>> The economy improved after the stimulus.
I really don't think that statement is correct, at least in the context I think you mean it. In October, 2009, Romer stated that by mid-2010 the effects of the stimulus would essentially be over:
Americans hoping for a big economic boost from President Obama's economic stimulus programs got a douse of cold water Thursday: The White House's top forecaster said the largest impact of the stimulus on economic growth is probably in the rear view mirror.That's the case even though unemployment continues to rise and many of the stimulus dollars haven't been spent.
"Most analysts predict that the fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth in the second and third quarters of 2009," Christina Romer, who chairs the President's Council of Economic Advisers, said in testimony prepared for Congress. "By mid-2010, fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little to growth."
csmonitor.com
As of the middle of 2010 the unemployment rate stood at 9.5%, just below the 10% maximum of the recession:
data.bls.gov
And certainly, I don't think anyone would claim the stimulus solved our economic growth problems in that time frame (see 2011):
Now, one can argue that anytime after Feb. 2009 was "after the stimulus" so ultimately, it can be said that the economy improved after the stimulus. It cannot be said that the economy improved because of the stimulus, or anything of that sort. The time frame does not suggest that.
Simply put, there is no evidence that the stimulus did anything other than add a trillion dollars to the country's debt. The bounce back from the depths of the recession would have occurred either way, as is evidenced by the fact that the bounce back had essentially happened before the stimulus took effect (you remember, those jobs weren't so "shovel ready"!)
At the very least it is extremely difficult to square the time frame during which the money was spent with any positive economic impact from the expenditures. |
