I’d really like to see the math on that…
So, the CBO today, in surveying the success of the American Recovery and Re-investment Act (ARRA,. or as we call it, “the stimulus”, makes the following claim:
Economic output and employment in the spring and summer of 2009 were lower than CBO had projected at the beginning of the year. But in CBO’s judgment, that outcome reflects greater-than-projected weakness in the underlying economy rather than lower-than-expected effects of the ARRA.
Um. OK.
It’s kind of hard to argue with that kind of “judgment”. Your “judgment” may vary, of course.
Not that it matters, because neither you, nor the CBO, have the math to back it up.
Economic output and employment in the spring and summer of 2009 were lower than CBO
had projected at the beginning of the year. But in CBO’s judgment, that outcome reflects greater-than-projected weakness in the underlying economy rather than lower-than-expected effects of
had projected at the beginning of the year. But in CBO’s judgment, that outcome reflects greater-than-projected weakness in the underlying economy rather than lower-than-expected effects of
The economic version of ‘the data don’t support our hypothesis — the data must be wrong!’
Wait a second… the stimulus was supposed to help lift the economy out of its rut, but now we can’t properly evaluate it because the economy hasn’t come out of its rut? Am I understanding that correctly?
“But in CBO’s judgment…”
I.E. opinion. And everyone has one…
Translation:
“Um, yeah… Well… um… We… uh… Gee, how to put it… OK: we admit it: we were GUESSING back in the spring and summer. And… er… well… We’re STILL guessing. But you can trust us. Seriously. Because, like, our guesses are really official. And peer reviewed.”
Alternate (and more accurate) translation:
“We lied our a**es off about what the stimulus would do in order to give political cover to Imeme and the Congress, and now we’ve got to say SOMETHING to justify that line of bullsh*t that we fed the American people earlier in the year.”