No one will be able to prove or disprove what you think either. No one knows for sure what would have happened with no stimulus bills or spending packages. My prediction is that liberals will give Obama credit for saving the economy and conservatives will say he made things worse.

Like I said above you can make a good case for Obama choosing to go for a faster recovery at the expense of long-term prosperity. I don't know if there's a right or wrong answer there.

When unemployment goes down because the net number of jobs goes up, on a consistent basis, then we'll be in recovery. Until then, just because the number of jobs lost this weeks is a little fewer than last week, that doesn't mean we're in recovery.

Quite a “safe” statement to make as IMHO no one will be able to prove or disprove the second part of the thesis..

Those who have worried about the cost, calculate where exactly our economy would be if all the auto worker, supliers, and service personnel had lost their jobs. 10% unemployment would have looked good.

as to the money spent on unemployment, all that money went back into the economy to buy food, pay bills, etc. that money kept other people working that would have otherwise followed the autoworkers to the poor house.

We are a service economy. Most of the workforce replies on others in the workforce maintain demand. If the 10% unemployed stopped spending money, that 10% could well have hit 20% in no time.

Lastly, don't forget a big chunk of money went to states to keep them afloat. They too have skated on thin ice, and the stimulus merely kept basic state services going.

This was not the typical recession, and analyzing that way misses its significance and the priorities.

IMO

That said, it is too late for hypotheticals. We have already borrowed the money and the interest from said borrowing will be payable going forward. In the context of a corporation, the US had cut its usable cash flow for the forseeable future. Reduced cash flow leads to reduced growth prospects for all concerned, Govt. and taxpayers.

Just for fun, it would be nice if at least one politician addressed the expense side of the equation and truly cut costs, for a start they could just cut the rate of increases in spending. Bonus material would be to address the costs of entitlements.

Time to cut off the arm.

It may be more a matter of recovery, period. (Rather than “speeding up” recovery.)

“Back to the medical example, what if cutting off a finger will let the patient enjoy three more good years while cutting off an arm would lead to a normal life albeit without said limb”

It is a matter of interpretation whether we are only “cutting off a finger” or amputating an arm. Some say that what is happening to our economy is drachonian.

“Does it make any sense to only remove the finger if the patient would likely live more than three years?”

This sounds more and more like the health care debate (See a previous post on exactly this subject on the value and quality of human life). But back to the economy, I don't know if what we have done/are doing is similar to removing a finger or amputating a limb. Perhaps you have an opinion on this. I'd be interested.

“Why have we only removed the finger, setting ourselves up for more future pain?” Ditto

Why have we only removed the finger, setting ourselves up for more future pain?

But, I do agree with you that Obama is speeding up the recovery “but at a long term cost.”

The patient has never “died” before, it's just a matter of how long it takes to recover. I think Obama sped up the recovery but at a long term cost.

I am no doctor, but when a patient life's depends, say, on immediately amputating a limb, you'd probably do that, and take care of the consequences and rehab later.

Of course, every American is concerned about the long-term consequences of the accumulating deficits, but should we have let the patient die?

Well, present some logically-tight cause and effect arguments instead of punditry and we'll examine it.

As for Bobby's piece, the only actual facts stipulated I read were 3:

-capital injections into the credit markets (and you guys are going to claim that one for Obama?)

-10% of stimulus funds spent, most of it in the form of extended unemployment benefits and the Democrat definition of “tax cuts”. The former, by definition, does nothing to create jobs and the latter is adjudged in Bobby's own cut-off quotation as ineffectual for “stimulating”.

-500,000 jobs estimated to be saved…….(.what were the dollars spent to save those jobs?)

I'm willing to listen to how Obama turned the economy around, but most of what is in the articles above amounts to saying the stock market is going up in the same time period Obama is occupying the WH.

I wonder how many other times that same thing happened?

The opposite will also occur – even though every other recession has come to an end many people will give Obama credit for ending this one.

The correct answer is probably in middle. I think to an extent recessions and recoveries are self-fulfilling prophecies, ie if everybody is expecting a recovery then a recovery is more likely to happen. In that sense Obama's optimism was helpful in the country's eventual recovery. The increased government spending probably also will help in the short term.

Like I said a few months ago though Obama is sacrificing long term prosperity in order to have a softer landing on the recession. That may well be the right decision. Like you said you have to stop digging the hole before you can fill it up. But with the increased spending and deficits we are going to have an awfully big hole.

The “verdict” will be that in spite of the Obama administration, and because of blah, blah, blah, the economy miraculously recovered.

Just facts of (political) life.

I hope I am wrong…