ER, Alcaray, Robert and Bowser have each provided four responses to Rob's question. Although each emphasizes different aspects and makes different observations, none really contradicts or excludes the other. The truth (whatever the hell that means) of what actually happened is somewhere in between, or one could even say they are all (at least partially) true at the same time, albeit in different ways.

Of course, it might also be argued that all four of these analyses are dead wrong, that none describes what actually happened because none puts total and complete blame on Obama's mismanagement of the problem. In other words, since all four viewpoints fail to attack Obama, or place full blame of the aftermath of the crisis on him, they must all be totally incorrect, not to be trusted and are all obviously attempts to justify and excuse his actions. I submit that analysis starts off with some unjustified assumptions, but of course, I am biased.

We'll never know for sure, will we? We are still having this argument about whether FDR guided us safely through the Great Depression, or whether his actions just prolonged it. And I further submit that these questions will never be answered because they CANNOT be answered. The very fact we are still arguing about the 1930s is all the evidence we need to tell us that some sorts of questions have no answers, and that what we take from them has more to do with our ideological predispositions than a sober analysis of the events. History is not a science. We do not have alternate timelines available for comparison, we cannot conduct experiments, and no two incidents can be compared--there is no controlling the extraneous factors that might influence the outcome.

We live in a fractal, chaotic universe; yes, there is cause and effect, but somehow, knowing that doesn't seem to help much, does it? As for Mr Obama (and Mr Roosevelt, for that matter) what can we really say with any certainty? Neither actually started the economic crisis they were forced to deal with, and both managed to avoid the worst possible consequences that were predicted when the crises first began. The ship made it through the storm, perhaps profoundly damaged but nonetheless still afloat, and the next storm will be different. We don't study history to learn what we need to do when next faced with the problem. The best we can do is familiarize ourselves with what the crisis felt and looked like so that next time it won't catch us totally by surprise.