3 ms·
Your numbers don't address his comment. The recession started in late 2007 and became apparent in late 2008. Efforts to address the recession (the Stimulus pac
by Anechoic 15y ago
Your numbers don't address his comment.
The recession started in late 2007 and became apparent in late 2008. Efforts to address the recession (the Stimulus package) weren't implemented until 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestm...) so that's the baseline. To show his comment is false we need the spending numbers for 2010 and YTD 2011. The site doesn't have solid numbers yet, but the "guesstimate" for 2010 ($5,799) indicates that krschultz is right.
- krschultz 15y agoThat's a great point, thanks for looking it up I hadn't even thought of looking at it in pure dollar terms. I was actually talking about this: 'Government employment is now 1.9 percent lower than it was at the start of the recovery, a drop of 430,000 jobs. In contrast, government employment rose by 1.1 percent (or 232,000 jobs) during the equivalent part of the last recovery.' Pretty much anytime government employment is going DOWN, it is hard to argue that the response has been in any way keynesian. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-makes-this-recovery-different-from-other-recoveries-government-for-one/2011/08/05/gIQAm6SYwI_blog.html?wprss=ezra-klein http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-mak...