Hey bud…like I stated above, the fed monetary policy garners most if not all the credit for the recovery. The Obama admin did pass the stimulus/bailout which was already in the works from the bush admin and wasn't groundbreaking economic policy, but just a predictable response. But the fed was given the autonomy to attack the issue using all of their powers from Obama and t. geither- the fed was not being directed by the president.
This is the wsj article I read sometime last year at work from my old boss…penned b bernacke this is the strategy they used, results:
How the Fed Saved the Economy - WSJ. So if you want to give credit to Obama for deferring, go ahead. Those in the know, know. We know it's the slowest economy GDP growth pre ww2. We also know 19.6 national debt is crisis-level. We know Obama did cut the deficit from record levels when he took office because of the money it took for bailout and stimulus so that's zero surprise…plus he forced too on budget negotiations with congress. But to say he is the reason for the recovery is foolish. Job growth was great though, no doubt…but wage growth was severely lacking.
There are other things that could have stimulated the economy which the president could have chosen to pursue, tax reform for one and he does have line item veto, which he could have used against the over-regulated Dodd-frank bill he signed. Now this was a disaster in a lot of areas…but u want to know why growth was slow? This is a major reason…the financial system had to hoard cash to meet capitalization guidelines…couldn't lend, couldn't spend to grow, and had to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Anyways, my comment was light hearted, I respect your opinion as always…differences of opinions makes life great.
Interesting you don't want to acknowledge foreign policy, because this is Obama major problem…he's been worse since jimmy carter. But then you say Reagan was a great president in which he is largely regarded as a great president due to his handling of foreign policy issues.