Ok, I still don't know if there is a diffference in what we are saying. The universe where we don't implement the stimulus will have a GDP .1 to .3% higher in 2019 for that year. That is to say this:
Suppose GDP, without the stimulus, would be 10,000,000,000,000 in 2018 and would be 10,300,000,000,000 in 2019 because the change in GDP for that year is projected to be 3%.
Now, one of the things I think we are disagreeing about is the level of GDP when we get 10 years out. It is my contention that, even with the long term negative impact, GDP level will be higher than otherwise at that point, but that the change in GDP will be lower, at around 2.7 to 2.9%.
I will show the numbers in a minute, but it is important to keep in mind that the CBO never states what the overall impact of the stimulus will be. It is the commentators trying to spin it that are saying the impact is negative.
Now for some real numbers. In the analysis I have drawn up below, I have used actual numbers and projections for the baseline GDP and baseline change in GDP for first three years (2009, 2010, 2011). For the remaining years, I did a reasonable projection of the change in GDP.
As you can see, GDP is better off, even by 2019, with the stimulus, even though the impact for the years 2012 to 2019 is negative for those years.
If you will run a similar projection for what you think will happen, then we can concretely understand how we differ.