Here's an editorial in the New York Times about the beneficial effects of the $832 billion stimulus bill passed in 2009 that could have been written in the White House:

Of all the myths and falsehoods that Republicans have spread about President Obama, the most pernicious and long-lasting is that the $832 billion stimulus package did not work. Since 2009, Republican lawmakers have inextricably linked the words "failed" and "stimulus," and last week, five years after passage of the Recovery Act, they dusted off their old playbook again.

"The 'stimulus' has turned out to be a classic case of big promises and big spending with little results," wrote Speaker John Boehner. "Five years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, millions of families are still asking, 'where are the jobs?' "

The stimulus could have done more good had it been bigger and more carefully constructed. But put simply, it prevented a second recession that could have turned into a depression. It created or saved an average of 1.6 million jobs a year for four years. (There are the jobs, Mr. Boehner.) It raised the nation's economic output by 2 to 3 percent from 2009 to 2011. It prevented a significant increase in poverty -- without it, 5.3 million additional people would have become poor in 2010.

None of this is "provable" in the sense that there is broad agreement among all economists that any of this is true. They are publishing the opinions of pro-adminsitration economists.

And it's dishonest.

Note the juvenile "There are the jobs, Mr. Boehner" coming from supposed adults at the Times. Also note that they didn't happen to mention that 8 million jobs were lost and that the White House promised the stim bill would keep unemployment below 8%. History shows it eventually topped 10%.

There is the idiocy of the stimulus, New York Times.

The calculation that jobs were "saved" as a result of the stimulus is pure fantasy. There is no way in hell anyone can measure that mythical number. It is unadulterated White House spin and the Times is repeating it.

And Whoopee! $832 billion dollars added less than 1% growth per year to the economy over 3 years. I am proud to be an American to hear that.

As for keeping people out of poverty, isn't it convenient that the Times only mentioned 2010? What about the huge increase in poverty during Obama's entire presidency?

FactCheck.Org:

The number of persons living in poverty also worsened again in 2012, according to the most recent Census figures. As of last year, 46,496,000 persons lived in households with income below the official poverty line, an increase of nearly 6.7 million since 2008 and 249,000 since 2011. The total poverty rate remained unchanged in 2012 at 15 percent of the total U.S. population. So for the second straight year, the poverty rate was 1.8 points higher than it was in 2008.

The poverty level is now at a 50 year high.

No doubt, the Times would be pleased to report one of the stim bill's big successes:

Washington, D.C. is not only home to many of the nation's wealthiest zip codes, but it also where you can find some of the plushest dog parks.

The capitol's elite pooches can thank President Barack Obama's stimulus package for their green AstroTurf parks.

The conservative group Americans for Tax Reform noted in a press release that the Capitol Hill Marion Park received a whopping $90,825 in stimulus funds. The mountains of taxpayer dollars made the doggy playground one of the "Best Places to Hang With Your Dog in the DC Area," according to the local CBS news affiliate.

The Chicago Tribune reported that the five figures were spent on repainting the fence, repairing the sidewalk, and purchasing new benches and trash cans for the park.

Now you can see why the NY Times wanted a bigger stim bill; more projects like this worthy venture were needed to save all those dog walking jobs.

I suppose it's not news that the Times is shilling for the White House. It's that they make absolutely no attenpt whatsoever to hide it.