• Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2011 9:09 AM GMT
    "The economy would have been in much worse shape without the 2009 stimulus — which increased employment in the third quarter of this year by as many as 3.3 million full-time jobs, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office."

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 24, 2011 10:56 AM GMT
    I just saw SB running the other way icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 24, 2011 2:36 PM GMT
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/the-big-drag/Here’s the average of CBO’s high and low estimates of the impact of the ARRA on the level (not the rate of growth) of GDP by quarter:

    But who really cares about the "reactionary socialists" at the CBO?icon_lol.gif

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcquaid/2011/11/22/newt-gingrich-and-the-rising-tide-of-reactionary-socialism/It’s not clear what this means, first of all. The term “reactionary” means a desire to return to a prior status quo, and is typically applied to strains of conservatism. The ideal of socialist radicalism is to transform the world, not return it to a previous state. So this is a kind of buzzword salad.
    Attacking the CBO as reactionary or radical is to claim it is illegitimate, pursuing nefarious hidden interests. It puts us in a world where there is no mutually agreed-upon bottom line. Anybody’s estimate, no matter how wishful the thinking, will do. This is the direction Washington has been moving for years, in increments, mostly under the radar. Now such thinking is moving out into the mainstream discourse. We also saw it with Rick Perry’s over-the-top attack on the Fed. Maybe it will amount to nothing – Newt says a lot of crazy s***, after all. But as Twitter oracle pourmecoffee remarked on the CBO statement, “We’ve become so numb to extremism that this is barely noted and not a disqualifying embarrassment.”