> There's not much doubt that the StimPak kept things from getting worse. I know that it's hard to get excited when saying "unemployment is probably 1.5 points lower than it would have been without the StimPak," but it's almost certainly true. So what if the admin was wrong in its prediction? What do you prefer? Budget cuts?
I know all this and agree with its truthiness. I have no policy proposals, and of course I don't "prefer budget cuts"; that's a completely scurrilous question. My simple, perhaps stupid, point was that though the stimulus package prevented things from being much worse, it didn't exactly help most people substantially either; eg, the unemployment rate is a point and a half higher now than it was when the package was passed. This increase in unemployment--and increase in productivity, aka working harder--saw a concomitant massive rise in corporate profits. Bad empiricists that Americans are, they saw a connection. (By the way, are you sure there's not a connection?)
Jeez, some people get touchy when you offer weak criticisms of welfare and state intervention. Are mildly social-democratic mechanisms so sacrosanct that it can't be looked at?