a.) Actually, the article says, "Monthly GDP, for example, stopped free-falling in December 2008, long before the stimulus kicked in, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. (See nearby chart.)"
b.) Your article clearly shows that stimulus money was spent starting in April. And even if it hadn't been spent, it had been promised in the form of contracts.
c.) No, it is indicative of the point. The author doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's attempting to mislead with the "no money was spent yet" line. And you fell for it.
d.) Taylor says that the failure of various stimulus to increase purchases and expenditures is a flaw: "The federal government increased purchases, but by only an immaterial amount. State and local governments used the stimulus grants to reduce their net borrowing (largely by acquiring more financial assets) rather than to increase expenditures, and they shifted expenditures away from purchases toward transfers."
e.) You quoted his line that "Some argue that the economy would have been worse off without these stimulus packages, but the results do not support that view." His results are based on a model.
f.) Eh, sort of. I'll concede this one.
g.) He estimated fiscal multipliers using WWII spending, in which people were blown up and resources were actively withheld from the private sector, among other things. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html) He used shoddy estimations to make bold claims about unemployment benefits. (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/08/31/the-popular-lunacy-of-blaming-those-lazy-unemploye.aspx)
h.) No, you have unsubstantiated claims about history. You have no data.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 6/7/11 21:12 (UTC)b.) Your article clearly shows that stimulus money was spent starting in April. And even if it hadn't been spent, it had been promised in the form of contracts.
c.) No, it is indicative of the point. The author doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's attempting to mislead with the "no money was spent yet" line. And you fell for it.
d.) Taylor says that the failure of various stimulus to increase purchases and expenditures is a flaw: "The federal government increased purchases, but by only an immaterial amount. State and local governments used the stimulus grants to reduce their net borrowing (largely by acquiring more financial assets) rather than to increase expenditures, and they shifted expenditures away from purchases toward transfers."
e.) You quoted his line that "Some argue that the economy would have been worse off without these stimulus packages, but the results do not support that view." His results are based on a model.
f.) Eh, sort of. I'll concede this one.
g.) He estimated fiscal multipliers using WWII spending, in which people were blown up and resources were actively withheld from the private sector, among other things. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123258618204604599.html) He used shoddy estimations to make bold claims about unemployment benefits. (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/08/31/the-popular-lunacy-of-blaming-those-lazy-unemploye.aspx)
h.) No, you have unsubstantiated claims about history. You have no data.