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?
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.”