Sorry Jason, the chronology doesn't work for you here.

The consensus among economists was the recession would trough around mid-2009, with or without "stimulus." Almost NO stimulus funds had been put into circulation by June of 2009, the official beginning of recovery. The ensuring 2 years was tepid, and inexcusably subpar compared to historical GDP and employment growth rates typical for recoveries off of other contractions that severe. And by spring of 2011, the liberal brain trust was openly fretting that clearly the package hadn't been large enough, since we had stalled to about 1% annualized growth. The talking point then became it was somehow the GOP's fault because of the budget/debt ceiling battles.

The economy did not start showing signs of life until very late in 2011, when ALL stimulus money had spent. How you can logically credit stimulus, and hence Obama, for the current recovery escapes me.

"Stimulus" money is being spent, pitiful growth. "Stimulus" money is all gone, we're finally seeing results. Doesn't work.

1.) Obama says this will be well-executed economic turnaround.

2.) Brennan says - ah, not really well-executed at all, and implies Obama could have screwed it up more than he did.

The point isn't taking credit, it's whether this was all well-executed.

Where in his support for the stimulus, did Obama indicate that it would take three years before the additional spending would have any affect?

Yeah, things hit rock bottom about one day before the Republican house went into office. Since then, our "do nothing" Congress has kept the poor little Administration from doing anything, and yet, things slowly start to get better. So, we've already admitted that the Prez isn't doing anything, because we've complained that the "do nothing" Congress won't let him, and still we give him the credit for improving the economy, even though we admit he isn't doing anything because we know the the "do nothing" Congress won't ...

I'm confused.

No, what 's hard to figure out is your stubborn, religion-like fervor in clinging to theories in an 80 year old book that have been demonstrated failures time and again, if you'll follow the chronology of federal spending and economic performance I outlined below. While the spending took place, poor performance, especially by historical standards. Now that the spending has stopped, we're starting to show some momentum. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but this is the exact opposite expected result if the concept of "stimulus" were valid.

This is to say nothing of your inability to understand your party had a lopsided majority when this legislation was produced, hence "Republican obstructionism" was a non-factor.

You know, that reaction is nearly identical to how we taunted you guys in 2004 when we had positive economic data, and I'll tell you this same thing one of you correctly told me:

A recovery now that ensures Obama's (Bush's) re-election is a far worse long-term outcome for the U.S. than a delayed recovery that ensures his defeat. Hoping for the latter rather than the former is to hope for the lesser of two evils, and it's perfectly rational.

I now agree!

What are the unadjusted numbers like?

The seasonal adjustment adds in a couple of hundred thou to correct for the
assumption that the East Coast is under a couple of feet of snow.

If the stimulus had been larger, the recovery would have been faster and stronger

Prove this.

Seriously? This is the best you can do?

It will never be possible "prove" a counterfactual. I prefer to deal with the real-world results, which by my count I've outlined twice now on this thread for how the economy grew while stimulus dollars were being dispersed versus how it is now that stimulus is exhausted, and still haven't gotten an answer.

When it looked as it we were about to double dip a few months ago, you guys were in a near lather about how that was likely, and more spending bills were needed to sustain us. Now we seem to be hitting our stride just fine without it, some three years late after your "cure" has exhausted itself, and you have the NERVE to come on here doing an endzone dance as if you've been vindicated.

ALL economies, socialist, free market, and all points in between, recover from recessions eventually. You're simply not bright enough to understand you need to be apologizing for gumming it up so long relative to historical standards.