In a Slate article entitled "Did the Stimulus Really Fail? - Not Really", the central argument appears to be that it didn't fail because it did actually create jobs. David Weiger knows this primarily because the Republicans are stressing the price tag of each job created, and crowing that this means the Republicans are contradicting themselves when they say that it didn't create jobs.
The analysis that the Weekly Standard tore apart found that the stimulus increased employment by about 400,000 jobs in the first quarter after it went into effect, and increased it by about 2.7 million at its peak. If you're deriding the price tag for those jobs, you're acknowledging that the jobs exist.Of course, this presumes two things. That the Republicans aren't using the Democrats' numbers for the sake of argument, which I would assume they are. And the other presumes that a job which may have existed for a few months because there was temporarily government money for it -- that that job continues to exist when the money dries up.
So if by "work" you mean "created jobs" and we grant you for the sake of argument that you may have "created" some temporary jobs, then maybe it "worked".
If you mean it "primed the pump" and stimulated the economy to pull it out of a deep recession ... no. It didn't.
Panic has set in.
Pipe Down Now, Keyensians.