I'll be the second to admit that I don't know huge amounts about economics (montebianco clearly being the first!), but it seems to me that, if the unemployment rate goes down, it means that there are net jobs. yes? I mean, jobs aren't like energy, neither created nor destroyed.
besides, it is my personal experience that government jobs pay better than a lot of private sector jobs, which would mean that those people who have them are able to spend more money, which I thought helped the economy.
further, one piece of economic data I do happen to hold says that the tax rate for the highest income bracket in the Eisenhower administration was 90%. I would suggest that it would then be difficult for Kennedy et. al. to have raised taxes to have paid for Apollo; clearly, the money came from reducing other government spending--shifting the money around. now, this may well mean (I'm not an expert on the subject) that other government jobs were lost in order to pay for Apollo jobs. in which case, no net jobs. but I don't, I further admit, have unemployment statistics to back up this claim, and I'm pretty sure that's an overly-simplified way of looking at it anyway.
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"