Reply #24: I see your problem

[ProSense]

"February 17, 2009 -> Sept 30, 2009 is a 'few months'"

Stimulus funding didn't hit the streets until in July, still it significantly less was spent in FY 2009 than in FY 2010.

"By your logic the few months of stimulus in FY 2009 resulted in an increase in the deficit, but the bulk of stimulus spending in FY 2010 reduced it?"

Yes, of course it did. This is because of how tax revenue is counted. The stimulus spending in 2009 (which added to the deficit in 2009) created jobs which created REVENUE that gets credited to FY 2010 because the bulk of the revenue comes AFTER.

What? So you're crediting the stimulus with helping to reduce the deficit?

So tell me again why this makes sense?

:rofl: