You are quite right, Francis, all the early signs are for a turnaround in the American and the world economy.
I am still ambivalent as to whether the stimulus was the right way to go, as a rule I am totally against budget deficits. However, this time there appears to be a consensus among the economists that stimulus was indeed necessary to free up the flow of the credit. Since I am not an economist, I will take the word of the experts for it.
I have read that in hindsight Bush made a huge blunder when he let Lehman Brothers go bankrupt. It played very well on the main street (and I suppose Bush had to do something to shore up his sagging popularity). Joe six pack was ecstatic, over the moon about those evil, greedy bankers getting it in the neck. People were in general happy to see the greedy bankers punished.
Unfortunately, it was a case of cutting off one’s nose to spite somebody else. Lending by the banks ceased almost completely after Lehman Brothers went belly up, credit flow ceased almost completely, financial markets froze.
If such a big, well established financial institution as Lehman Brothers can go belly up, what guarantee does a bank have that it will get its money back, money which it loaned to somebody? So banks stopped lending even to other banks (which is essential for the flow of commerce). Matters were at a standstill, the world economies were teetering on the brink.
As a result the bailout package became necessary. If Bush had bailed out Lehman Brothers with a few billion $, that may well have nullified the need for the stimulus package of several hundred billion dollars.
But that wouldn’t have done Bush’s popularity any good; the action to bail out Lehman Brothers would have been highly unpopular. But in order to appease public opinion, Bush contributed mightily to the meltdown.