Your first paragraph says it all.......BO should have been immediately concentrating on allowing businesses to begin to create jobs again (which history has shown always happens immediately after a financial crisis), GM should have been allowed to file bankruptcy instead of having the Unions selectively bailed out TWICE (to which they still owe us about $35B yet brag about profits each year) but instead he spent two full years getting Obamacare rammed down our throats against the people's will and with bribes, threats, and false promises to his Dems to get the necessary votes (with Reid having to go the route of changing the voting rules at the last minute instead of having the required 60 votes). It's five years later and BO STILL has done NOTHING about the jobs situation and insists with Keynesian theories that have failed every single time in history that taxing more and more is the answer, all while spending everything he gets his greedy hands on and is entrenched in creating the most massive and intrusive government ever in the USA. He believes he is King.
"Set aside the politics for a moment, and ask what the past five years would have looked like if the U.S. government had actually been able and willing to do what textbook macroeconomics says it should have done — namely, make a big enough push for job creation to offset the effects of the financial crunch and the housing bust, postponing fiscal austerity and tax increases until the private sector was ready to take up the slack. I've done a back-of-the-envelope calculation of what such a program would have entailed: It would have been about three times as big as the stimulus we actually got, and would have been much more focused on spending rather than tax cuts.
"Would such a policy have worked? All the evidence of the past five years says yes. The Obama stimulus, inadequate as it was, stopped the economy's plunge in 2009. Europe's experiment in anti-stimulus — the harsh spending cuts imposed on debtor nations — didn't produce the promised surge in private-sector confidence. Instead, it produced severe economic contraction, just as textbook economics predicted. Government spending on job creation would, indeed, have created jobs. "
But of course Obama didn't get the money he wanted because Bush before him had tossed money at Wall Street without restrictions ("No bonuses this year boys", would have made sense, in fact "No bonuses for the next 5 years", would have made more) and because the Republicans were so shocked at his reversing their policies they decided to take the ball and go home.
Super-majority my a$$, what a foul and undemocratic hijacking of the process that was. You lost, let those elected govern and Shut TFU. Bush had the gall to enact legislation with his tame congress in 2001 and pass a tax cut which handcuffed his successor, that too is an unwarranted interference in the democratic process. If people vote for change as they clearly did in 2008, then that change should be permitted. Particularly since circumstances and the economy had changed so dramatically.
"But wouldn't the kind of spending program I'm suggesting have meant more
debt? Yes — according to my rough calculation, at this point federal
debt held by the public would have been about $1 trillion more than it
actually is. But alarmist warnings about the dangers of modestly higher
debt have proved false. Meanwhile, the economy would also have been
stronger, so that the ratio of debt to G.D.P. — the usual measure of a
country's fiscal position — would have been only a few points higher.
Does anyone seriously think that this difference would have provoked a
The key word there is "seriously", as in without partisan presuppositions. It could in this case also be synonymous with "honestly" because the opposition that Obama faced was as dishonest as I've ever seen in the US. It was crude and facile and was dedicated to maintaining the delusional falsehood that lower taxes makes more jobs. The fat cats have sat on their big resources and refused to invest.
Throughout the Bush Administration, which preached fiscal restraint and practiced the incineration of the economy, nobody acted as if they cared about restraint. An issue which rather undercuts Conservative posturing on the issue of restraint.
Taxes as I will point out yet again, were far higher, in the 50's and the 60's and the 70's when the country was far better served by the availability of jobs, a narrower gap between rich and poor, and better social mobility. Mobility these days is all down hill.