It’s all too clear, simple, obvious, and direct to the point. Is there a way to obfuscate and over complicate everything here… and add in some partisan ideology that would fit nicely with a sound-bite driven agenda?
I should think the impact of the stimulus would be felt as the money was spent, rather than when the law was enacted. Seems to me that the complaint at the time was that the majority of the spending was in the “out years”, not immediately upon enactment. If that is the case, the graphs may actually be showing that the bottom occurred prior to the spending, and that although economics dictate that the spending helped the recovery, it was not the turning point that the “enacted” arrows make it out to be.
Is there much difference in the expectation of spending and the actual spending, in terms of economic activity?
If I know someone will be ordering a lot of my product/service in 6 months, even if they haven’t yet, wouldn’t I still hire people and order supplies to meet that expected demand anyway? Wouldn’t that be even more true if I work closely with the DOT and know that one of the contracts I’m likely to get will be included in a list of “shovel ready” projects pushed through by emergency Federal spending?