Quote:
Originally Posted by SteamWake
|
Tried it. Did you even bother reading them?
The first one about "even higher" there leads to a Power Line BLOG entry by John Hinderaker that DOES NOT cite where it's getting its statistics and numbers from anywhere in it.
The second one about "1.5 million jobs have been lost" leads to AmericansforTaxReform.com (ATR), and does not cite where it is getting it's numbers from. It does, however, say that Tim Geithner's use of the term 'saved' was challenged heavily by the people, and it does link me to a Breitbart.com article. That's nice, but it doesn't give numbers or even mention 1.5 million jobs lost from Obama's stimulus package. More importantly, it doesn't even say where it got its numbers from (like the claim that each job loss costs taxpayers $2900). It lists a site as Recovery.gov for it, but I did not find these statistics there at all (and I searched for a good 20 minutes, too).
Later, it mentions some stuff about skateboard parks and zoos and jet hangers being built with the stimulus money, but all these links go to other ATR articles. They all cite their sources, however, and I'm grateful for that.
The claim that 40,000 jobs have been lost leads to a website called MexicoTrucker.com. It cites the National Review as its source and gives a direct article along with The Oregonian.
First off, the National Review article does not state ANYWHERE the number of 40,000 jobs being lost from retaliation and tariffs from Mexico. Second, The Oregonian does have the number 40,000 included, but unlike the original article on OpenMarket, it says that 40,000 jobs COULD BE lost; it does NOT say they WERE lost...
Now the final claim I'll be working on ATM is the one that the stimulus package and its spending drove interest rates up and thus harmed the economy (from OpenMarket). It cites Reason.com as its source, and I was linked to an entry by Brian Doherty that said economist Arnold Kling said that interest rates were PROJECTED to increase. They have NOT increased from the stimulus yet according to Mr. Kling, unlike what the OpenMarket article originally claims. But more importantly, Kling points out that stimulus spending does not actually begin until next year...
So much for their reliability thusfar. However, it's possible things will change. But there are like two dozen other linked "sources" to investigate, and I don't want to bother with them right now. I will, however, do it later. Cross my heart, lol.