@ican711nm,
Let us compare comparable budget deficit/surplus results for both Bush and Obama 8 year terms. I don't have a projection of
total debt for Obama. I have only Obama's projection of
total debt for his 8 year term. So let's measure success or failure based on the net total number of jobs increased or lost. If that number was/is increased, they succeeded. If that number was/is decreased, they failed.
All Obama had to do was cut spending, cut inadequately secured lending, and cut taxes. The economy would have recovered from Bush’s simplistic solutions normally. It continues to be probable that Obama's approach to saving the economy will do nothing other than make the net total number of jobs decrease much more than they did under Bush. Thereby, making things worse and making recovery far more difficult.
Obama intends to do what Hoover did to rescue the economy from depression when Hoover was President: raising taxes, increasing tariffs, and increasing spending. Hoover's scheme did not work.
Obama intends to do what Roosevelt did to rescue the economy from depression: raising taxes, leaving tariffs high, and increasing spending. Roosevelt's scheme did not work.
Obama intends to do what Carter did to rescue the economy from recession: raising taxes, raising tariffs, and increasing spending. Carter's scheme did not work.
Obama is also increasing the lending of inadequately secured loans.
What Reagan did to rescue the economy from Carter's failures, did work. He cut taxes significantly, although he increased spending.
Even Clinton's scheme worked: reducing spending and tariffs, while increasing taxes a small amount.
Bush's lowering Clinton's taxes started to work despite his also raising spending. When Chris Dodd and Barney Frank refused to fix the 2 FMs, and Bush signed TARP into law, Bush's increased spending and increased lending of inadequately secured loans caused the economy to tank.