Remember, it’s not only the failure of Obamanomics, but it’s the failure of Bushonomics. Bush was also a Keynesian who abandoned Reagan’s supply side economics. If you had carefully read the WSJ article you would have seen this:
“Most striking is that this weak growth follows everything that the Keynesian playbook said politicians should throw at the economy. First came $168 billion in one-time tax rebates in February 2008 under George W. Bush, then $814 billion more in spending spread over 2009-2010, cash for clunkers, the $8,000 home buyer tax credit, Hamp to prevent home foreclosures, the Detroit auto bailouts, billions for green jobs, a payroll tax cut for 2011, and of course near-zero interest rates for 28 months buttressed by quantitative easing I and II. We’re probably forgetting something.”
Before 2008, Bush and his big-government Republicans were borrowing heavily while going on a massive government spending spree. Have you forgotten? How the heck do you think Bush tripled the deficit and lost Congress in 2006?
Deficits actually went down from 2004-07. It went up prior to that yes, but part of it was the economic slow down. Bush was certainly not primarily a Keynesian. He was much more a supply sider based on his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. A one time tax rebate of $168 billion hardly makes him a Keynesian. At least that was stimulus from the tax side rather than the spending side.
That said, did Bush spend too much? Of course. But I don’t think it was with the idea he was stimulating the economy by doing so. He was pushing the “compassionate conservative” thing which is what drove the over-spending, esp. at a time the economy was growing nicely and didn’t need stimulating. Additionally, some of the deficit of course was the needed increase in homeland security and military spending the wake of 9-11 which also had nothing to do with Keynesian policy.
It’s true, when it came to economics, Bush was nearly as stupid as Obama is. About the only thing he did right is he believed in keeping taxes low.