If we come out of the recession this year... who gets the award?

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Neither for the most part, but I think Bush has had a more meaningful impact than Obama. He came in earlier and kept the banks in health. Obama's money has not even been substantially spent.

Well once again TARP was to save the banking industry. Without it, the damage would've been a lot worse. The stimulus came as a recovery package. Without it we would be recovering slower. I don't think either really deserve credit, although I think TARP did more good.

 

[soccerballtux]

Who gets award =/= who actually solved the problem.

Obama's stimulus should have kicked in by now, but we're at 9.5% and headed up, he promised we wouldn't even hit 9% if it passed.

 

[mshan]

Gary Kaltbaum says financials are still laggards, though they may now be poised to lead: http://www.tradingmarkets.com/...Constructive-81807.cfm

 

[KK]

Both of them are morons for passing them. Period.

 

[JS80]

My wife. She spends my money like it's Zimbabwean dollars.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

This question is moot since the U.S. will not pull out of this depression anytime soon. We might suffer a jobless "recovery", but it won't be a real recovery. Anyway, I placed my vote for Obama since Bush deserves absolutely no credit for doing nothing as the U.S. began to transform into a third world country. (Obama's not much better in these regards, but he can't be as bad as Bush.)

 

[Andrew1990]

Neither, as nothing should have passed. There is a natural order of the economy. It has its ups and downs. We are just prolonging the suffering while digging a hole for ourselves.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

This question is moot since the U.S. will not pull out of this depression anytime soon. We might suffer a jobless "recovery", but it won't be a real recovery. Anyway, I placed my vote for Obama since Bush deserves absolutely no credit for doing nothing as the U.S. began to transform into a third world country. (Obama's not much better in these regards, but he can't be as bad as Bush.)

he can't be as bad as bush!

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: mshan
Warren Buffett on Charlie Rose last October: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9284 (included his best case / worst case projections then for duration of recession and peak unemployment; IIRC 2 years and 5 years, and 9%(?) and 11%)

Neel Kashkari reflecting on TARP in May: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10280

Tony Crescenzi this morning: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1205509497&play=1 (inflation probably not really an issue for 2 years from this spring)

Thanks for posting. I have gone back and forth on TARP but Kashkari presents a pretty reasoned and lucid case for it in that interview.

 

[sandorski]

It could be a decade or more before a precise answer is known, but I suspect that Bush will get some credit for it due to the TARP program. It was something that was an absolute Must and if he had not started that program the Economy would be in far worse shape than it is now. In fact, the Economy may have still been shrinking without that program.

The affect of the Stimulus is kinda hard to measure right now, especially since much of it is yet to begin. The GM/Chrysler actions have probably had more benefits than the Stimulus at this point, especially for stabilizing the Emotional impacts regarding the Recession. Their potential failure was a huge stress on millions of People.

These Economic troubles are likely far from over though. There are many more hurdles the US needs to overcome if it wants to fix the fundamental problems with its' Economy.

 

[BurnItDwn]

if "come out of this recession" includes "unemployment reduced to below 7%" then I think both will get credit.
If unemployment is still above 7% then I'll still bitch and moan about being stuck in a recession and having a horrible economy.