jamiebk wrote:You can't tell that from the chart
You can, too. If the president says: Pass this bill and unemployment will be less than "x", and they pass it and unemployment is greater than "X", then there clearly is no indication that bill had the desired effect.
it is impossible to tell from the data presented if the stimulus had effect or not.
Which is exactly what I was saying. There is no indication to back up the President's claim of jobs 'saved or added' due to the bill.
Shapley wrote:The only thing we can accurately gather from this, however, is that is 'post action' assumptions are clearly wrong, and his claims of positive results from the stimulus are without factual basis.
you can't tell that from the graph either. All you know form the graph is the actual unemployment rate and the fact that the assumptions were (apparently) incorrect. They may be overstated or understated.
You can, in fact, gather from the chart that that assumptions of unemployment post action are wrong. The action was taken, and the actual data is not only greater than the 'post-action' assumption, but it is greater than the 'no action' assumption. Therefore, it is clear that the assumptions were wrong, which was my point. We do no know, nor did I claim we know, what the results would have been with no action, since we did not proceed without action.
My only claim is that the actual numbers, after action, are worse than the predicted numbers sans action. If we assume the numbers sans action were reasonably accurate, then the best course of action would have been no course of action. But we don't know if they were reasonably accurate. The chart does, however, dispute the President's claim of success.