe:
“Now, the administration is pressing Congress to commit more money, which it says will prevent the momentum built by the stimulus from lapsing.”
aphrael (73ebe9) — 9/1/2010 @ 8:58 amI think that pressing for more stimulus is a catastrophically bad idea, no matter who is pressing for it.
JD (d606fc) — 9/1/2010 @ 9:02 amOr even better
“Now, the administration is pressing Congress to commit more money, which it says will continue the momentum built by the stimulus.”
aphrael (73ebe9) — 9/1/2010 @ 9:05 amAphrael’s proposed sentence is better than mine.
LOL. What’s funny is that he and I do not agree on what’s important in that sentence. It’s true, that sentence is about the admin asking for more of the admin’s policy. To me, what’s stark about this sentence… what the real plot is, is that they are doing this because they don’t see the reality that is presented just a couple sentences before. That’s the real action that has set things apace… the stubborn insistence on this momentum of ‘saved or created’.
But Aphrael’s sentence is better. Regardless of how it’s written, people’s views that are untrue, or controversial, should not simply be sitting there, with anything less than clear attribution. When there are several POVs running around, the author’s, the GOPs, the admins, a few others, it’s not OK to just cite someone and then state as if fact their mental state.
It makes it easy to quick readers who are used to liberal bias to misunderstand. In fact, it’s only out of generosity that I say this is a misunderstanding. I think it’s quite possible that the author agrees with the momentum, but disagrees with the contradicting section before it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/1/2010 @ 9:07 amWe should encourage the Dems to pursue this idea … it worked out so well for them last time.
JD (d606fc) — 9/1/2010 @ 9:08 amDustin: I think you and I are looking at different things. You’re looking at what’s important or interesting in the sentence, wearing your concerned citizen hat. I’m looking at what is the point the writer is trying to convey?, wearing my editor hat. 🙂
aphrael (73ebe9) — 9/1/2010 @ 9:10 amJD – the big problem I’m having as a Democrat is that, while i believe that economic stimulus in the abstract was and remains a good idea, the particular bill passed by the Congress was a terrible implementation which seemed directed more at funding pet projects than at stimulating the economy.
This leaves me with a stark choice (or would if I lived in a contested Congressional district and/or had a Republican candidate for Senator whom I didn’t detest): should I vote for the Democratic candidate, who is likely to pursue a ‘stimulus’ which directs borrowed money in the wrong places and isn’t targeted to economic growth, or the Republican candidate, who is likely to oppose any stimulus funding whatsoever? I want neither of these outcomes.
aphrael (73ebe9) — 9/1/2010 @ 9:14 amaphrael, that’s a good way to describe our difference. Either way, I don’t even know for sure what the writer is trying to convey. I greatly suspect she is trying to convey that it is plausible that there is actual momentum built up from the stimulus, and that justifies the administration’s behavior and is not a freak belief that requires quotations or clear attribution.
And your sentence fixes that. So does mine, but mine highlights the issue (which isn’t necessary). your sentence reads better, too, of course.
But I want the article to focus on what in the hell is really going on with this absolutely tremendous mistake. People did this when they asked why we were in Iraq, refusing to name any justification without questioning exactly who said it and why. It is true that the administration wants more stim… and that’s also not news.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/1/2010 @ 9:21 amShe can be more fair by taking a job at a McDonalds and letting a literate journalist take over.
At least an economically literate journalist. Political reporters usually don’t qualify; they tend to be intellectual Philistines.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 9/1/2010 @ 9:30 amI just wanted to add: it must really suck to be you and see this stimulus destroy the concept you support. You’re absolutely right that if the stimulus was meant to stimulate, it would have been entirely different. And even though I disagree with the measure, I think it would have yielded some obvious results (at a net cost).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/1/2010 @ 9:43 amOval Office, jogging wear, window treatments…
The simple answer is: Change the window treatments!
But, thinking that the Sarahcuda has at least the same degree of respect for the Office, and the Oval Office particularly, as GWB, I doubt that she would ever walk into the room wearing “jogging gear”.
AD - RtR/OS! (30a4ff) — 9/1/2010 @ 9:43 amForget it, Jake, it’s Media Town.
Patricia (358f54) — 9/1/2010 @ 11:48 amthe particular bill passed by the Congress was a terrible implementation which seemed directed more at funding pet projects than at stimulating the economy.
But that’s the thing – gov’t never passes any type of funding bills these days that don’t involve massive amounts of pork – barreling. So even if a congressperson came up with something half – legitimate, after it was misconstrued beyond all semblance after so many add – ons, by the time it came up for a vote it would look completely alien to it’s originator.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/1/2010 @ 12:26 pmDo you know what else has momentum? A ship that’s sinking.
Icy Texan (db9ed0) — 9/2/2010 @ 2:40 amsee this stimulus destroy the concept you support
I imagine that all of us have, at some time or another, seen an idea we support destroyed in the public eye by a bad implementation.
It’s frustrating right now. But the frustration will pass.
aphrael (d282ac) — 9/3/2010 @ 1:38 pm